From lycophidion at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 00:05:30 2009 From: lycophidion at gmail.com (Michael Friedman) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 02:05:30 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Iran: Whose Side Are You On? Message-ID: <709f342d0907312305o5b3f67eauc55640cd1b497cca@mail.gmail.com> You know, socialists have two poles we historically operate from: the first is opposition to imperialism, privileging our own imperialism, "our worst enemy is our own ruling class." The other is international solidarity, solidarity with and between the oppressed here and abroad, solidarity with real, concrete struggles. You know, the basis for the Third International, "an injury to one is an injury to all," and all that good stuff. But, they are just that, two poles, like the north and south poles on a magnet. What's tending to happen in this discussion (and not just on this list), is that both sides are bending the stick too far. On the one hand, we have Yoshie and others who take the position that struggles in Iran should be subsumed -- for us -- under the struggle against imperialist intervention, or rejected completely. On the other hand, Lou and some others seem to be saying that the priority is for socialists to support the upsurge in Iran, to the neglect of the real, ongoing imperialist intervention against Iran (Yoshie-phobia?). Frankly, I don't think one pole can be subsumed under the other. The threat posed by ongoing U.S. actions to the Iranian working masses is real: they feel the real effects of economic sanctions, of sabotage and will feel the full weight of the Yankee boot on their necks, in due course. Any legitimate blows struck against Washington and its designs by the Iranian government, for example its defense of Iran's right to possess nuclear plants, favors the Iranian masses, which is why progressive Iranian dissidents support these steps. But, to use Sandino's famous quote regarding the anti-imperialist struggle, "only the workers and peasants will go all the way." Seen from the vantage point of consistent anti-imperialism, the clerics' repression of the mass movement, denial of democratic rights to the working majority, sanctioning of women's oppression, repression of trade unionists, etc., weakens the struggle against imperialism, in fact does Washington's dirty work. It would seem almost elementary to support these struggles even while demanding that Washington keep its hands off Iran. The issue of CIA manipulation of the movement(s) merely means we need to deal with "our" imperialsts, not that we shouldn't support legitimate struggle. The CIA has its hands in sections of just about every struggle by nationally oppressed people -- for example, it had its hands in Solidarnosc, yet most of us supported that movement against the Polish and Soviet Stalinists. > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:30:25 EDT > From: Jscotlive at aol.com > Subject: [Marxism] Iran: Whose Side Are You On? > But your continued lambasting of such national liberation movements > suggests the kind of ultra leftism that is disconnected from the reality of > struggle on the ground and the compexities of the national question. > > I believe Connolly referred to such types as gas and water socialists. > From pt_costello at yahoo.com Sat Aug 1 05:07:57 2009 From: pt_costello at yahoo.com (Pat Costello) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 04:07:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Marxism] Otto Reich's role in the Honduran Coup (part 1) Message-ID: <543324.56076.qm@web63107.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Otto Reich and the Honduran Coup D?Etat: The Provocateur, his Protege, and the Toppling of a President ? Part One July 30, 2009 The story of Otto Reich?s role in fomenting the June coup d?etat in Honduras is not a brief one. This report will be posted over two days. OTTO REICH AND THE HONDURAN COUP D?ETAT: The Provocateur, his Prot?g?, and the Toppling of a President (Part One) By Machetera* The very same day that the coup d?etat in Honduras began, in an emergency session of the Organization of American States (OAS) in Washington D.C., Roy Chaderton, the Venezuelan ambassador to the OAS, spoke with a simmering fury as he looked directly at Hector Morales, the U.S. Ambassador to the OAS. ?There?s a person who?s been very important within U.S. diplomacy, one who has re-connected with old friends and colleagues and helped encourage the coup perpetrators,? he said. ?The gentleman?s name is Otto Reich, former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs during the government of George [W.] Bush. We in Venezuela have suffered this man, as the U.S. Ambassador in Venezuela, as an interventionist, we suffered him later in his position as Assistant Secretary of State?we had the First Reich, later, the Second Reich, now unfortunately we?re facing the Third Reich, moving within the Latin American ambit through an NGO [non-governmental organization], to fan the flames of the coup.? Following Chaderton?s furious denunciation, Reich penned a strange non mea-culpa opinion piece which the Miami Herald obligingly printed, complete with Reich?s deliberate misspellings of Chaderton?s name. He said that he was not the coup?s ?architect,? which is quite some distance from a total denial.... fulll: http://machetera.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/otto-reich-and-the-honduran-coup-detat-the-provocateur-his-protege-and-the-toppling-of-a-president-part-one/ From humaneco at hsph.harvard.edu Sat Aug 1 05:45:55 2009 From: humaneco at hsph.harvard.edu (Richard Levins) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 07:45:55 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] post In-Reply-To: <003901ca125d$747e8e70$6401a8c0@rachel> References: <003901ca125d$747e8e70$6401a8c0@rachel> Message-ID: <4A73F2A0.F29D.002C.1@hsph.harvard.edu> Dear Rachel, Your difficulty in wrapping your mind around it may itself be a burst of insight: the category "totalitarian" was Mussolini"s term but adopted specifically as a cold war weapon to put the three into the same bag. We can compare ideologies or we can compare practices but they are not the same. Since the question asked about ideologies: fascism and nazism attempted to eliminate class conflict by suppressing the working class, "communism" by their winning power. Nazism had the "leadership principle"--at each level the leader is appointed from above, responsible only upward. He may seek advice but makes all decisions. Communism claims a higher form of democracy. The communist idea is a mixture of participatory and representative democracy, accountability of the elected to their electors,the right of recall, and a premium on reaching consensus rather than refereeing conflicting interests. Nazism saw society as molded by biology, especially race; communism sees it as a social evol ution pushed along by changing production and class struggle. Nazism was nationalistic, misogynist, xenophobic, and expansionist. In a way Nazism was the imperialism of a late comer to European imperialism, seeking its colonies in eastern Europe instead of Africa or Latin America. The power of communism derived from its anti-imperialism, support for colonial revolution, internationalism, demand for full equality for women. Nazism condemns democracy, communism criticizes capitalist democracy as democracy for the ruling class and claims to a higher form of democracy.When we come to the realm of practice, we can see ways in which nazism more or less carried out its ideology while communist regimes were undermined by nationalism and reconstitution of capitalist relations and eventual rule. I think your best course might be to question the question itself. Good luck. ========================= Richard Levins >>> "Rachel Ambler" 8/1/2009 12:06 AM >>> Hello, I hope you can help and are willing to help.... I'm working on a final exam and having a little trouble wrapping my brain around it... I got some good insight from your site, and hope some of your members might give me some help. Here's my topic... Consider the totalitarian ideologies - Fascism, Nazism, Communism. How much were they products of driving forces of industrialization, science, democratization, and Enlightenment thought, and how much were they departures from those forces? Thank you! Rachel Midland, TX ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/humaneco%40hsph.harvard.edu From lnp3 at panix.com Sat Aug 1 05:56:08 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 07:56:08 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Palestinian activist plans to sue Sacha Baron Cohen Message-ID: <4A742D58.7080701@panix.com> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/31/bruno-israel-terrorist The non-profit worker from Bethlehem who was branded a terrorist by Bruno ? Christian activist plans to sue Sacha Baron Cohen ? Interview was filmed in hotel, not refugee camp by Rachel Shabi in Beit Jala Ayman Abu Aita, who plans to run for the Palestinian elections, did not know he would be in Sacha Baron Cohen's hit film Br?no, where he was presented as a terrorist. Photograph: Musa al-Shaer/AFP/Getty Images For a supposed terrorist, Ayman Abu Aita is remarkably easy to find. It takes one phone call to set up a meeting with the man described in the hit movie Br?no as a "terrorist group leader". He sits alone at a long, white table in the gardens of the Everest hotel and restaurant in Beit Jala, a mountain village near Bethlehem. This, he says, is the "secret location" where he met Br?no, played by British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen. Popular with tourists, the restaurant sits next to an Israeli military compound, not far from the all-seeing watchtowers of the winding separation wall. "How could he say this about me?" asks Abu Aita. "He lied from the beginning and he is still lying now." Abu Aita, 44, from Beit Sahour, near Bethlehem, is described in the film Br?no as a member of al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the armed wing of the Fatah movement. Now Abu Aita plans to sue for defamation, while Baron Cohen has reportedly received threats from the brigade. Baron Cohen's film protagonist Br?no is a gay fashion-obsessed Austrian TV host who, in a short clip featuring Abu Aita, asks to be kidnapped in a bid to get famous. He thinks that Palestinian terrorists are the "best guys" for the job, because "al-Qaida are so 2001". Promoting the film recently on the David Letterman talkshow in the US, Baron Cohen explained that finding a "terrorist" to interview for the movie took several months and some help from a CIA contact. He described the secular Martyrs Brigades, most of whom signed an amnesty deal with Israel in 2007, as "the number one suicide bombers out there". Abu Aita said: "My file is clear with the Americans. I was in the states twice and I travel all the time." He is a Christian Fatah representative ? of the movement's political wing, he stresses ? for Bethlehem district. He is also a member of the board of the Holy Land trust, a non-profit organisation that works on Palestinian community-building. "I am a non-violent activist and I am not ashamed of that," he says. The interview with Baron Cohen was set up via Awni Jubran, a journalist for the Palestinian news agency, PNN, who received a call from the film's producer. "My friend Awni told me they wanted a Palestinian campaigner to talk about the situation for a documentary, to show young people what life is like in the Palestinian territories," says Abu Aita. He met Baron Cohen one week later, accompanied by Jubran and Sami Awad, founder of the Holy Land trust ? although Baron Cohen described the two to Letterman as bodyguards for "the terrorist". Abu Aita says that Br?no's crew chose the location, which is under total Israeli control ? and which appears in the film as Ein el-Hilweh refugee camp, in Lebanon. "We trust people and we never refuse an opportunity to discuss the Palestinian cause," he says. "We went upstairs to one of the hotel rooms and talked about the Palestinian situation for over two hours," says Abu Aita, adding that Br?no seemed serious ? although his knowledge was limited. At the very end of the discussion, Baron Cohen asked a couple of questions about al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden, which Abu Aita considered oddly out of place and which he asked the translator to repeat. Then, when Br?no asked to be kidnapped, Abu Aita says that his actual reply was edited out. "I was angered by the question," says Abu Aita. "I said, first of all I'm not a terrorist. Second, you are a guest here, so I must take care of you until you leave my country." Abu Aita forgot all about the interview until the the film came out and he started to receive countless calls from outraged Palestinians. "They ask how I could allow myself to be laughed at in this way, how I could agree to it," he says. "They are angry that I have embarrassed the Palestinian people, because we are being presented in this false, disgusting way." Abu Aita is standing in the Palestinian parliamentary elections slated for January 2010, and opposition candidates are already using this incident to discredit him. He says it is also damaging for him to appear in a gay film, which features nudity and graphic sex scenes. "With our culture and our heritage we refuse such things," says Abu Aita. He is well known in the area and several people testify to his good character and good sense of humour. "Br?no can make jokes about anything he wants, but this is not a joke," says Abu Aita. "Calling me a terrorist is not funny ? it is lying." Discussing his plans to sue, the Fatah official says he did not sign release forms for the footage of him which appeared in the film. His lawyer, a Palestinian-Israeli from Nazareth, says that such cases can result in million dollar compensation payouts in the US. A spokesman for Baron Cohen declined to comment. From lnp3 at panix.com Sat Aug 1 06:07:22 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 08:07:22 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Queen of the birthers Message-ID: <4A742FFA.7070902@panix.com> http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-30/queen-of-the-birthers/p/ Queen of the Birthers by Max Blumenthal July 30, 2009 | 10:48pm BS Top - Blumenthal Orly Taitz A new poll finds 58 percent of Republicans doubt Obama is American. Orly Taitz, the mastermind behind the Obama birth-certificate controversy, tells The Daily Beast?s Max Blumenthal why the president should be jailed and why Lou Dobbs is her biggest fan. Almost as soon as Orly Taitz answered her cellphone, before I could even ask a single question, the leader of the movement determined to disprove President Obama?s American citizenship breathlessly told me the president was ?connected? to 39 bogus Social Security numbers, including one for a deceased person born in 1890. ?If Obama is not stopped, we will be in Nazi Germany!? Taitz, who has a thick Russian accent, shrieked. ?Forgery is a criminal matter and he committed it. Obama should be in the Big House, not the White House!? Since Taitz?s ?birther? campaign began, in the summer of 2008, during the late stages of the Democratic primaries, the dentist, lawyer, and mother of three has begun winning friends in high places. Taitz told me excitedly that since she opened her Facebook account, she has had to hire a staff of five to process the thousands of friend requests she receives each week. ?Anybody who does not take Obama?s word at face value will be harassed by brownshirts like Rachel Maddow,? said Taitz. Among those requesting her online friendship, Taitz said, are House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA), and Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. She has even received a request, she said, from someone saying they are Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. ?I personally checked [the request] and determined that it came from his office,? Taitz said. Among Taitz?s ?biggest supporters,? she said, is CNN anchor Lou Dobbs. ?I did Lou?s radio show for half an hour and he was very understanding,? she told me. ?He became a supporter and since then he became a supporter of the whole [Obama eligibility] issue.? Indeed, during the July 15 broadcast of Dobbs? radio show, he praised Taitz?s work, suggested Obama might be ?undocumented,? and demanded the president ?show the documents? to prove he was born in the United States. When I spoke to Taitz, she had just finished taping an interview with The Colbert Report. By her own count, she has been interviewed by no fewer than 170 news outlets around the world. While she?s grateful for the exposure, the scrutiny of the media seems to have her in a persistent state of heightened exasperation. ?This is Nazi Germany! These are brownshirts in action!? Taitz exclaimed when asked about recent segments by Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and Jon Stewart mocking her campaign and questioning her credibility. ?Anybody who does not take Obama?s word at face value will be harassed by brownshirts like Rachel Maddow.? Taitz?s apparent view of present-day American life through the lens of World War II Europe may be due in part to her upbringing in the Soviet republic of Moldova and then in Israel, where she lived until she immigrated to the U.S. in 1987. Now a resident of Buena Park, California, Taitz said she feared Obama would transform her adopted country into a totalitarian state as soon as he stepped onto the national stage. Reading online discussions about Obama?s supposed plan to create a ?civilian national security force? aroused Taitz?s early alarm. ?I realized that Obama was another Stalin?it?s a cross between Stalinist USSR and Nazi Germany,? she said. After becoming transfixed by online conspiracy theories claiming Obama?s family had forged his birth certificate in Hawaii, Taitz snapped into action. She filed a lawsuit in June 2008 with California Secretary of State Debra Bowen demanding an investigation into Obama?s eligibility to serve as president. Taitz?s plaintiff in the case was Wiley Drake, an Orange County radio preacher and former second vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention who has acknowledged he once publicly prayed for Obama?s death. The lawsuit went nowhere, but Taitz was undeterred. She barnstormed the country, from state to state, barging down the corridors of secretaries of state and federal law-enforcement officials, demanding they compel Obama to release his complete hospital birthing file, college records, and passport information. While accomplishing little of substance, Taitz?s campaign found symbolic support from Republican lawmakers from local statehouses to Capitol Hill. In March, nine Republicans signed on to a so-called birther bill proposing that future presidential candidates must prove their citizenship before becoming eligible to campaign. The bill was modeled after a similar piece of legislation introduced by right-wing lawmakers in Missouri. One month later, after Taitz brought her campaign to the office of Kentucky?s deputy Secretary of State Leslie Fugate, Fugate issued a letter to the state?s attorney general calling for ?President Barack Obama?s eligibility to be on the ballot in Kentucky.? So far, state officials have ignored the letter. On July 8, Taitz filed a motion in a federal court on behalf of a U.S. Army major named Stefan Cook, who refused to serve in Afghanistan on the grounds that Obama was not born in the United States and therefore was not eligible to serve as commander in chief. A judge dismissed the case a week later, saying, ?Federal court only has authority of actual cases and controversies.? The case was moot, the judge concluded, because Cook had already been told by the Army he did not have to deploy in Afghanistan?though the soldier declared moments before his hearing that he would be ?on the airplane the next day over Afghanistan? if Obama could simply prove his citizenship. By the time the ruling was handed down, Cook?s case had become a conservative cause c?l?bre. Among the media bigwigs who publicized the case were Sean Hannity and Dobbs, who segued into a segment on Cook by announcing, ?New questions are being raised about Obama?s eligibility to serve as president.? On his radio show the same day, Dobbs said Cook ?should be taken seriously. There are real questions here that need to be answered.? Taitz told me that Dobbs invited her on his nightly TV program to discuss the Cook case but wound up calling in sick. Instead, Dobbs? fill-in, Kitty Pilgrim, covered the story. Pilgrim was visibly embarrassed by the topic, remarking, ?CNN has investigated the issue, found no basis for the questions about the president?s birthplace? There is overwhelming evidence that proves the president?s birth certificate is real.? Taitz told me Dobbs assured her after the broadcast that he would bring her back on his program for a sympathetic treatment. But Taitz?s appearance was canceled when CNN President Jon Klein declared Dobbs? questioning of Obama?s citizenship a ?dead story,? then told Variety?s Brian Lowry, ?It would not be legitimate for Lou or anyone else at CNN to explore whether Barack Obama is an American citizen.? Deprived of an appearance with Dobbs, her ?biggest supporter,? Taitz takes heart from the support she receives from the conservative online community and a cadre of Republican members of Congress. ?Even if I have to be a punching bag, it is still better than listening to the silence from the mainstream media,? she said. ?More and more people support me because they are sick and tired of the mainstream media acting like Nazi brownshirts and calling names.? Max Blumenthal is a senior writer for The Daily Beast and writing fellow at The Nation Institute, whose book, Republican Gomorrah (Basic/Nation Books), is forthcoming in Fall 2009. Contact him at maxblumenthal3000 at yahoo.com. From bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 06:12:20 2009 From: bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com (Bhaskar Sunkara) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 08:12:20 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] post In-Reply-To: <4A73F2A0.F29D.002C.1@hsph.harvard.edu> References: <003901ca125d$747e8e70$6401a8c0@rachel> <4A73F2A0.F29D.002C.1@hsph.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Her teacher was referring to *C*ommunism (Stalinism) not a model of proletarian democracy. The label "totalitarianism" is a staple of bourgeois blather (used to denounce everything from the French Revolution to food stamps), but as a denunciation of Stalinism it's perfectly acceptable. From lnp3 at panix.com Sat Aug 1 06:41:11 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 08:41:11 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] The next bubble Message-ID: <4A7437E7.6050207@panix.com> http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/0081908 The next bubble: Priming the markets for tomorrow's big crash By Eric Janszen A financial bubble is a market aberration manufactured by government, finance, and industry, a shared speculative hallucination and then a crash, followed by depression. Bubbles were once very rare?one every hundred years or so was enough to motivate politicians, bearing the post-bubble ire of their newly destitute citizenry, to enact legislation that would prevent subsequent occurrences. After the dust settled from the 1720 crash of the South Sea Bubble, for instance, British Parliament passed the Bubble Act to forbid ?raising or pretending to raise a transferable stock.? For a century this law did much to prevent the formation of new speculative swellings. Nowadays we barely pause between such bouts of insanity. The dot-com crash of the early 2000s should have been followed by decades of soul-searching; instead, even before the old bubble had fully deflated, a new mania began to take hold on the foundation of our long-standing American faith that the wide expansion of home ownership can produce social harmony and national economic well-being. Spurred by the actions of the Federal Reserve, financed by exotic credit derivatives and debt securitiztion, an already massive real estate sales-and-marketing program expanded to include the desperate issuance of mortgages to the poor and feckless, compounding their troubles and ours. (clip) From sartesian at earthlink.net Sat Aug 1 07:46:10 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 09:46:10 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Queen of the birthers References: <4A742FFA.7070902@panix.com> Message-ID: <9DBF3913BE8442D6BD170A501FE600AF@dmsthinkpad> Follow the money. Who's bankrolling her? Bet it's the Mellons. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis Proyect" To: Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 8:07 AM Subject: [Marxism] Queen of the birthers http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-30/queen-of-the-birthers/p/ From rambler at suddenlink.net Sat Aug 1 08:24:46 2009 From: rambler at suddenlink.net (Rachel Ambler) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 09:24:46 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] post thank you Message-ID: <00cc01ca12b3$d2344f90$6401a8c0@rachel> Thank you to everyone for your help with my topic. It feels better knowing that it wasn't just me thinking the topic was crazy. I've got a 97 in the class and I really don't want to blow it with this final! Your insights got the hamsters back on their wheels. I think I can find a way to pull everything in. Thanks again! Rachel. From Midhurst14 at aol.com Sat Aug 1 08:36:13 2009 From: Midhurst14 at aol.com (Midhurst14 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:36:13 EDT Subject: [Marxism] post Message-ID: Stalinism is not a theory but a practice Coined by the enemies of Socialism to discourage any more of it George Anthony From bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 08:49:26 2009 From: bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com (Bhaskar Sunkara) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] post In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: George Anthony: Stalinism is not a theory but a practice Coined by the enemies of Socialism to discourage any more of it. ** Yes, completely right. To think this man was so committed to discouraging socialism he pretended to be a revolutionary for a lifetime to subvert it from within! http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/08/stalinism.htm From Midhurst14 at aol.com Sat Aug 1 08:55:01 2009 From: Midhurst14 at aol.com (Midhurst14 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:55:01 EDT Subject: [Marxism] post Message-ID: This is an interesting idea George Anthony From sartesian at earthlink.net Sat Aug 1 08:56:21 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:56:21 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] post References: Message-ID: <0C1F45EC1D0D42E2A88A3D78945B4090@dmsthinkpad> Well there's a real concrete, historical, materialist analysis. And it includes the very important, never to be forgotten, "enemy of the people" label. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] post > Stalinism is not a theory but a practice > Coined by the enemies of Socialism to discourage any more of it > George Anthony From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Sat Aug 1 09:03:41 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:03:41 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] post In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There is an insightful Article by Domenico Losurdo, entitled *Toward a Critique of the Category of Totalitarianism*, in ?Historical Materialism?, no. 12, 2 (2004), pp. 25-55. This may help to leave behind all those vulgarisms. -- Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From dmozart1756 at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 09:51:09 2009 From: dmozart1756 at gmail.com (Dennis Brasky) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 11:51:09 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Taibbi shreds the latest Goldman Sachs shill In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53a1ffe70908010851w17906b99p1d58cb72c22c814e@mail.gmail.com> > > > Why Is a Slate Writer Shilling for Goldman Sachs? Taibbi Shreds the Latest > Wall Street PR > > > The winner of this month's Most Retarded Horsesh** Written In Defense of > Goldman Sachs award goes to ... Heidi Moore. . > http://www.alternet.org/media/141706/ > > > "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."- *Voltaire* > > > From laracrete at verizon.net Sat Aug 1 10:08:43 2009 From: laracrete at verizon.net (lara crete) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 12:08:43 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" with Iran Re: Fred Feldman Message-ID: from Fred : "More and more I suspect that the successful coup of sorts is taking place not in Honduras (where the putschists are embattled) but in Washington (where it is meeting no visible resistance, including from one of its central targets, the current President". The gruesome truth, Fred. Meanwhile, the coup which is taking place in Washington( where every coup is usually taking place ) is spread on the grandiose scale into the rest of the world. And we, here in the US, have a burning hope for some resistance (to any coup, in any part of the world!) would grow strong enough to help our slumber in our "democracy" to be interrupted. Somehow.Maybe. Meanwhile, Uncle Tom, the Uncle Sam's grandson, can enjoy the beers in the White House, memorizing lines from his "intellectual speeches" to impress the world - wide public with the American President, who ( a miracle!) is capable of speaking... The best of us are buried under the unbearably heavy burden of guilt... Why? Because, the best of us are knowledgeable, well educated people, who have learned during the course of self-education that every coup in the world takes the root in Washington. So, to take the root out, that's should be the Leninist' quest, I suppose. comradely, Lara From sartesian at earthlink.net Sat Aug 1 13:43:36 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 15:43:36 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] International Economic Trends Message-ID: <2B211E4B44C7431A9B7B631342360ECD@dmsthinkpad> Interesting report from the St. Louis Fed Reserve at: http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/iet/20090801/iet.pdf From Waistline2 at aol.com Sat Aug 1 14:05:01 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 16:05:01 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Post: Common sense answers Message-ID: >> Consider the totalitarian ideologies - Fascism, Nazism, Communism. How much were they products of driving forces of industrialization, science, democratization, and Enlightenment thought, and how much were they departures from those forces? << All the aboves are actaully ideologies brought to life by the "Enlightenment." It is best to begin with standard definitions. 1). Industrialization: the adoption of industrial methods of production and manufacturing by a country or group, with all the associated changes in lifestyle, transport, and other aspects of society. Industrialization of industrial society is a type of organization of human labor capacity and society based on systems of machines operating on the basis of mechanical motion or electro -mechanical principles. Industrial production is distinct from hand labor (handicraft) or manufacture as the predominate mode of producing. Two basic junctures are pinpointed as signpost in the development of industrial society: the steam engine and the internal combustion engine. The steam engine, factories and ocean-going ships opened up the era of industrial production. The machine was a revolutionary force that transformed society. 2). Science: the study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment Encarta ? World English Dictionary ? & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. (all initial definitions from this source). Science or the scientific method is the study and understanding of the law system peculiar to that which is under investigation. As industrialization develops - evolves, machine technique opens up a wide field for the utilization of science in the process of production and for making labor more creative and machines more intelligent. Some call the rise of computers - the semi-conductor, the coming of the Second Industrial Revolution. 3). Democratization: give government control to citizenry: to put a country under the control of its citizens by allowing them to participate in government or decision-making processes in a free and equal way Encarta ? World English Dictionary ? & Democracy exists and becomes sensible in comparison to hereditary rule; rule by birth right or the political system of monarchy. Democracy is a society organization of engaging citizens - the individual, in self governing through the use of government institutions, stabilized by the state or the organization of military and police power. In any society with economic classes democracy expresses and implements the political will and interest of the ruling economic class. In American society the dominant class is the capitalist class expressing the power and will of corporations, banks and financial institutions. Through different phases of our history democracy and democratic forms of society life have changed. For instance at the earliest period only white males with property - primarily slave property, could take part in democratic rule at the highest reaches of government. Democracy is a form of class rule. 4). Enlightenment: The Age of Enlightenment, or simply The Enlightenment, is a term used to describe a time in Western philosophy and cultural life centered upon the eighteenth century, in which reason was advocated as the primary source and legitimacy for authority.[1] _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) Industrialization or the transition from agricultural based life to machine society meant the growth of science as the human sought to apply the laws of mechanical motion towards the production of the material to sustain life and reproduce society. 5). Fascism: dictatorial movement: any movement, tendency, or ideology that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism Encarta ? World English Dictionary Here fascism is articulated as a political ideology or point of view. Fascism in power, supplants democracy as the open terrorist dictatorship of the ruling commercial classes. Fascism in power is suppression of the democratic rights of the citizens and endless wars of aggressions. Fascism in power is an economic force and economic organization of society based on free enterprise - private enterprise. Private enterprise or capitalism is ?an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit.? Encarta ? World English Dictionary 6). Nazism: Hitler?s philosophy: the philosophy of the German National Socialist Party under the leadership of Adolf Hitler. Central to it was a belief in the inherent superiority of a supposed Aryan race. Encarta ? World English Dictionary ? Nazism is a political ideology that provided the ideological rationale for the German political state and government as it became and expressed a fascist form of political rule. 7). Communism. the political theory or system in which all property and wealth is owned in a classless society by all the members of a community Encarta ? World English Dictionary Under a communist economic system the means of production - human labor + machines + electrical energy grid, or the ?productive forces of society? or all socially necessary means of life reproduction, are taken out of the free market relations and publicly owned. All socially necessary products are no longer produced for the profit they will fetch in the market but rather for human need. 8). Stalinism: the political principles and economic policies developed by Joseph Stalin from Marxist-Leninist thought, which included centralized autocratic rule and total suppression of dissent Encarta ? World English Dictionary Stalinism in power is the open - publicly declared and stated, brutal and sustained suppression of free market economic tendencies, and political opponents expressing such tendencies and policies within the government, political state and ruling Communist Party. Stalinism as it defines itself is the open terrorist dictatorship of the proletariat; a political state in conditions of pre-Fordism industrial society using every conceivable method at its disposal to organize the primary means of production based on socialism. These method includes but are not limited to judicial, extra-judicial, territorial and extra-territorial military and police actions to crushed and defeat its real and perceived class enemies. 9). Socialism: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles Encarta ? World English Dictionary Under socialism the means of production are not in the private hands of capitalist who hire labor and deploy this labor to produce commodities for the sole purpose of creating profits - expanded value. Means of production are owned by the state or by cooperatives. Production is planned by the state and policy is articulated by government and implemented by various organizations of the working population. The goal is to meet the constantly rising requirements of society through expanding the societal productive capacity. Under social the products are distributed to those who work either directly in the form of payment for work or socially through public goods and services and the development of public industry, including vacations resorts for the working class, free, medical care, free higher education, cheap public transportation and access to various forms of modern communications. Money and exchange based on the value of commodities - which is the essence of capitalist production, continue to operate in some spheres and influence economic planning. 10). Totalitarian: relating to or operating a centralized government sy stem in which a single party without opposition rules over political, economic, social, and cultural life. Encarta ? World English Dictionary Since there is always opposition and difference of opinion on policy within any political party, I would modify the above to read a state authority that outlaws - through judicial and extra-judicial means, legal, extra-legal and illegal means, the existence of opposition political parties, within the field of its political state. 11). State or political state: The organization of law and order in society is carried out by institutions of military and police power. The sum total of this machinery of preserving law and order is called the state. The state is the organization of violence and suppression of one class by another, although the class in power declares that the state is an organization standing above class interest and protecting the rights of the individual. Under capitalism the state is in the hands of the capitalist as a class, with government institutions articulating and implementing the class policies and vision of the capitalist. The primary function of the state is to protect the laws defining the relations of people in production and their relationship to property in the process of production. In the former Soviet Union the capitalist class as a property relations was wiped out. The state was in the hands of the working class, with government - the Stalinists government, articulating and carrying out policy guarding and protecting the relationship of people to public property in the process of production. The above general descriptions are general enough to provide a common platform for further discussion and interaction with the person who asked the specific question. Socialism is becoming more popular in America. According to an April 9, 2009 poll by Rasmussen Reports, only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism. The same poll found that younger Americans are most favorably inclined with 33% of adults under 30 preferring socialism. Americans today are changing their minds about socialism and capitalism, but without a clear understanding of what socialism is. At a moment in history when the transition from industrial to electronic production is forcing global economic and social reorganization, understanding the difference between capitalism, socialism and communism helps us envision a future society that meets the needs of all and a strategy to achieve it. After decades in which socialism has been painted as evil, lawless, and totalitarian to forestall criticism of capitalism as an economic system, people?s minds have been opened by the turmoil of the economic crisis and the government?s bailout of the banks, not the people. WL. **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd =JulystepsfooterNO115) From Waistline2 at aol.com Sat Aug 1 14:58:33 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 16:58:33 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Post: Common Sense Answers: anti-communism Message-ID: The word ?communism? is scary. It has power (it generates fear and hatred), inspires lifelong commitment, and arouses intense debate. Americans have strong opinions about communism and most consider themselves anti-Communist. This anti-communism is puzzling. By definition communism is an economic system that benefits the vast majority. Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines communism as an economic theory or system of the ownership of all means of production (and distribution) by the community or society, with all members of the community or society sharing in the work and the products. Capitalism, on the other hand, is an economic system that benefits the few at the expense of the many. Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines capitalism as the economic system in which all or most of the means of production and distribution, as land, factories, railroads, etc. are privately owned and operated for profit, originally under fully competitive conditions: it has been generally characterized by a tendency toward concentration of wealth, and in its later phase, by the growth of great corporations, increased governmental control, etc. Myths about Communism Anti-communism amongst most Americans is based in a misunderstanding of communism and capitalism. Like other ideologies of the ruling class, such as white supremacy, anti-communism subverts the development of class consciousness and ties the working class to the dominant class. The media, politicians, educational establishments, religious institutions and other purveyors of ideas have a full arsenal of anti-Communist myths and lies, including: (1) Capitalism equals democracy, (2) Communism doesn't work, (3) Communism is the same as Marxism. Let?s examine these misconceptions. Myth # 1 That capitalism and democracy are one and the same. Democracy is a political system or a political form of the state. Capitalism is an economic system. To equate one with the other is like equating factories and religion, one is the economic basis of society, or the organization of human labor + machines + a external energy source. The other - religion, is a belief system or in the realm of ideology and the superstructure. For instance, when we American?s speak about Jeffersonian democracy in our history, we means a country organized on the basis of the small and large land holders or independent farmers with political rights as property holders. These rights allows one to elect government officials and to own the means to publish one views in newspapers. Hidden from view is the economic relations upon which sits Jeffersonian democracy. These small and large landowners would include the Slave Oligarchy, with all have the right to exchange their privately produced products in the market place. Capitalist relations are the economic material upon which was to sit a political form of democracy called Jeffersonian democracy. The facts of American life after the Civil War and the defeat of the Reconstruction governments was that capitalism in agriculture existed with a political form of rule called fascism in the core areas of the South. From 1890 up to the Civil Rights Movement was one of the darkest and most brutal times in our post Civil War history, with very little to no democracy or democratic rights for the blacks. Today, by saying democracy and capitalism are the same, the U.S. is able to make it appear that defense of democracy is defense of the U.S., and that the United States has the right to impose its brand of democracy on the rest of the world. The superstructure ? the ideas, political system, legal system, religion and culture ? that arise on the basis of a particular economic system can vary greatly in degrees of democracy. The capitalist country of Denmark, for example, has a high level of democracy where people of all classes live more or less comfortably. Nazi Germany was capitalist, as was South Africa with its brutal apartheid system The economic system with the greatest equality of wealth and income provides the strongest base for the highest level of democracy. The fullest expression of democracy can only arise on the basis of a communist economic system. Myth #2 Communism doesn?t work. By the dictionary definition of communism no country in our lifetime has yet been able to establish a communist economic system. Countries like the Soviet Union and China where the proletariat came to power during the industrial revolution and sought to establish communist economic systems, were unable to achieve their goal. They were prevented from reaching full communism ? in large part ? because the level of technology available at that time could not produce the abundance necessary to provide for the material wellbeing of the whole community. The Soviet Union was overthrown, the development of the means of production were not. Myth # 3 Communism is the same as Marxism. Communism is not a new phenomenon and did not come into being with Marx. Communism is an econoic system and Marxism is a mixture of theory and various doctrines, more often than not unrelated to anything Karl Marx actually wrote. Again this is like comparing a modern factory - economic and production relations, to religion or in his case the ideas called "Marxism." For over a million years, human society was organized on the basis of communist economic relations. People lived in gathering and hunting groups where cooperation was essential to survival. Human society organized into economic classes ? with a dominant class living off the labor of exploited classes ? is relatively new, and the economic system of capitalism has existed for less than 600 years. Almost all of human history is the history of common ownership of the means of production and distribution. Human history is really the history of living communistically. American Culture Fuels Anti-Communism The unique history and culture of the United States makes Americans particularly susceptible to anti-Communist propaganda. The propaganda's success rests on and is integrally tied to the objective economic realities of American life. Each supports the other in sustaining the power of the ruling class. Unlike most countries, the United States never went through a period of feudalism (monarchy). The European conquerors and colonizers slaughtered the peoples of the continent and obliterated their communal societies. The war for freedom from British control was an all-class war for national liberation. Further, American capitalism was developed on the back of African American slavery. The frontier and the freedom it held out for working people to own and farm their own land laid the material base for the ideas of ?American exceptionalism? ? the view that the United States, unlike all other capitalist societies, has eliminated classes. This concept fuels American individualism, white supremacy and anti-communism. During periods of heightened class conflict such as the 1930?s Depression, the American working class was drawn toward communism. With the dramatic success of the proletariat in the Soviet Union under the leadership of its Communist Party, the Communist Party of the United States grew rapidly in numbers and influence. The United States and Soviet alliance against fascist Germany won sympathy for communism among large numbers of Americans. In response to communism's optimistic message of working class victory from oppression and exploitation, the ruling class moved swiftly in its own self interest to squelch the growing sympathy for communism. Following World War II, the United States entered a long period of economic growth at the expense of the colonial peoples of the world. Full employment and rising wages bribed the American working class into discarding its sympathy for communism. The Soviet Union was denounced as the source of all evil, school children huddled under their desks in fear of a Soviet nuclear bomb. The Cold War was born out of US imperialism. All Americans were persuaded to believe that their common interests as Americans outweighed their class differences. They have come to think that the only class that can represent American interests abroad is the ruling class. Anti-communism subverts the unity of the international working class, and has prevented American workers from expressing their solidarity with the struggles of workers in other countries. Ending Anti-Communism Anti-communism is prevalent today even though the material conditions for anti-communism has been fundamentally eroded by revolutionary changes in the economy. The introduction of electronics into production has created a revolutionary increase in productivity. This new technology can produce an abundance of goods with little human labor and for the first time in history makes possible a communist economic system that can provide a paradise of socially necessary means of life for all. Under capitalism, this new technology throws workers permanently out of production, thus preventing them from earning a living wage. These workers form the core of a new impoverished class whose demands for food, clothing, housing, health care and education can only be satisfied by the reorganization of society. Only a communist economic system that can distribute the necessaries of life according to need can meet the demands of this class. Thus, for the first time in history, a physical communist class is forming to become the foundation of a communist political movement. WL. **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd =JulystepsfooterNO115) From lueko.willms at t-online.de Sat Aug 1 15:15:33 2009 From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 23:15:33 +0200 (MES) Subject: [Marxism] Capitalism, Communism and fascism Message-ID: <020.983a000075b0744a.059@lws-media.de> Rachel Ambler (rambler at suddenlink.net) wrote on 2009-07-31 at 23:06:32 in about [Marxism] post: > > > Consider the totalitarian ideologies - Fascism, Nazism, Communism. How much were they products of driving forces of industrialization, science, democratization, and Enlightenment thought, and how much were they departures from those forces? this is a meddle of terms belonging to very different areas. Industrialisation refers to the actual material revolution of our productive apparatus, of how we produce our necessities and reproduce ourselves and our means of production of our necessities and means of production. The development of science is driven by industrialisation and more generally by the needs to improve our ability to interact with nature (we humans are part of nature) to produce and reproduce our livelyhood -- one needs to understand the forces of nature we want to use and master to produce and reproduce our livelyhood and build machinery and so on to do it more efficiently. With industrialisation in the feudal Europe of the Middle Ages came the bourgeois, who is an individual owner of some pieces of means of production (machines, buildings, land) as opposed to the feudal landlord who is a vassal of a greater feudal landlord who is a vassal of a larger feudal landlord and so on until they found a supreme commander of it, who no longer recognizes another master above him, except some god who is supposed to have given the command to this human and his children and grandchildren. This feudal order is actually the civil form of a centralised military organisation, passing control and command from the top to the bottom, which is supposed to defend the system and especially the toilers, whose surproduct is appropriated by the feudal masters, but which is actually used as the instrument of the ruling class to suppress the productive, working classes. See the various peasent revolts in England (1381) or Germany (1525). Now the individual bourgeois aka capitalist has to expand his capital at the detriment of all his competitors, and this requires a different form of political order, which does reflect the individualistic aspect of the capitals situation as a fraction of all capital in the hand of one individual. It requires what they call democracy, but in the end this is also nothing else but the instrument of the rule of the ruling class over the working classes, those who produce all the wealth of this earth appropriated by the ruling class. And capital has to expand. If it doesn't grow, it perishes. So it has the tendency on the one hand to draw more and more people into its workforce as proletarians, as the class which does produce all and owns none of its product, and which is free, also in the sense of being free from the control over its tools. This is also a process which converts a originally artisanal process of producing our material production into one which is more and more a process encompassing _all_ of society, i.e. a more and more _collective_ form of producing our necessities -- and beyond, in trusts spanning the whole planet, and even among separate capitalist entities (see the notion of "just in time"). The process gets so much socialized that the watchdogs of capitalist property work to introduce artificially a competition into a process which has become a collective one long time ago. Private property is today nothing more but an obstacle to the rational organisation of our common collective production, worldwide. So, capital can't exist without producing its own gravediggers, the proletarians, which at the same time represent this new collective form of producing (and distributing the product) encompassing more and more all of humanity, and not only the inhabitants of an isolated village. This communality of our production, which is prevented from functioning only by a parcellised private property, has been called "communism", from the latin word for common. "Communism" was also the word to name the political movement of bringing this reality into the consciousness of the participants, and to organize the political will of a majority of humanity, and be it only within the confines of one single nation, to take state power into the hands of working people so that we could transform the way we work together, and bring it into conformity with the reality of the material production process. One way how this contradiction between the productive forces and the production relations is visible today is in the difficulties of transforming products of artistic and scientific creativity into commodities so that they can be sold as commodities with individual capitalist enriching themselves by the product of artists and scientists. As long as it required the packaging of such products into a material form of books, or disks or CDs, this was easy, but in digital form it is so simple and incurring no loss at all to copy such product from one place to another. A political movement giving expression to this contradiction are the Pirate Parties existing in a number of capitalist countries, of which the Swedish "section" managed to get a deputy elected to the European Parliament and the German Pirate Party has a menber in the federal parliament who went over to the PP from the Social Democrats. Well -- fascism has not yet been covered in my rant. Well, fascism emerged in the 1920ies both as a backlash against the first successful proletarian revolution in Russia of 1917, and confronted with the inability of the workers movement in the various countries like Italy, Germany, Spain and others to provide radical solutions to the burning problems of society. The leaderships of the workers parties had failed to take power. But radical solutions were called for. This allowed the "middle classes" aka the petty bourgeoisie to look for other forms of radical solutions in an extreme nationalism, racism, and destructive hatred against the working class organisations, and this took the name from its first appearance in Italy as "fascism" (from the Latin "fasce" or bundle of sticks). Hitler argued in his book "Mein Kampf", that the working class movement had to be destroyed if Germany wanted to win the war ("Germany" meaning the ruling class of Germany), but that a simple military-police repression of the working class organizations, as shown by the ineffectiveness of the Bismarck "sozialistengesetze" (anti-socialist laws). Hitler stated that a surrogate for the working class consciousness had to be found in some form of ideology pretending to represent the interests of "the little man". Nazism is the German form and name for fascism, derived from the name of Hitler's party, called the "National-Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" (NSDAP) or "National-socialist German workers party". If you want to read more, have a look at the following texts, whose English titles I translate from the German ones as I remember them.: Marx: Introduction to the program of the French socialist workers party (very short, and the best concise explanation of the socialist movement) Engels: Socialism from Utopia to Science Engels: Origin of Family, Private Property and the State (especially the last chapter, because of its explanation of the emergence of feudal society) Trotsky: What is National Socialism? Clara Zetkin (if you can get it): Report to the Executive Committee of the Communist (Third) International on Fascism in Italy (1923 or so). Comradely yours, L?ko Willms Frankfurt, Germany -------------------------------- From markalause at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 16:26:34 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:26:34 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Post: Common Sense Answers: anti-communism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Note in the question that "capitalism" is the default and notably NOT "totalitarian." These are the sort of things peddled by various conservative and neo-con education think-tanks. ML From pt_costello at yahoo.com Sat Aug 1 17:14:58 2009 From: pt_costello at yahoo.com (Pat Costello) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 16:14:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Marxism] The U.S. makes nothing but weapons of war Message-ID: <513516.55881.qm@web63108.mail.re1.yahoo.com> http://jontaplin.com/2009/08/01/national-security-state/ If ever we needed evidence of the Cost of Empire, Floyd Norris?s scary chart of Durable Goods Production from the U.S. Economy is it. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/07/31/business/20090801_CHARTS_GRAPHIC.html We have so hollowed out our industrial plant that the only thing we are now producing is weapons of war. The great British Historian Arnold Toynbee?s theory about the decline of the Roman Empire has lessons for our current age. The economy of the Empire was basically a Raubwirtschaft or plunder economy based on looting existing resources rather than producing anything new. The Empire relied on booty from conquered territories (this source of revenue ending, of course, with the end of Roman territorial expansion) or on a pattern of tax collection that drove small-scale farmers into destitution (and onto a dole that required even more exactions upon those who could not escape taxation), or into dependency upon a landed ?lite exempt from taxation. With the cessation of tribute from conquered territories, the full cost of their military machine had to be borne by the citizenry. This I know. We cannot continue on this course of decline. While many of the elite escape taxation with their brilliant ?tax shelter? accountants, the middle class (Rome?s ?small scale farmers?) are being asked to shoulder the economic burden of empire. From lnp3 at panix.com Sat Aug 1 17:31:40 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:31:40 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Barbara Epstein and MR Message-ID: <4A74D05C.90907@panix.com> (posted to PEN-L by Doug Henwood) I've just been informed (by someone who wants to remain anonymous) that Barbara Epstein resigned from the board of MR because of the nonsense that Yoshie has been posting to MRZine about Iran. When she made her complaints known to the board, they made it clear that they supported Yoshie's work, so Epstein felt that she had no choice but to quit. She's not interested in campaigning against what she still regards as a venerable institution, but she feels that Yoshie's position on Iran has so discredited the organization that she couldn't abide a formal association anymore. Though I'm just the messenger on this, I completely agree with Epstein. Defending a regime that has jailed and killed thousands of socialists and Marxists is a disgraceful thing for a socialist/Marxist publication to do. Doug From Waistline2 at aol.com Sat Aug 1 17:35:49 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:35:49 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Post Message-ID: >> Well there's a real concrete, historical, materialist analysis. And it includes the very important, never to be forgotten, "enemy of the people" label.<< Comment In my late teens I was labeled "an enemy of the people" by a couple of gys in the local Black Panther Party for about six months. Back then the BBP had a huge sign outside its headquater house shouting "United Front Against Fascism." I would visit the office on a regular basis because they always manage to attrach absolutely beatufiul young women and I was dating one of the girls. Don't get me wrong, our group have beautiful young women, but they were like blood sisters and I have never had a desire to date my blood sister. I was an enemy of the people because off and on I would do day labor or work in one of the factories for 3 - 5 months . . . . then hang out and when broke get another job. Some of the brothers felt I was not revolutionaries enough because I refuse to wear those stupid black leather jackets and "tam" caps. Or adopt the "off the pig jargon." We always felt the slogan "arm yourself or harm yourself" was sufficient. Under Soviet conditions being an "enemy of the people" was not pleasant . . . I suppose. People make choices about their politics. See, when the state is the property owner, being late for work is against crime or infringement against the state. Given the environment of the Stalin era, one not familiar with the art of politics and real theory and how party politics work, could end up in trouble. I do not suffer from that problem. Party politics are simple to navigate if one is honest and truly believes in democracy and majority will. When you feel you are right and outvoted it is best to shut up, go to work and make sure you do your job and party work. If all you want to do is argue and find "fundamental principle differences with everything" you would find yourself in trouble with the local party organization. Not so much out of "irreconcilable differences" but because the workers do not like to meet over 45 minutes. If you argue too much and lengthen the meeting someone was going to report you as an enemy of the people to get you put out of the meeting. Then you end up in the gulag. :-) Still arguing about nothing. WL. **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd =JulystepsfooterNO115) From fred.fuentes at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 17:40:00 2009 From: fred.fuentes at gmail.com (Fred Fuentes) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:40:00 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] =?windows-1252?q?Venezuela=3A_Class_struggle_heats_up_o?= =?windows-1252?q?ver_battle_for_workers=92_control?= Message-ID: Venezuela: Class struggle heats up over battle for workers? control Federico Fuentes, Caracas 25 July 2009 http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/804/41392 On July 22, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez again declared his complete support for the proposal by industrial workers for a new model of production based on workers? control. This push from Chavez, part of the socialist revolution, aims at transforming Venezuela?s basic industry. However, it faces resistance from within the state bureaucracy and the revolutionary movement. Presenting his government?s ?Plan Socialist Guayana 2009-2019?, Chavez said the state-owned companies in basic industry have to be transformed into ?socialist companies?. The plan was the result of several weeks of intense discussion among revolutionary workers from the Venezuelan Corporation of Guayana (CVG). The CVG includes 15 state-owned companies in the industrial Guayana region involved in steel, iron ore, mineral and aluminium production. The workers? roundtables were established after a May 21 workshop, where industrial workers raised radical proposals for the socialist transformation of basic industry. Chavez addressed the workshop in support of many of the proposals. But events between the May 21 workshop and Chavez?s July 22 recent announcement reveal much of the nature of the class struggle inside revolutionary Venezuela. Chavez?s announcement is part of an offensive launched after the revolutionary forces won the February 15 referendum on the back of a big organisational push that involved hundreds of thousands of people in the campaign. The vote was to amend the constitution to allow elected officials to stand for re-election ? allowing Chavez, the undisputed leader of the Venezuelan revolution, to stand for president in 2012. With oil revenue drying up due to the global economic crisis, the government is using this new position of strength to tackle corruption and bureaucracy, while increasing state control over strategic economic sectors. This aims to ensure the poor are not made to pay for the crisis. Workers? control On May 21, Chavez publicly threw his lot in with the Guayana workers, announcing his government?s granting of demands for better conditions in state-owned companies and the nationalisation of a number of private companies whose workers were involved in industrial disputes. ?When the working class roars, the capitalists tremble?, Chavez told the To chants of ?this is how you govern!?, Chavez announced his agreement with a series of measures proposed by workers. However, like an old train that begins to rattle loudly as it speeds up, more right-wing sectors within the revolutionary movement also began to tremble. With each new attack against the political and economic power that the capitalist class still holds in Venezuela ? and uses to destabilise the country ? the revolution is also forced to confront internal enemies. The radical measures announced at the May 21 workshop were the result of the workers discussion over the previous two days. Chavez called on workers to wage an all-out struggle against the ?mafias? rife in the management of state companies. Chavez then designated planning minister Jorge Giordani and labour minister Maria Cristina Iglesias, who both played a key role in the workshop, to follow up these decisions by establishing a series of workers? roundtables in the CVG industries. The CVG complex is on the verge of collapse in large part due to the privatisation push by pre-Chavez governments in the 1990s. State companies were run down in preparation to be sold off cheaply. In the Sidor steel plant, for example, the number of workers dropped from more than 30,000 to less than 15,000 before it was privatised in 1998. Chavez?s 1998 election stopped further privatisation. But the government has had to confront large scale corruption within the CVG, continued deterioration of machinery and, more recently, the sharp drop in prices of aluminium and steel. The plan drafted up by workers and given to Chavez on June 9 raised the possibility of ?converting the current structural crisis of capitalism? into ?an opportunity? for workers to move forward in ?the construction of socialism, by assuming in a direct manner, control over production of the basic companies in the region?. The report set out nine strategic lines ? including workers? control of production; improvement of environmental and work conditions; and public auditing of companies and projects. Measures proposed include the election of managers and management restructuring; collective decision-making by workers and local communities; the creation of workers? councils; and opening companies? books. The measures aim to achieve ?direct control of production without mediations by a bureaucratic structure?. The report said such an experience of workers? control would undoubtedly act as an example for workers in ?companies in the public sector nationally, such as those linked to hydrocarbons or energy companies?. Bureaucracy bites back Sensing the danger such an example represents to its interests, bureaucratic sections within the revolutionary movement, as well as the US-backed counter-revolutionary opposition, moved quickly to try and stop this process. A wave of strikes and protests were organised in the aluminium sector during June and July, taking advantage of workers? disgruntlement with corrupt managers and payments owed. The protests were organised by union leaders from both the Socialist Bolivarian Force of Workers (FSBT), a union current within the mass party led by Chavez, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), and those aligned with opposition parties such as Radical Cause. Revolutionary workers from Guayana condemned the unholy alliance of bureaucratic union leaders and opposition political forces, which aimed to stifling the process initiated on May 21. This alliance was supported by Bolivar governor, retired General Francisco Rangel Gomez, who called on the national government to negotiate directly with local unions. Opinion pieces began to appear in the local press, calling on the government to once again make Rangel president of the CVG in order to bring ?stability?. The alliance between Rangel and union bureaucrats in Guayana is long running. Officially part of the Chavista camp, Rangel has long been accused of being corrupt and anti-worker. During his term as CVG president before becoming governor in 2004, Rangel built up a corrupt clientalist network with local union and business figures. He stacked CVG management with business partners and friends. While on the negotiation commission to resolve the 15-month long dispute at Sidor, Rangel ordered the National Guard to fire on protesting Sidor workers. Also on the commission was then-labour minister and former FSBT union leader from Guayana, Jose Ramon Rivero, who was similarly accused by Sidor workers of siding with management. He was also criticised for using his position as labour minister to build the FSBT?s bureaucratic powerbase by promoting ?parallel unions? along factional lines and splitting the revolutionary union confederation, National Union of Workers (UNT). In April last year, Chavez disbanded the Sidor negotiation commission and sent his vice president, Ramon Carrizales to resolve the dispute by re-nationalising the steel plant. Rivero was then sacked. Today, he works as the general secretary in Rangel?s governorship. The forces behind Rivero and Rangel hoped not only to stifle the radical proposals from the May 21 workshop, but also remove basic industry minister Rodolfo Sanz. Sanz has moved to replace Rangel?s people with his own in the CVG management. In the recent dispute, Sanz accused aluminium workers of being responsible for the crisis in that sector. He worked to undermine the proposals of the roundtable discussions. After several days of negotiations union leaders ? essentially sidelining the workers roundtables ? Sanz agreed on July 20 not only to pay the workers what they were owed, but also to restructure the board of directors in the aluminium sector. Through this process, the radical proposals for restructuring the CVG appeared to have been push aside ? which suited both Sanz and Rangel. Revolutionary leadership However, Chavez intervened with his July 22 announcement, which came after a meeting with key ministers and advisors involved in the May 21 socialist transformation workshop. Chavez said his government was committed to implement the recommendations of the ?Plan Socialist Guayana?, placing himself clearly on the side of the workers. He said the workers? proposals, embodied in the plan, would ?guide all the new policies and concrete and specific measures that we are beginning to decide in order to consolidate a socialist platform in Guayana?. When a journalist directed her first question to Sanz regarding the plan, Chavez stepped in to respond, by-passing Sanz and handing the microphone over to Giordani, who many revolutionary workers identify as strongly committed to the process of socialist transformation. Rangel, who had been at the May 21 workshop, was not at the July 22 meeting. Chavez also appeared to differentiate himself from other sectors within the revolutionary movement, such as those behind the ?A Grain of Maize? daily column, whose authors are linked to a political current involving oil minister Rafael Ramirez. This current has recently been vocal in arguing that socialism simply entails state ownership and central planning from above ? with minimum participation from workers. For Chavez, state-owned companies ?that continue to remain within the framework of state capitalism? have to be managed by their workers in order to become ?socialist?. The Plan Socialist Guayana is Venezuela?s first example of real ?democratic planning from below?, Chavez added. The battle in Guayana is not over. Workers from the Alcasa aluminium plant told Green Left Weekly that management at aluminium plants met on July 25 to continue the process of restructuring agreed to by Sanz and union leaders ? in direct opposition to Chavez?s statements. Other fronts of intense class conflict have opened up. Various struggles have emerged involving different forces and interests in the electricity sector, as well as the still-emerging communes, which unite the grassroots communal councils, to name a few. A central arena of struggle is the PSUV, which is in a process of restructuring ahead of its second congress in October. But the battle in Guayana may be one of the most decisive as it involves the largest working-class population. This is in the context of a revolution whose weakest link has been the lack of a strong, organised revolutionary workers? movement. From dwaltersMIA at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 17:56:45 2009 From: dwaltersMIA at gmail.com (nada) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:56:45 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] =?windows-1252?q?Venezuela=3A_Class_struggle_heats_up_o?= =?windows-1252?q?ver_battle_for_workers=92_control?= Message-ID: <4A74D63D.1010406@gmail.com> Singularly the most fascinating piece of news from Venezuela I've read in almost a year. I urge everyone to read the entire article. David From bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 17:59:31 2009 From: bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com (Bhaskar Sunkara) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:59:31 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] =?windows-1252?q?Venezuela=3A_Class_struggle_heats_up_o?= =?windows-1252?q?ver_battle_for_workers=92_control?= In-Reply-To: <4A74D63D.1010406@gmail.com> References: <4A74D63D.1010406@gmail.com> Message-ID: While we are on the topic I would like to highly recommend this article: http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/the-revolution-delayed-10-years-of-hugo-chavezs-rule/ It's by some anarchist comrades, but that doesn't mean their points can be lightly dismissed (they're Venezuelan). ~ Bhaskar From darrel.furlotte at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 19:41:08 2009 From: darrel.furlotte at gmail.com (Darrel Furlotte) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 21:41:08 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] =?iso-8859-1?q?Venezuela=3A_Class_struggle_heats_up_ove?= =?iso-8859-1?q?r_battle_for_workers=27_control?= In-Reply-To: References: <4A74D63D.1010406@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48E784A27E69476294BBED1C7F11EBB9@DarrelPC> Prior to April 2002 I probably would have been in general agreement with what I was able to read of the article (before terminal fatigue set in because of its sectarian abstraction). The massive, popular resistance to the coup opened my eyes and mind about LEARNING what was happening in Venezuela. Fred's article is a real contribution to that process. These anarchist comrades (it doesn't matter that they are in Venezuela) don't seem to have had a similar experience. They still see "revolution" totally through 19th century ideological blinkers. Darrel -------------------------------------------------- From: "Bhaskar Sunkara" Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 7:59 PM To: "Darrel Furlotte" Subject: Re: [Marxism]Venezuela: Class struggle heats up over battle for workers' control > While we are on the topic I would like to highly recommend this article: > http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/the-revolution-delayed-10-years-of-hugo-chavezs-rule/ > It's by some anarchist comrades, but that doesn't mean their points can be > lightly dismissed (they're Venezuelan). > > ~ Bhaskar From bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 19:49:48 2009 From: bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com (Bhaskar Sunkara) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 21:49:48 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Venezuela: Class struggle heats up over battle for workers' control In-Reply-To: <48E784A27E69476294BBED1C7F11EBB9@DarrelPC> References: <4A74D63D.1010406@gmail.com> <48E784A27E69476294BBED1C7F11EBB9@DarrelPC> Message-ID: I'm more optimistic than the article and I agree that if the popular movement pressures the right-wing of the PSUV to build, genuine structural changes, that we are looking at something more than caudilloism.I have hope that this can happen, but the article is important since it reminds us that the Chavez's regime is part "crony capitalism" with a segment of the indigenous bourgeoisie and military elites benefiting greatly. It also exposes the "250,000 new cooperatives" claim. On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Darrel Furlotte wrote: > Prior to April 2002 I probably would have been in general agreement with > what I was able to read of the article (before terminal fatigue set in > because of its sectarian abstraction). The massive, popular resistance to > the coup opened my eyes and mind about LEARNING what was happening in > Venezuela. Fred's article is a real contribution to that process. These > anarchist comrades (it doesn't matter that they are in Venezuela) don't > seem > to have had a similar experience. They still see "revolution" totally > through 19th century ideological blinkers. > Darrel From sartesian at earthlink.net Sat Aug 1 20:01:51 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 22:01:51 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Post References: Message-ID: Tell me exactly where "majority rule" and "democracy" figured into the events in the USSR after 1928, or even before... Majority of what? Democracy where? The party, in an economy that was characterized by Lenin as a "petty-producer" economy? In the 3rd International? Plus there's more than majority rule and democracy going on there-- there was the isolation of the USSR, the defeat of the workers revolution in Germany, Hungary, etc. That's the historical, material analysis that has to be undertaken when evaluating "isms" and "enemies" ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 7:35 PM Subject: [Marxism] Post From bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 21:29:38 2009 From: bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com (Bhaskar Sunkara) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 23:29:38 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Llazar Fundo Message-ID: Never heard of this guy before, but look at this life. Worthy of a decent biography. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llazar_Fundo From redarnie at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 22:04:14 2009 From: redarnie at gmail.com (Red Arnie) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 00:04:14 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Raul Castro: Cuba to slash social spending via msnbc.com iPhone app Message-ID: <653F4700-3606-4967-B06D-8C76496B2A70@gmail.com> Thought you'd be interested in this article: http://bit.ly/11R39S End the inhumane boycott now! Arn Kawano From mlebowit at sfu.ca Sat Aug 1 22:41:39 2009 From: mlebowit at sfu.ca (michael a. lebowitz) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 00:11:39 -0430 Subject: [Marxism] anarchist wisdom re Venezuela; je je je Message-ID: <4A751903.2090500@sfu.ca> "We, for our part, think that this neo-liberal role can be seen in the r?gime's policies on oil and trade, and indeed in its whole economic agenda. This manipulative populist rhetoric covers up the real agenda of clearing the way for the implementation of the neo-liberal model, to a greater extent than ever before." > While we are on the topic I would like to highly recommend this article: > http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/the-revolution-delayed-10-years-of-hugo-chavezs-rule/ > It's by some anarchist comrades, but that doesn't mean their points can be > lightly dismissed (they're Venezuelan). > > ~ Bhaskar -- Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University 8888 University Drive Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Director, Programme in 'Transformative Practice and Human Development' Centro Internacional Miranda, P.H. Residencias Anauco Suites, Parque Central, final Av. Bolivar Caracas, Venezuela fax: 0212 5768274/0212 5777231 www.centrointernacionalmiranda.gob.ve mlebowit at sfu.ca From proletariandan at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 01:54:46 2009 From: proletariandan at gmail.com (Dan Russell) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 02:54:46 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] HR676 to Receive Full House Debate, Vote Message-ID: <517f3cab0908020054x56051581sa96ca13290a56437@mail.gmail.com> http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2009/07/single-payer-gets-a-vote.html From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 05:07:51 2009 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 21:07:51 +1000 Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" with Iran Re: Fred Feldman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well I am resisting the "Itoldyousomoment". It seems to me that all this is another instance of something that I heard the Irish revolutionary Gerry Lawless say at Essex Uni long years ago. In a talk he touched up on the so-called Curragh Mutiny when British officers refused to obey the orders of the Liberal English Govt to confront the far right Northern Irish unionists. Lawless's comment was as I remember that the British Govt climbed down and that was why he was not a liberal for "liberals always back down in the face of an armed threat from the Right". So that is what we are seeing with "the man from yes we can". Obama has never been any thing other than a liberal. That in itself is quite remarkable in mainstream American politics and indeed enough to sow illusions and hopes everywhere. However the Right know their liberals quite well and know that they will always back down. But let us be quite clear here. It is not a question as Fred says of the Right trying to destroy Obama's administration. It is merely the Right flexing its muscle and the liberal Obama doing what he was always going to do - retreat while muttering "Yes we can but perhaps not just right now". But all that is really pointless compared with the reactions of all those who invested their hopes in Obama. What will they do now that the dialectics of disillusionment have begun? Impossible to say but let me be frank that that I think it is most important that we do not fall into the trap of defending Obama. True he is being attacked by the Right. But our task as revolutionaries is to defend the people not some smooth phony. comradely gary From rfidler_8 at sympatico.ca Sun Aug 2 06:35:57 2009 From: rfidler_8 at sympatico.ca (Richard Fidler) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 08:35:57 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Llazar Fundo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: See also: http://www.revolutionaryhistory.co.uk/albania.html -----Original Message----- Subject: [Marxism] Llazar Fundo Never heard of this guy before, but look at this life. Worthy of a decent biography. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llazar_Fundo From lnp3 at panix.com Sun Aug 2 06:59:27 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 08:59:27 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Analysis from the Iranian left Message-ID: <4A758DAF.10100@panix.com> http://revolutionaryflowerpot.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-to-proceed-forward.html Saturday, August 1, 2009 How to Proceed Forward? This translation of an analytical article from the newspaper Khiaban, #18, came in the mail. The article presents a perspective that needs serious consideration by socialist forces. Whether we agree totally, mostly or partially, the perspective is well worth reflecting on. Thanks to the sender! Thinking of Action By Milad S. (Khiaban #18 / July 8, 2009) The purpose of this note is to point out some of the obstacles to the expansion of the Iranian communists' activities. 1. For taking further and well-thought steps, we have to discard a number of erroneous notions. The first misconception is to perceive contemporary Iran as a 'post-revolutionary' society. Iran is not in a post-revolutionary situation, in which another revolution is necessary. The current movement is a new sequence of the revolutionary process that started in 1978. The internal conflicts of the ruling factions, the machinery of oppression and the forms that people's struggle take, their slogans and demands, all these are parts of a historical period that started by the Iranian Revolution in 1978-79. We should perceive the present popular movement in such a broader context, and discard any prevalent sort of sociological analysis, even those that in appearance seem class-based. We will explain this. This means that the movement that started on June 15 [2009] is a continuation of the people's struggle in answering questions, which they themselves had posed in the society through the overthrow of Shah's regime: How can we establish freedom, independence and a people's republic in Iran? How can we run the society based on people's sovereignty, and without relying on any of the pre-capitalistic institutions, without the royal court and its allies? The first answer, the Islamic Republic, has failed that test. It was not the Iranian revolution that failed the test; such a statement is meaningless, those political alternatives pertaining to the first sequence however failed. The revolution itself is still young. This is not to say that the course of the events, forms of the struggle and the behavior of the forces in this sequence are a repetition of what happened between 1977 and 1980. Quite the contrary, this movement is different in form and content, and its enemy is not the classic dictatorship of the Shah, but an Islamic regime, which emerged from the same revolutionary process and claims to have inherited the demand for republicanism, freedom and the independence of the Iranian people (this is a reference to the emblematic tripartite central slogan during winter 1978-79_ trans. note). In the historical events of June 15, this claim was unambiguously taken back from the ruling regime. When Mousavi and the Participation Front [jebhey-e mosharekat] end up in opposition to the main symbol of the Islamic Republic, i.e., velayat-e faqih [rule of religious jurists], and in effect stand alongside the people (not just in words, but in its social objectivity), this is indicative of the fact that the Islamic Republic separated its path from that of the revolution, which amounts to the political suicide of the regime. From this point on, the 1979 revolution will anew seek its own identity and fate, is no longer an Islamic revolution as this regime called it; what it is will be determined by this very movement in its references to that revolutionary memory. The easiest example is the 'Allah-o Akbar' slogan. The slogan was used first time during the uprising in 1978-1979. Today, it is employed against the regime that once had transformed that symbol of protest to an ideological alibi for establishing political Islam. By employing the same phrase, people indicate the radical level of their demand that goes beyond the phrase. People are employing the religious Arabic wording 'Allah-o Akbar' as a metaphor for something else in Persian: Death to the dictator. Here the content goes beyond the phrase. If we don't see this difference, we will misunderstand people's slogans and, worst of all, we will move away from the people and leave the initiative to others. Therefore, in the first instance, any radical political force in Iran must synchronize its behavior, position and outlook with the calendar and sequences of the Iranian Revolution. This means: Don't interpret! Don't make up slogans that seem revolutionary! Be the thought for an action. (The word employed in the title of the article in Persian is "eqdam" which means the initial, commencing phase of an action, the intentional component of an undertaking. The title of the text reads "fekr e eqdam", thought of/for an action, which is deliberately ambiguous; it both means a thought or idea discernable through action and the deliberations before an action.) An idea that pertains to such an action is the articulation of the very people's demands. Its point of departure is the people's, all the people's pain and suffering, their capabilities as well as shortcomings. The Iranian people, when they take the initiative to wrest back the political cause from their rulers, are not Muslims, nor idolaters, nor liberals and royalists, nor demanding the overthrow of anything, nor a sect wishing to establish a socialist republic based on premeditated plans. No people have ever been like that. If a people have overthrown any system, it has been because that system blocked the collective movement of the people; if a people in some places transformed their councils/soviets into a new form of republic, this was because in the course of their struggles, they achieved all-encompassing and universal goals, for which that form (the councils, soviets, etc.) was found to be optimal; if they rose to do away with private property in a factory, some neighborhood, this city, a given country, this was because in their daily battles they realized that this form of property was an obstacle to the realization of a humane life. We must think of communism as an equivalent to these conditioned propositions, which means we must free our ideals from burdensome clich?s. Anyone who wants to stage the last scene of another revolution as the first act of a revolution here is not thinking of any concrete measures for action. He is, at best, a plagiarist. 2. In the writings of leftist activists in Iran, we see two burdensome concepts, which have caused the scattered, oppressed and wounded figure of the left to turn even more scattered. One is the seemingly unproblematic concept of the 'middle class'. Interesting that this concept is seen precisely in such analyses that most certainly contain class in their titles, and in which quotations from Marx or Lenin abound. However, Marx has never used anything called middle class, with the particular meaning envisioned by these writers, in his historical analyses. On the contrary, this is a contemporary sociological concept. 'Middle class' is a deeply vague and ideological concept. Middle of what, and how did this middle become a class? In the present misery, hospital workers and staff, our school teachers, the factory workers and the youth who have been deprived of employment and who live in dormitories are not middle class. In the midst of the summer solstice in the third world, what middle class? These are labor force, the very thing you have been looking for, and right in front of your eyes, in the streets of self-representation and in the alleys of common interests. They have, at least momentarily, felt their capacity to impose their presence in the public arenas of our cities and from now on nothing will remain the same as before, including the meaning of democracy. The ashes of petty-bourgeois academism is incapable of understanding the simple fact that people who, reliant on solidarity, claim a common objective for all are no longer the same as a formless mass. Besides this, this movement has as yet not benefited fully from the independent presence of the organized poor. The current presence of a section of the rulers alongside the movement has also caused some confusion. The most wrongheaded policy in the current situation is to busy ourselves with polemics with this segment of the rulers to prove that they cannot be our fellow travelers. From the point of view of the people, such arguments, no matter how filled with revolutionary phrases, resemble the arguments of the two factions of the rulers. Such is not communist activity. Expansion of people's movement means helping to build popular organizations amongst those people whose voice is not counted, not recognized by the state. Joining of the poor alongside the presence of the labor forces will show any petty-bourgeois ideological illusion to be what they are: moralistic speech. It is at such a [historical] moment, but not earlier, that those few journalists who advocate neo-liberalism will be forgotten. Do you see how the difference between people and their enemies is cognizable? It suffices that people organize themselves around all-encompassing demands and recognize their own representation in a common cause. Slogans such as "Give me back my vote!" has, neither immediately nor necessarily, anything to do with acceptance of the elections game or parliamentarianism. We see that many people who had boycotted the elections participated in the rallies. It does not even relate immediately to Ahmadinejad and the overthrow of the Islamic Republic, but goes farther and deeper than these things. This lack of immediate relation must be taken as our point of departure. The important point is the collective uprising to claim our crushed rights; this readiness to rise up for the right to have a vote must be understood the way it actually is, beyond ideological imageries about elections, and must be expanded to include other rights of the people. 3. The second reason for lack of cohesion, I think, relates to a mistake by the communists about who the addressee is. One component of such a mistake concerns the concept of 'enemy'. In short, it is simplistic to think that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and, vice versa, to consider those who are not friends of the people as the enemy. Enemy and friend are asymmetrical terms. We don't determine the enemy by their beliefs and speech, but the criterion is their objective behavior in concrete conditions. The enemies are those who take up arms against the expansion of the people's movement and are destroying their organizations. 'Enemy' is a concept, whose use is akin to that of a weapon, which must be pointed in a particular direction and at a certain target. Friends who are fond of Marx should believe that this is exactly what Marx says. Running hurriedly into the arena, and without any popular backing calling the people whose flags are not our desired colors 'the enemy', is akin to firing an empty gun in the darkness. Let us reach some conclusions from these three points: A. If the communists are on the side of revolution, and are capable of discerning the historical demands of the Iranian Revolution and able to understand the logic of its development, then they must welcome the disintegration of the governmental coalition called Islamic Republic and the joining with their ranks of segments of a republican system that claimed to have answers to the demands of the Iranian Revolution. They must not forget that this split among the different factions of rulers was caused by the very movement of the people, and not by the infighting of the two factions, as declared in sociological analyses. NO! Any infighting within the ruling system occurs against the background of a revolutionary society, and always has three sides. If we look at the behavior of the people from this angle, we can easily see how the people in effect are constantly pushing forward this segment of rulers [that has joined them] with all its resources, and at least for the short-term. Once, a while ago, it was possible for Khatami to avoid such a position, but for Mousavi any retreat is tantamount to political suicide or even a threat to his life. Intellectual friends, militant comrades! Abandon exposing every inconsistency in their statements; in doing such things, you are actually looking at the whole thing from the top, and staring wide-eyed only at the surface appearance of their infighting, and by necessity you will be limited to playing the role of the permanent pen-wielding critic of the policies of those upstairs, without giving any space or chance to communism as a positive idea to be constructed. From the point of view of the people's movement and its inventiveness, the separation of a segment of the rulers and its alignment alongside the people's demands is a non-negligible victory. Without having any illusions about this segment or its historical background, this victory should be protected. Otherwise, and by proposing ideas about the class nature of this segment and by repeating hasty misreadings of the separating line between 'proletariat' and 'bourgeois', you would be underestimating the present force of the people's movement. Instead of this petty-bourgeois incredulity, turn to organizing the labor forces, turn to expanding the struggle among the poor and the workers, disseminate awareness among the people based on tangible given demands, get to work alongside them for formulating tangible and relevant demands, and thereby recognize yourself as part of a common cause. B. The relationship between the people and the communist activists and intellectuals is not one of a passive 'addressee' and an active 'agent'. A lot of friends in the Iranian left seem unable to inspire confidence. They are trapped in intellectual labyrinths, in which workers or poor people can not recognize themselves, and at times they produce road maps such as would befit those by parties boasting millions of members. For communists, the dialectic of addressing is a complex one. If an intellectual or an activist has more time to read and think, this does not make them a popular movement's engineer or an expert on budgeting and planning for the people's movement. This type of engineer-like thinking among the left has its own reasons. But, what is important here is that, the people, when in a struggle or when voicing slogans in a demonstration, are both 'addressees' and 'agents'. Every time we address the people, it is because we want to make their own voices to be heard, and their own right to address all to become possible. This important fact must be present in the very first words that we utter publicly. This means that if we voice a slogan, it must express a demand that is achievable even though it appears for now impossible and is based on a responsible examination of reality and real capacities of social forces; meaning, our slogans are consistently a minimal expression that can embrace a maximum of imaginable objectives, not a blind maximalism that bears no relation to the real conditions. This means that our slogans are part of the collective understanding and our enthusiasm a co-conspirator in the plans that the people, before us, have forged against the dominant grammar of power. "Do not fear, do not fear; We are all together here!" This slogan engages in no exaggerations, nor does it encourage any singular voice, and is not vague, either. It is effective and encouraging, and paves the way. This togetherness of all for a common claim beyond the governmental powers and the media discourse is a thousand times more radical and revolutionary than using worn out clich?s. This inventiveness of the people is the source of force for the communists. Please do not say that you would separate out and arrange two camps facing each other, and that "co-presence of all" is a bourgeois slogan. That is not the case. In its best form, capitalism can only guarantee the wellbeing of a minority among the millions of people deprived of their rights. 'All' is both the 'addressee' and the 'addresser', a historical moment that extends beyond the limits of capitalism; class struggle signifies that a group, as a social class, stands on the way of this progression. To misread Marx, Lenin and others is worse than not reading them at all. That which is encouraging for our young forces, is their objectively better possibility of success, compared to the period of 1978-1981. The weakness and the scatteredness of the leftist militants from the 1978 revolution, at this moment can be a positive point for the creation of new communist forces that have learned from the past, and stand alongside the people to solve crucial problems of the movement, using their ideas and without concepts estranged from our lived experience. I will end this note with a reminder: one of the best articles about the conditions of realization of historical demands from the 1978 revolution was written by the reformist thinker Sa'eed Hajjarian, published a few days before the [June 12] elections. Hajjarian's thesis, in a reference to Rosa Luxembourg's slogan, 'Socialism or Barbarity', was that in today's Iran, the choice is between barbarity and civility. We must read this thesis correctly, meaning with the opposite intention of the writer. You have the best chance of success, since the Iranian Revolution, at each new sequence, each time clearer than before, shows that socialism, or better to say communism, is the only possible civility for the future of a free Iran. If we do not act thoughtfully and intelligently, tomorrow we will end up looking blindly for the spent shells after shooting those bullet-less guns; something that some leftist-leaning friends have been busy doing for too many years. From lnp3 at panix.com Sun Aug 2 07:21:37 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 09:21:37 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Cuba will stay socialist, insists Raul Castro Message-ID: <4A7592E1.80408@panix.com> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/02/raul-castro-us-cuba Cuba will stay socialist, insists Raul Castro President says softened US stance will not lead to radical change * Mark Tran * guardian.co.uk, Sunday 2 August 2009 11.50 BST Raul Castro yesterday acknowledged that the US has softened its rhetoric towards Cuba under Barack Obama but insisted that the island would remain a socialist country even after the death of its revolutionary leaders. The former defence minister, who succeeded his ailing brother Fidel as president last year, repeated his willingness to discuss all issues with the US but vowed that Cuba would not see fundamental change even after he and his older brother were gone. "I was elected to defend, maintain and continue perfecting socialism, not destroy it. We are ready to talk about everything, but ? not to negotiate our political and social system," Castro told the Cuban national assembly to a long standing ovation. As for those who thought that Cuba's political system would crumble after "the death of Fidel and all of us", Castro said: "If that's how they think, they are doomed to failure." Obama has said he wants to improve relations with Cuba ? as with Iran. He has relaxed the 47-year-old US embargo by allowing Cuban-Americans to travel and send money freely to the island 90 miles from Key West, Florida, and has reopened immigration talks with the Cuban government that were suspended by his predecessor, George Bush. In another conciliatory gesture, the US recently turned off a news ticker on the US interests section in Havana that Cuba viewed as a constant provocation. But Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, have said further improvements depend on Cuba making progress on human rights. In much of yesterday's speech, Castro gave a bleak overview of the economy, saying the government had cut its budget for the second time this year because of the country's worst financial crisis since the 1990s. Conditions are so bad that the authorities on Friday postponed a Communist party congress that would have been the first of its kind in 12 years. Castro said the economy, hit by the global financial crisis and three hurricanes last year, grew just 0.8% in the first half of 2009. He said growth of 1.7% was expected for the full year. As combined economic shocks reduced income from exports and boosted spending on imports of food and other items, Castro held out the prospect of cuts in Cuba's admired healthcare system. Healthcare, along with free education through university, subsidised housing and food provided on a monthly ration system, forms the basis of Cuba's socialist model. Castro's biggest reform has been the decentralisation of decision-making in agriculture and putting more land in the hands of private farmers to increase food production. He has also pushed for Cubans to be paid based on their production, to create incentives for them to work harder. In the fight against corruption which he says is choking the Cuban economy, Castro has created a comptroller general's office, with powers to audit and control all government and economic activities. From lueko.willms at t-online.de Sun Aug 2 07:14:10 2009 From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:14:10 +0200 (MES) Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" with Iran Re: Fred Feldman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <020.587a05002291754a.271@lws-media.de> Gary MacLennan (gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com) wrote on 2009-08-02 at 21:07:51 in about Re: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" with Iran Re: Fred Feldman: > > > But all that is really pointless compared with the reactions of all those > who invested their hopes in Obama. What will they do now that the > dialectics of disillusionment have begun? Impossible to say but let me be > frank that that I think it is most important that we do not fall into the > trap of defending Obama. True he is being attacked by the Right. But our > task as revolutionaries is to defend the people not some smooth phony. One can't really separate one from the other. Cheers, L?ko Willms Frankfurt, Germany -------------------------------- From lnp3 at panix.com Sun Aug 2 07:23:46 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 09:23:46 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Gunman kills 2 in Tel Aviv gay social club Message-ID: <4A759362.20804@panix.com> August 2, 2009 Police hunt Israel gay club shooter By AP Hundreds of police officers were scouring the streets of Tel Aviv on Sunday in a door-to-door manhunt for a gunman who opened fire on a gay youth club. A masked man entered a club for gay teens late Saturday, pulled out a pistol and shot in all directions, killing two and injuring 11, four seriously, police said. Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said the man then holstered his pistol and fled the scene by foot to the busy streets of Tel Aviv. Nitzan Horowitz, Israel's only openly gay lawmaker, said the attack had all the symptoms of a "hate crime." "This is the worst attack ever against the gay community in Israel," he said. "This act was a blind attack against innocent youths, and I expect the authorities to exercise all means in apprehending the shooter." Gays and lesbians enjoy great freedom and liberties in Israel. Soldiers serve openly in the military, and openly gay musicians and actors are among the most popular in the country. Tel Aviv in particular is one of the more liberal cities in the world ? it holds a festive annual gay parade, rainbow flags are often seen waved from apartment windows and the there is even a city-sponsored open house for the community. However, ultra-Orthodox Jewish leaders often incite against the community. In conservative Jerusalem, clashes have been frequent between religious and gay activists. In 2005, for instance, an ultra-Orthodox protester stabbed three marchers at a Jerusalem gay parade. The ultra-Orthodox Shas party, a frequent critic of gays in Israel, issued a statement condemning Saturday's attack. The attack sparked other swift political reactions. The mayor of Tel Aviv, Ron Huldai, pledged that Tel Aviv would continue to maintain its pluralistic nature. Opposition leader Tzipi Livni expressed shock and sorrow from the attack. "The difficult event should awaken society to rid itself from prejudice," Livni said. "We must accept and recognize the right of every person to live safely and with respect." Thousands took to the street in an impromptu march after Saturday night's attack to mourn for the victims and call for tolerance. The covers of Sunday's newspapers all featured photos of the bloodstained floors of the youth club and headlines such as "Massacre of the Proud Youth" and "Terror Against the Proud Community." Gay celebrities also penned guest columns. The names of the victims have yet to be released, but they were identified as a 17-year-old girl and a 24-year-old man. From lnp3 at panix.com Sun Aug 2 07:56:58 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 09:56:58 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran Message-ID: <4A759B2A.6070301@panix.com> Yesterday Jim Farmelant said something on LBO-Talk that I have to take exception to. After Doug posted the info on Barbara Epstein's resignation, Jim said: "Should anyone really be surprised by this? Yoshie's positions, whether one agrees with them or not, are not really that far out of line with MR's traditional outlook which has tended to place great emphasis on anti-imperialism. Remember too that the magazine went through a Maoist or quasi-Maoist phase back in the 1960s and 1970s. And in any case it should be obvious that if the board of MR had strong disagreements with Yoshi they would have relieved her of her duties as MRZine editor a long time ago." I agree with the last sentence, namely that John Bellamy Foster and John Mage agree with this crap but I do not agree that this was the editorial position of the magazine in the past. I have access to the MR archives going back to 1993 and a search on "Iran" revealed 3 articles basically with the same viewpoint. They could not be more sharply opposed to the current line. 'Muslim' women and 'Western' feminists: the debate on particulars and universals. By: Shahrzad Mojab December 1998 Just as Reza Shah forcibly removed the veil, the Islamic state has used extreme forms of coercion in order to impose it on all women, Muslim and non-Muslim. Disciplining the woman's body through dress codes is now a priority of the state inside and outside Iran. Using diplomatic power, the Islamic regime promotes the veil globally, from the Olympic games to UNESCO. Imposed through state violence, the veil has turned into a means of sexual apartheid. If the use of hijab (head cover for women) signified anti-monarchist action for some Muslim women in 1979 Iran, today resistance to theocratic despotism takes the form of refusing the veil. Just as Reza Shah forcibly removed the veil, the Islamic state has used extreme forms of coercion in order to impose it on all women, Muslim and non-Muslim. Disciplining the woman's body through dress codes is now a priority of the state inside and outside Iran. Using diplomatic power, the Islamic regime promotes the veil globally, from the Olympic games to UNESCO. Imposed through state violence, the veil has turned into a means of sexual apartheid. If the use of hijab (head cover for women) signified anti-monarchist action for some Muslim women in 1979 Iran, today resistance to theocratic despotism takes the form of refusing the veil Clerical Oligarchy and the Question of 'Democracy' in Iran. By Saeed Rahnema, Haideh Moghissi March 2001 For more than twenty years the Islamic regime in Iran, along with its extensive repressive apparatuses, has created an impressive array of ideological and economic mechanisms of control to construct an Islamified civil society and build consensus for the establishment of a theocratic state. Through massive propaganda and the manipulation of religious beliefs the Islamic ruling bloc has succeeded in maintaining its monopoly of power against all external and internal odds. Political repression eliminated, jailed, and exiled the progressive secular forces that had initiated the revolution in 1979. Ideological indoctrination maintained a strong following for the clerical regime. However, faced with social, political, and economic realities, a growing number of Iranians, even those who were once devoted supporters of the Islamic regime, have turned against it. The Islamic Republic is in deep political crisis. The Islamists' economic policies have failed, the per capita income is less than half of what it was before the revolution, and the gap between the rich and the poor has drastically widened. The regime, which assumed power in the name of the dispossessed, is increasingly losing its popularity among the most dispossessed Iranians, and public unrest and dissatisfaction are on the rise. The Islamists' moral crusades have also nm out of steam as people increasingly and openly express their disapproval through any means they can. The Islamification policies, primarily targeting women and youth, have produced the opposite of the intended result. Not only has the regime been unable to push women back into the home and reestablish the gender order of bygone days, but its policies have produced an unprecedented increase in gender-awareness and resistance by women. Likewise, the authority of the Islamic rulers faces a formidable challenge from Iranian youth, now over 65 percent of the population. Born and raised under Islamic rule, the youth in Iran have turned their backs on the political and moral regime established by the clerics. "Youth distancing themselves from the revolution and faith" has been a recurring concern of the Islamists.( n1) Political suppression, particularly the series of assassinations of prominent intellectuals and nationalist leaders, which came to be known as chain assassinations, have severely discredited the regime. A disgruntled public, which has remembered the unfulfilled promises of the 1979 revolution, grasps every possible opportunity to show it despises what the Islamists stand for. Iranian voters have repeatedly expressed their discontent with the regime by voting against the fundamentalists' favorite candidates in parliamentary and presidential elections. Internationally, with the exception of the Hezbollah in Lebanon, the regime's early policy of "exporting the revolution" failed to link it to other Islamic movements. BACKGROUNDS TO THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN IRAN By Morteza Mohit March 2001 The elections for the Sixth Parliament (Majlis) in Iran in February 2000 were not only a shock for the ruling clergy, but also an eye-opening event for the U.S. mass media and its believers who have for years portrayed the Iranian people as a horde of uncivilized, bearded, religious fanatics who did not deserve, and could not comprehend, the Shah's modernization plan. Consequently, we saw a new twist in international reporting. The elections were reported as "the most democratic," and the young voters as dancing lovers of Internet Cafes, Baywatch, rap music and Pizza Hut. To get beyond this smoke screen, we should first ask the question: Was this election truly the most democratic? The short answer is that it was the least democratic election. To understand why this is so we have to take a look at the power structure of the Islamic Republic and the system's top-down decision-making process. At the top of the decision-making pyramid we have a Supreme Leader (Valli-e-Faghih) who is supposed to be the representative of God. Therefore, he practically and legally has the last word and the veto power on any important national or international decisions made by the government. He is not just the spiritual leader of the nation but also the ultimate political decision maker of the country. He controls the military, the police, radio and television and the judiciary system. Some of the most important commercial and industrial foundations are also directly or indirectly under his control. From bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 08:14:40 2009 From: bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com (Bhaskar Sunkara) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 10:14:40 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran In-Reply-To: <4A759B2A.6070301@panix.com> References: <4A759B2A.6070301@panix.com> Message-ID: " A glance across to the U.S. publication, the Monthly Review, might indicate that we are looking at the journal of New Maoist thought ? and that would be the Mao of the Great Leap Forward, rather than the Mao of the Cultural Revolution. The entire issue for July to August 2009 is devoted to agriculture, ?food sovereignty,? land reform and, or course, the relevance of climate change to all these matters. The May 2009 issue even has a favourable review of a book of Mao?s poetry. It seems that under John Bellamy Foster?s editorship (author of the fraudulent ?Marx and Ecology?) the Monthly Review is becoming entirely devoted to slightly left of liberal North American thought: climate change, anti-Zionism, anti-war. Anything, it seems, than engagement with the working class, the labour movement and the promotion of communist ideas." http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/review-of-the-left-press-julyaugust-2009/ From lnp3 at panix.com Sun Aug 2 08:27:10 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 10:27:10 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran In-Reply-To: References: <4A759B2A.6070301@panix.com> Message-ID: <4A75A23E.2080601@panix.com> Bhaskar Sunkara wrote: > " A glance across to the U.S. publication, the Monthly > Review, > might indicate that we are looking at the journal of New Maoist thought ? > and that would be the Mao of the Great Leap Forward, rather than the Mao of > the Cultural Revolution. The entire issue for July to August 2009 is devoted > to agriculture, ?food sovereignty,? land reform and, or course, the > relevance of climate change to all these matters. The May 2009 issue even > has a favourable review of a book of Mao?s poetry. It seems that under John > Bellamy Foster?s editorship (author of the fraudulent ?Marx and Ecology?) > the Monthly Review is becoming entirely devoted to slightly left of liberal > North American thought: climate change, anti-Zionism, anti-war. Anything, it > seems, than engagement with the working class, the labour movement and the > promotion of communist ideas." > http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/review-of-the-left-press-julyaugust-2009/ Fraudulent "Marx and Ecology"? Climate change versus "the promotion of communist ideas". What an idiot. From ecosocialism at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 08:31:22 2009 From: ecosocialism at gmail.com (Ian Angus) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 10:31:22 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] New Pamphlets at Reading from the Left Message-ID: <733b65360908020731g57ef7b67nea8c4a2ccdc64d2f@mail.gmail.com> READING FROM THE LEFT is a non-commercial project to promote socialist pamphlets and books. http://readingfromtheleft.com New additions to our Pamphlets section THE LABOUR ARISTOCRACY The Material Basis for Opportunism in the Labour Movement by Max Elbaum and Robert Seltzer CAN THE WORKING CLASS MAKE A SOCIALIST REVOLUTION? By Ernest Mandel and George Novack THE COLLAPSE OF 'COMMUNISM' IN THE USSR by Doug Lorimer ------- The most-downloaded files in our Books section are chapters are from: THE GLOBAL FIGHT FOR CLIMATE JUSTICE Anti-capitalist Responses to Global Warming and Environmental Destruction by Ian Angus EMBEDDED WITH ORGANIZED LABOR Journalistic Reflections on the Class War at Home by Steve Early THE ECOLOGICAL REVOLUTION Making Peace with the Planet by John Bellamy Foster These and many others are available online, as free downloads at http://ReadingfromtheLeft.com ------------ From lnp3 at panix.com Sun Aug 2 09:23:01 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 11:23:01 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Live blogging from Tehran show trial Message-ID: <4A75AF55.6010401@panix.com> http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/2009/08/im-live-blogging-from-tehran-general.html From dmozart1756 at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 09:33:51 2009 From: dmozart1756 at gmail.com (Dennis Brasky) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 11:33:51 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Gunman kills 2 in Tel Aviv gay social club In-Reply-To: <4A759362.20804@panix.com> References: <4A759362.20804@panix.com> Message-ID: <53a1ffe70908020833w1a60be9emce71de8cdef6dbef@mail.gmail.com> On 8/2/09, Louis Proyect wrote: > > August 2, 2009 > Police hunt Israel gay club shooter > By AP > > > .... Opposition leader Tzipi Livni expressed shock and sorrow from the > attack. > > "The difficult event should awaken society to rid itself from > prejudice," Livni said. "We must accept and recognize the right of every > person to live safely and with respect." Except if they are Palestinians. From tcod at hotmail.com Sun Aug 2 10:00:48 2009 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 16:00:48 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran In-Reply-To: <4A75A23E.2080601@panix.com> References: <4A759B2A.6070301@panix.com> <4A75A23E.2080601@panix.com> Message-ID: these comments are steeped in the type of right wing economist hostility and resentment to the radical movement that was endemic among certain trot sectarian grouplets in the 60s and 70s for whom the historic struggles of those times were of little import meriting, being merely exotic "sectoral" phenomena of the "petty bourgoisie" and "counter-culturalists". For an ostensible marxist analysis, this completely ingnores Lenin's exoriation of this parochial and abstentionist outlook. It seems that under John > > Bellamy Foster?s editorship (author of the fraudulent ?Marx and Ecology?) > > the Monthly Review is becoming entirely devoted to slightly left of liberal > > North American thought: climate change, anti-Zionism, anti-war. Anything, it > > seems, than engagement with the working class, the labour movement and the > > promotion of communist ideas." > > http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/review-of-the-left-press-julyaugust-2009/ > > Fraudulent "Marx and Ecology"? Climate change versus "the promotion of > communist ideas". What an idiot. > > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tcod%40hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=PID23384::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:NF_BR_sync:082009 From lnp3 at panix.com Sun Aug 2 10:04:22 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:04:22 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Army spied on antiwar movement Message-ID: <4A75B906.1060101@panix.com> NY Times, August 2, 2009 Army Looking Into Monitoring of Protest Groups By WILLIAM YARDLEY SEATTLE ? The Army says it has opened an inquiry into a claim that one of its employees spent more than two years infiltrating antiwar groups active near one of the nation?s largest military bases. The groups say the employee infiltrated their activities under an assumed name and gained access to their plans as well as names and e-mail addresses of some members. The man, John J. Towery, a civilian employee at Fort Lewis, south of Tacoma, Wash., works as a criminal intelligence analyst for the post?s Force Protection Division, say officials at Fort Lewis, the nation?s third largest Army post. The Army would not disclose the nature of the investigation or address the claim that Mr. Towery had shared information about civilians. It said Mr. Towery was not available for an interview. ?Mr. John Towery performs sensitive work within the installation law enforcement community, and it would not be appropriate for him to discuss his duties with the media,? the Army said in written statement. ?Fort Lewis is aware of the claim with regard to Mr. Towery. To ensure all regulatory guidelines were followed, the command has decided that an inquiry is prudent, and an officer is being appointed to conduct the inquiry.? Brendan Maslauskas Dunn said he met Mr. Towery in spring 2007, when Mr. Maslauskas Dunn became involved with Port Militarization Resistance, a group that has frequently tried to disrupt military shipments in Olympia, Tacoma and other ports nearby. Mr. Maslauskas Dunn, who was also active in at least one other group, Students for a Democratic Society, said Mr. Towery had identified himself as John Jacob, using his middle name as his last. He said he worked as a civilian at Fort Lewis doing computer support, Mr. Maslauskas Dunn said. Mr. Towery, he said, frequently attended protests but had not been among those who agreed in advance that they would be willing to be arrested. He said Mr. Towery had often worked as a ?watcher? who tracked law enforcement at the protests. At one point early on, Mr. Maslauskas Dunn said, Mr. Towery brought at least one of his children to an event. He said Mr. Towery often spent time at a meeting place for anarchists in Tacoma. Mr. Maslauskas Dunn and another member of the group, Drew Hendricks, said that Mr. Towery had been among a handful of people who ran e-mail lists for some of the groups and that this had given him access to names and e-mail addresses. Mr. Maslauskas Dunn said Mr. Towery would sometimes call group members while he was at work at Fort Lewis and provide information about the movements of some units and equipment. ?A lot of information he did give us was easily accessible online,? Mr. Maslauskas Dunn said. ?You just had to do a little research.? Mr. Hendricks said he and other group members did not accept classified information if it was offered by people in the military. Mr. Hendricks, who said he lived in Olympia and repaired printers for a living, said Mr. Towery had drawn his suspicion more than once in the past, including after he posted inaccurate information about a military movement on an activist Web site. Yet he and Mr. Maslauskas Dunn, who said he worked as a janitor at a lumber mill in Shelton, Wash., said Mr. Towery?s identity was inadvertently discovered after a public records request made with the City of Olympia. The request yielded an e-mail message Mr. Towery had sent to another person with a military address relating to the protesters? activities. That led Mr. Hendricks and other group members to try to determine who Mr. Towery was. After they learned it was the man they had known as Mr. Jacob, they discussed it at City Council meeting in Olympia last week and posted the information on a Web site. Mr. Maslauskas Dunn said that in a meeting last week, Mr. Towery told him and another group member that he was not reporting information to Fort Lewis and that he genuinely wanted to join ?the peace movement? but was under pressure to share some information about protesters with local law enforcement authorities. ?What he said is that the world isn?t just in black and white, that there are areas of gray and that it?s in those areas of gray that he lives his life,? Mr. Maslauskas Dunn said. He said Mr. Towery told them that the Army had reassigned him, at least temporarily, and that he was being investigated ?for espionage.? Mr. Maslauskas Dunn and Mr. Hendricks said they were skeptical of suggestions that Mr. Towery might have infiltrated the group purely on his own, as a so-called renegade without Army approval. Stephen Dycus, a professor at Vermont Law School who focuses on national security issues, said the Army was prohibited from conducting law enforcement among civilians except in very rare circumstances, none of which immediately appeared to be relevant to the Fort Lewis case. Mr. Dycus said several statutes and rules also prohibited the Army from conducting covert surveillance of civilian groups for intelligence purposes. ?Infiltration is a really big deal,? he said. He said it ?raises fundamental questions about the role of the military in American society.? Catherine Caruso, a spokeswoman for Fort Lewis, said in a written statement that ?the Fort Lewis Force Protection Division, under the Directorate of Emergency Services, consists of both military and civilian employees whose focus is on supporting law enforcement and security operations to ensure the safety and security of Fort Lewis, soldiers, family members, the work force and those personnel accessing the installation.? From farmelantj at juno.com Sun Aug 2 10:19:44 2009 From: farmelantj at juno.com (Jim Farmelant) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 12:19:44 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran Message-ID: <20090802.121945.5564.0.farmelantj@juno.com> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 09:56:58 -0400 Louis Proyect writes: > > > I agree with the last sentence, namely that John Bellamy Foster and > John > Mage agree with this crap but I do not agree that this was the > editorial > position of the magazine in the past. I have access to the MR > archives > going back to 1993 and a search on "Iran" revealed 3 articles > basically > with the same viewpoint. They could not be more sharply opposed to > the > current line. > > 'Muslim' women and 'Western' feminists: the debate on particulars The following 2004 post from Ken McLeod's "The Early Days of Better Nation" blog while not all addressing Iran, I think does address the reasons that underly Yoshie's stance concerning the current Iranian regime and why she supports it. Yoshie's position, whether one agrees with it or not, does have much precedent behind it within the Marxist-Leninist tradition. http://kenmacleod.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_kenmacleod_archive.html Empires and the Modern Prince The delegates brandish their weapons. (Note, possibly apocryphal, from the record of the Baku Congress of the Peoples of the East) Norman Geras wonders about the socialist or Marxist antiwar left: [...] a very large segment of the political constituency I'm talking about not only opposed the Iraq war, but also opposed the intervention in Afghanistan before that, and in Kosovo before that, and so on back to the first Gulf War that evicted Saddam's armies from Kuwait. [...] America, as foremost representative of global capitalism, on one side, and (speaking loosely) regimes and movements of an utterly ghastly kind politically, on the other - those are two common poles throughout. [...] Why does this particular thematic combination lead so many to come down each time on the side they do - morally and politically, in my own view, the wrong side? I'm sure the question is rhetorical, but if he does find it something of a puzzle, I'm surprised at his surprise. Most of the groups he refers to hark back to Lenin, and whether they do so via Trotsky or via Stalin, one of their most basic positions is that in any conflict between an advanced capitalist country (an imperialist country, as Lenin would have it) and a backward country (a colonial, semi-colonial, or dependent country, as Lenin would have it) they will back the backward country regardless of the nature of its regime. This position is a consequence of Lenin's theory of imperialism. If imperialism is what that theory says it is - a monstrous octopus choking more than half the life out of more than half the world - then (almost) anything that weakens it is in the interests of the working class and of progress, (almost) regardless of how reactionary or anti-working-class imperialism's opponent may be. This was, ironically, why some on the British left supported the Afghan mujahedin - they regarded the Soviet Union as an imperialist power, and the muj as a national liberation movement. Beyond that they had few illusions about the muj. If you can - 'critically', of course - support the muj against the Russians, why not the Taliban (and some of the very same muj) against the Americans and their allies? The fact is that most of the nationalist and anti-imperialist regimes or movements that most of the Marxist left has supported, or sided with, or at least not sided against, over the years have been denounced at the time as utterly ghastly politically: the 'murderous' Mau Mau, the 'fascist' EOKA, the 'Stalinist' NLF, the 'terrorist' ZANU, the 'Soviet-backed' MPLA, and so on and on and on. Even movements like the ANC that had a lot of liberal support used terrorist, or other terrible, tactics. Remember the Pretoria police station bombing? The tyres and the petrol? The Algerian FLN's cafe bombings in Battle of Algiers? The same goes for regimes and dictators. Few today would defend the Suez adventure, but at the time it was presented as a war of defence against Nasser, 'the new Hitler'. The Falklands War was supported by most of the Labour Party as an anti-fascist war of liberation, but the Marxist left almost in its entirety opposed it and, likewise almost in its entirety, sided with Argentina despite being accused of 'backing a fascist junta'. I'm not concerned here with whether the support was correct or not. My point is that the position taken today by the Communist Party and the Trotskyists is for them nothing new. The precedents go back to the 1920s, if not before. The internationalists in the Second International supported the racist and religious Boers against the Brits, as did some liberals. Lenin's Soviet Russia had cordial relations, as a state, with the anti-communist regime of Kemal, and with the Emir of Afghanistan. It also began to play off German imperialism against the other imperialisms, at Rapallo. Under Lenin's successors the list, as is known, lengthened considerably. This seems cynical, but it's exactly the same approach as that of traditional diplomacy and foreign policy, recently exemplified by the Western ruling classes in the Cold War. They regarded Communism in much the same way as the Leninists regarded imperialism, and backed (almost) any regime or movement that weakened it (almost) regardless of how unpleasant that regime or movement might otherwise be. When a Vietnamese invasion overthrew the Khmer Rouge, did the US or UK governments waste a moment in weighing the morality of the intervention? They did not. They set about supporting the remnants of the Khmer Rouge, diplomatically and militarily, against Vietnam. The same considerations apply to the War on Terrorism. If Wherethefucksthatistan is boiling its Islamists alive, bully for Wherethefucksthatistan, and warm handshakes and handouts for His Excellency Whatevereyev, President for Life of Wherethefucksthatistan, a man we can do business with and our son of a bitch. The great scandal of Lenin was that he taught realpolitik to the lower classes and backward peoples. If the working class was ever to become a ruling class it had better start thinking like one, and for a ruling class there are no rules. There is only the struggle to get and keep power. This is not to say that the Leninists and the imperialists are without moral feelings. Individually they are for the most part perfectly normal. Their compassion for their enemies' victims is absolutely genuine. So is their outrage at their enemies' moral failings and blind spots. In the 1980s I found it very difficult to regard supporters of the Chinese Communists' consistently anti-Soviet international policies as anything but scoundrels and scabs; but they were merely applying the same criteria as I was, to a different analysis of the world; and their indignation at my callous calculations and selective sympathies was just as real. I had the same sort of arguments with Trotskyists who supported the muj. 'How can you ...?' 'How can you ...?' Morality has very little to do with choosing sides. It can tell us that a given act is dreadful, but it can't tell us whether to say, 'This is dreadful, therefore ...' or 'This is dreadful, but ...' We still often believe that we oppose our enemies because of their crimes, and support our allies despite their crimes. I wouldn't be surprised if Margaret Thatcher was quite sincere in condemning ZAPU as a terrorist organization because it shot down a civilian airliner, and in supporting one of the mujahedin factions, despite the fact that it had deliberately blown up a civilian airliner. Sometimes our moral justifications can blunt our moral sense. Think of the incendiary bombings of Germany and Japan. Suppose they were a military necessity. If so, better to accept that what 'our side' is doing is wrong and do it anyway than to persuade ourselves it is right because it is in a just cause. (The writings of a great amoralist - a de Sade, a Stirner, a Nietzsche - can inspire a handful of murders in two centuries. Over the same period, the writings of a great moral philosopher - an Aquinas, a Kant, a Bentham, a Mill - can justify, if not indeed incite, the deaths of millions in just wars and just revolutions. Morality is an immensely dangerous and destructive force, which must be restrained by the strongest human passions and sympathies if it is not to break all the bonds of society.) Morality is real. Morality is ideology. It is the heat given off by the workings of quite different machinery. In measuring the heat while ignoring the mechanism - in making a moral case for or against a particular war, for example - the moral philosopher reasons 'consciously indeed, but with a false consciousness'. The screams of those caught in the machinery continue unabated. They cry to heaven. It is only in what Locke called the 'appeal to heaven' - the clash of arms - that anyone (apart from, of course, 'pacifists, Quakers and other bourgeois fools' as someone said, who indulge in 'pacifist-Quaker-vegetarian prattle about the sanctity of human life', as someone else said) sees a hope that some day the machinery can be made to stop, and the screams to cease. That hope itself is the machines' fuel. ____________________________________________________________ Easy-to-use, advanced features, flexible phone systems. Click here for more info. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTQZaoSWDIwtmGUVoimLzaGEkhcKgHo4nvGcgWlPdmn6plJsbamz4U/ From lnp3 at panix.com Sun Aug 2 10:40:29 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:40:29 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran In-Reply-To: <20090802.121945.5564.0.farmelantj@juno.com> References: <20090802.121945.5564.0.farmelantj@juno.com> Message-ID: <4A75C17D.2070802@panix.com> Ken McLeod: "Most of the groups he refers to hark back to Lenin, and whether they do so via Trotsky or via Stalin, one of their most basic positions is that in any conflict between an advanced capitalist country (an imperialist country, as Lenin would have it) and a backward country (a colonial, semi-colonial, or dependent country, as Lenin would have it) they will back the backward country regardless of the nature of its regime." This is a common confusion among some Marxists strongly influenced by a misreading of Trotsky's article on the Vargas dictatorship in Brazil. Trotsky supported "fascist" Brazil against "democratic" Brazil in a conflict between the two nations but opposed the Vargas dictatorship in the same way that MR used to oppose the IRI. Here's Trotsky: "In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally?in this case I will be on the side of ?fascist? Brazil against ?democratic? Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship." full: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm So Trotsky says that there is a semifascist regime that revolutionaries should hate and that if it is victorious in a war with Britain, it will lead to the downfall of the Brazilian government. This obviously has nothing to do with the abject propagandizing for Ahmadinejad found on MRZine. From sartesian at earthlink.net Sun Aug 2 10:43:13 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 12:43:13 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran References: <20090802.121945.5564.0.farmelantj@juno.com> Message-ID: First, the "reasoning" or what passes for reasoning in the essay has little to do with Iran UNLESS you regard EVERY manifestation of resistance to the clerical-capitalist state the direct tool of imperialist penetration. And that is obviously what Yoshie and MR, and the govt. of Iran would like everyone to believe. So that "claim," that assumption has to be evaluated on its own, and not as part of this gobbledy-gook about imperialism and anti-imperialism Second, Much precedent? Sure as long as we recall what the results of that precedent have been, and those results are the current situation of the modern world; the decay and collapse of the USSR, the capitalist road of China, Vietnam, the maintenance of poverty in Angola, Nigeria, Kenya... yeah that's one hell of a precedent. I would think it's way past time to submit that precedent to some critical, Marxist evaluation, and recognize that anti-imperialism does not mean, require, entail endorsement of any "anti-imperialist" government, any policy of any "small capitalist" government, or opposition to every manifestation of resistance to those governments. The way this discussion is shaping up the old council communist, "ultra," argument that the only effective opposition to imperialism requires class revolutionary opposition inside the "small capitalist" governments to those governments has a lot more validity than the "validity" of the precedent for defeat. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Farmelant" To: Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 12:19 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran From lnp3 at panix.com Sun Aug 2 10:49:01 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:49:01 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Political/religious contradictions in Pakistan Message-ID: <4A75C37D.2060308@panix.com> NY Times, August 2, 2009 Where the Mullahs Are the Upper Crust By SABRINA TAVERNISE LAHORE, Pakistan THE turmoil in the Swat Valley has raised a chilling prospect for Pakistan ? that the Taliban?s Islamic takeover in the once-peaceful area was turning into a social revolution, with mullahs leading peasants in the seizure of property from rich landlords who had fled in fear of their lives. The most worrisome question has been whether the revolution would spread from Swat to the much more populous and strategic province next door, Punjab. In the logic of revolutions, one might expect it to. This is, after all, a country where more than half the population lives in desperate poverty in the countryside, and the rich live in walled estates, blissfully untouched by ordinary peoples? problems. But Pakistan is more complicated than that. Its politics and economics are far more local than national; regional, ethnic and cultural differences are very deep. The mullahs of Swat may be calling for the downtrodden masses to unite, but here in Punjab, religious leaders are still firmly tied to the upper crust. Pakistan encompasses four provinces ? Baluchistan, Sindh, Punjab and the North-West Frontier Province (which includes the Swat Valley) ? each with its own languages and culture. The western mountains are tribal and so remote that in some areas, Pakistan?s Constitution does not even apply. It is from those badlands that the Taliban swept outward to neighboring Swat, itself a multi-ethnic patchwork. Baluchistan, another border area, has its own struggle for national autonomy. Sindh is mostly agrarian, with Karachi, an economic hub, at its southern tip. Punjab, the fourth and most strategic province, is the country?s heart ? home to the powerful military as well as much of Pakistan?s governing class; social upheaval here would drag the whole country with it. In my travels in this province, none of the mullahs were talking about revolution. In fact, the social justice discussions that have driven political movements in the wider Islamic world ? Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Sadr Army of Iraq?s Moktada al-Sadr, for example ? were notably absent. Instead, I have found a surprisingly comfortable coexistence between the mullahs, the landlords and the political elite (the latter two are often one and the same). Even the harder-line preachers, among the sternly traditional Muslims known as Deobandis, have stuck to a bland, nonconfrontational line. One leader of a Deobandi seminary in Kabirwala, a town in southern Punjab, told me that the land was distributed as God had intended, and that the only problem with the landlords was that some were insufficiently Islamic, though now that was improving. History explains much of the feudal outlook of the clerics in Punjab. They tend not to oppose the establishment in part because the state itself made them powerful. In the 1980s, the military dictator Zia ul-Haq gave land and money to Deobandis, a policy the United States supported because it needed both Mr. Zia and fervent jihadists in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Mr. Zia also crushed social ferment throughout Pakistan, and the debate on class and social justice that went with it, stifling political growth. To this day, Pakistan retains a colonial-style system of patronage: I-will-vote-for you-because-you-are-important-and-I-think-you-might-be-able-to-help-me-in-my-time-of-need. At the same time, the Zia government elevated the mullahs, once unimportant men seen mostly at weddings and funerals. They became powerful players with their own political space ? a kind of middleman between state and populace, not breaking their ties to the elite that had empowered them. ?The mullahs were one of the state?s major allies,? said Aasim Sajjad, a political economy professor at Lahore University of Management Sciences who is part of a small leftist political movement in Pakistan. He argues that in Punjab, the conditions for a revolution simply are not present, in part because the mullahs are still comfortable in their ties with the state. ?I don?t see them being interested in radical social change that really attacks the existing structures of power in the society,? he said. This is not to say that all are nonviolent, just that their violence does not challenge the state or the social order. The leader of Sipah-e-Sohaba, an ultra-orthodox Sunni political party, whose military wing believes Shiites to be apostates and has been killing them since the 1990s, was allowed to contest an election from a prison cell in 2002. (He won.) Another militant group, Jesh Muhammed, which supports Pakistani claims to Kashmir, operates unhindered in the city of Bahawalpur. And Hafez Saeed, a cleric whose associates are believed to have carried out the attack on Mumbai, India, last year, gives weekly sermons here in Lahore. There have been acts of terrorism in Punjab, particularly after the government attacked a mosque tied to jihadists in Islamabad in July 2007. Militants here began to attack the state and the police. And though they have joined forces with the Taliban, they remain the minority and have so far not enlisted the same amount of popular support as the Taliban has in the western tribal areas. Even in Swat, the Taliban?s takeover didn?t happen overnight. At first, some landlords lent tacit (if worried) support, donating food and money to the seminary where Fazlullah, the main Taliban leader, began his political movement. The government itself made peace deals with the Taliban. Only later did conditions worsen, with militants seizing ever more power, and eventually overrunning the landlords. The military has since fought to eject them, but it is not clear how effectively. Mr. Sajjad, the Lahore University professor, argues, as well, that the Swat takeover was more a spontaneous eruption than a product of organized strategy, certainly different from the way Lenin led the Bolsheviks in 1917. ?This was not a well-thought-out clear visionary movement,? he said. ?It?s a situation that spiraled out of control in part because the state let it.? And in any case, it was the small Swat Valley, not the strategic heartland of Pakistan. Few people here believe that the military, which calls Punjab its home, would let the province succumb to a militant takeover. Still, this is Pakistan, whose society is in flux, and whose government often seems mostly absent. ?This place is ripe for extraordinary situations,? Mr. Sajjad said. From sartesian at earthlink.net Sun Aug 2 10:53:28 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 12:53:28 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran References: <20090802.121945.5564.0.farmelantj@juno.com> <4A75C17D.2070802@panix.com> Message-ID: Louis serves us all well by including the text of Trotsky's analysis of Brazil and the UK. I'd like to take this a bit further, and quote from Womack's book on Zapata, about Zapata's response when the US landed troops at Veracruz and Huerta proposed alliances with the revolutionaries to combat the US invader: "In Morelos Huerista emissaries quickly made their way to the camps of the leading chiefs. On April 24 federal officers invited de la O to surrender to the government and help fight the Americans.... To Mendoza's camp came a similar proposal.... But no Zapatista chief accepted the envoy's offers. On his own de la O even arrested the Mirandas [Huerta's emissaries] as traitors and sent them to headquarters for trial. Mendoza did the same with Morales... The Veracruz affair made his "blood boil," Zapata declared, but he would not consider union with Huerta. If the Americans did invade, he said, he would defend the Republic-- but independently, as chief of the Ayala revoluton, and in no connection with the federal forces." Viva Zapata! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis Proyect" To: Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 12:40 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran This is a common confusion among some Marxists strongly influenced by a misreading of Trotsky's article on the Vargas dictatorship in Brazil. Trotsky supported "fascist" Brazil against "democratic" Brazil in a conflict between the two nations but opposed the Vargas dictatorship in the same way that MR used to oppose the IRI. Here's Trotsky: "In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally?in this case I will be on the side of ?fascist? Brazil against ?democratic? Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship." From rfidler_8 at sympatico.ca Sun Aug 2 10:55:27 2009 From: rfidler_8 at sympatico.ca (Richard Fidler) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 12:55:27 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran In-Reply-To: <4A75C17D.2070802@panix.com> References: <20090802.121945.5564.0.farmelantj@juno.com> <4A75C17D.2070802@panix.com> Message-ID: Louis: "So Trotsky says that there is a semifascist regime that revolutionaries should hate and that if it is victorious in a war with Britain, it will lead to the downfall of the Brazilian government. "This obviously has nothing to do with the abject propagandizing for Ahmadinejad found on MRZine." Well, never mind the loaded reference to "abject propagandizing", the analogy with the Vargas regime in Brazil seems quite apt to me. While I lack Trotsky's certainty, it seems quite possible to me that if Iran were victorious in a military conflict with the United States it could "give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and ... lead to the overthrow of" the clerical regime. That is by no means excluded. The difference between Trotsky's position in 1938 and Louis's position in 2009 is fundamentally that it is easier to identify with a proposition made 70 years ago. But much more demanding -- and embarrassing in some circles -- to defend a reactionary semicolonial regime against imperialism in the here and now. That takes real backbone. Richard -----Original Message----- From: marxism-bounces+rfidler_8=sympatico.ca at lists.econ.utah.edu [mailto:marxism-bounces+rfidler_8=sympatico.ca at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Louis Proyect Sent: August 2, 2009 12:40 PM To: rfidler_8 at sympatico.ca Subject: Re: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran Ken McLeod: "Most of the groups he refers to hark back to Lenin, and whether they do so via Trotsky or via Stalin, one of their most basic positions is that in any conflict between an advanced capitalist country (an imperialist country, as Lenin would have it) and a backward country (a colonial, semi-colonial, or dependent country, as Lenin would have it) they will back the backward country regardless of the nature of its regime." This is a common confusion among some Marxists strongly influenced by a misreading of Trotsky's article on the Vargas dictatorship in Brazil. Trotsky supported "fascist" Brazil against "democratic" Brazil in a conflict between the two nations but opposed the Vargas dictatorship in the same way that MR used to oppose the IRI. Here's Trotsky: "In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally-in this case I will be on the side of "fascist" Brazil against "democratic" Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship." full: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm So Trotsky says that there is a semifascist regime that revolutionaries should hate and that if it is victorious in a war with Britain, it will lead to the downfall of the Brazilian government. This obviously has nothing to do with the abject propagandizing for Ahmadinejad found on MRZine. ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/rfidler_8%40sympati co.ca From lnp3 at panix.com Sun Aug 2 11:05:00 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:05:00 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran In-Reply-To: References: <20090802.121945.5564.0.farmelantj@juno.com> <4A75C17D.2070802@panix.com> Message-ID: <4A75C73C.8030201@panix.com> Richard Fidler wrote: > > The difference between Trotsky's position in 1938 and Louis's position > in 2009 is fundamentally that it is easier to identify with a > proposition made 70 years ago. But much more demanding -- and > embarrassing in some circles -- to defend a reactionary semicolonial > regime against imperialism in the here and now. That takes real > backbone. I think it can be done without making an ass out of yourself. Here is what I wrote about Ahmadinejad's visit to my employer: When Bollinger told Ahmadinejad that he exhibited ?all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator,? the Iranian president might have wondered whether great and cruel dictators are judged by a different yardstick at the university. After all, the Shah of Iran was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws degree only two years after the CIA organized a coup to overthrow Mossadegh. By any measure, the Shah was one of the most horrible dictators of the post-WWII period. One supposes that as long as he was on the State Department?s A list, Columbia University would be happy to put down the red carpet for the torturing beast. full: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/09/25/columbia-university-and-evil-dictators/ From lnp3 at panix.com Sun Aug 2 11:21:39 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:21:39 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Walmart and Christian fundamentalism Message-ID: <4A75CB23.9090601@panix.com> NY Times Book Review, August 2, 2009 Nickel and Dimed By ROBERT FRANK TO SERVE GOD AND WAL-MART The Making of Christian Free Enterprise By Bethany Moreton Illustrated. 372 pp. Harvard University Press. $27.95 THE RETAIL REVOLUTION How Wal-Mart Created a Brave New World of Business By Nelson Lichtenstein 311 pp. Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt & Company. $25 Wal-Mart?s founder, the Arkansas entrepreneur Sam Walton, was in many ways a classic illustration of Adam Smith?s invisible hand in action. Seemingly from out of nowhere, his discount chain, propelled by ruthless cost-cutting, became the largest private company in the world. And without question, Walton?s quest for profit made cheaper products available to hundreds of millions of consumers. It?s no surprise, then, that Walton and his successors at Wal-Mart have been among the nation?s most uncritically enthusiastic boosters of the invisible hand. Thus, as the University of Georgia historian Bethany Moreton notes in ?To Serve God and Wal-Mart,? the company and the Walton Family Foundation have given tens of millions of dollars to conservative research groups like the Heritage Foundation to support educational outreach programs that tout the virtues of unfettered free markets. But lower prices and more efficient distribution methods have not been the only consequences of Wal-Mart?s explosive growth. Indeed, much of what we learn from Moreton?s book, as well as from Nelson Lichtenstein?s ?Retail Revolution,? raises serious doubts about whether the corporation?s influence has been positive on balance. But in the process of describing the downside of Wal-Mart, both authors offer penetrating insights into why the chain has been so phenomenally ?successful. It is no mystery that consumers show up in record numbers when a retailer offers significantly lower prices. More puzzling, however, is how the notoriously stingy Wal-Mart has managed to attract so many dedicated workers. Anyone who has read Barbara Ehrenreich?s description of her experiences as a Wal-Mart clerk in ?Nickel and Dimed? or Steven Greenhouse?s chronicle of Wal-Mart?s widespread flouting of safety and hours regulations in ?The Big Squeeze? might well wonder why anyone would even consider a job with the company. Yet as Wal-Mart spokesmen never tire of pointing out, the chain routinely receives scores of applications for every opening it posts. Moreton offers a gracefully written and meticulously researched account of why people not only have been willing to work for the company, but often have also developed fierce loyalty to it. It is no accident, she argues, that Wal-Mart emerged in the Ozarks, a stronghold of fundamentalist Christianity that was one of the last regions of the American economy to shift from farming to other pursuits. Many farm women actually preferred the part-time jobs with flexible hours that Wal-Mart offered, even though such jobs were exempt from many regulations. Many of these women, after all, were still trying to help their husbands eke out a living on their farms, and flexible work made it easier for them to care for their children. Economists have long recognized the attractions of flexible working arrangements to some segments of the labor force. But Moreton also offers more novel observations about the lure of Wal-Mart. She explains, for example, how the company invoked the fundamentalist Christian teachings embraced by many of its employees to fashion a working environment that induced them to work contentedly for low wages and paltry benefits. Sam Walton was not a fundamentalist Christian. He and his wife, Helen, worshipped at a liberal branch of the Presbyterian Church, and Mrs. Walton was even an early abortion rights advocate. But Moreton argues that Walton and his fellow executives quickly recognized the economic advantage of weaving specific strands of the Ozark region?s fundamentalist belief system into their corporate strategy. At the heart of that strategy was the company?s emphasis on the Christian concept of ?servant leadership.? In other parts of the retail sector, the servitude demanded of retail clerks was typically experienced as demeaning. But by repeatedly reminding employees that the Christian servant leader cherishes opportunities to provide cheerful service to others, Moreton argues, Wal-Mart transformed servitude from a negative job characteristic into a positive one. Another cultural strand in Moreton?s account is the company?s policy of reproducing the social relationships characteristic of fundamentalist Christian households in the workplace. To this end, Wal-Mart needed a legal pretext for hiring mostly men as managers and mostly women as clerks. The solution was to move managers to new store locations frequently, a condition of employment that men would generally accept but most women would not. But even though the managerial jobs paid better and offered more opportunities for promotion, there was still a problem for male employees. The highly regimented, rule-driven jobs at Wal-Mart were a pale substitute for the independent farmer?s role from which the company?s Ozark male managers had recently been driven. Rather than cede greater control to managers, Moreton argues, the company salved the egos of the men by celebrating a patriarchal ideal of ?Christian manliness.? The women, for their part, were only too happy to adopt the prescribed submissive role. While Moreton?s book answers important questions about why workers have been willing to accept Wal-Mart?s austere compensation package, Lichtenstein?s sheds valuable light on the technological reasons for the company?s success. His detailed account of the company?s early prowess in exploiting bar-code scanning and satellite technology helps explain how Wal-Mart revolutionized the way distribution channels are organized. ichtenstein, a professor of history at the University of California, Santa Barbara, also provides a detailed look at the dark side of the company?s employment practices. From its ruthless efforts at union-busting to its determination to overcome basic safety and hours regulation to its widespread employment of sweatshop subcontractors in China, Wal-Mart has consistently maintained that no one has the right to limit the corporation?s freedom to act as it pleases. The recent market meltdown, however, has led to increased skepticism about the efficacy of Adam Smith?s invisible hand. And the more we learn, the clearer it becomes that market outcomes are often far from perfect. Smith?s theories are especially likely to break down when the goals people are trying to achieve depend, in varying degrees, on the amounts they spend relative to others. Most parents, for example, want to send their children to a good school, but a good school is a relative concept. Only half of all schools at any moment can be in the top half. Because there is a strong link between house prices in a neighborhood and the quality of its schools, people cannot send their children to good schools if they spend less than others on housing. Families thus feel pressure to take whatever steps they can to buy a house in a good school district. One option is to work longer hours. Another is to accept a job that entails greater safety risks. But if everyone works longer hours or accepts greater risks to buy houses in the better school districts, the only effect is to bid up the prices of those houses. As in the familiar sports stadium metaphor, all stand to get a better view simply to discover that no one ends up seeing any better. That?s why we have labor regulations. And as Lichtenstein argues, Wal-Mart may have done more than any other American institution to undermine those regulations. Sam Walton and his successors were no doubt driven by a sincere belief in the magic of the invisible hand. But their sincerity has done nothing to mitigate the damage they?ve caused. Robert Frank, an economist at Cornell University and a visiting professor at New York University?s Stern School of Business, is the author of ?The Economic Naturalist?s Field Guide.? From poeticaleconomy at yahoo.com Sun Aug 2 11:42:27 2009 From: poeticaleconomy at yahoo.com (Max Clark) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 10:42:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Marxism] International Economic Trends Message-ID: <322347.43782.qm@web45016.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Thanks for sharing. A number questions: 1. Is there a standard Marxist interpretation of "protectionism"? Doesn't this word betray the state as an economic entity in its own right? The state as a giant "public-private" corporation-bank with an attendant armed force? Aren't citizens just "nano-stakeholders" (nano=really small)? Isn't that their deep infrastructural-modal identity? (Excuse the "jargon of authenticity" here but sometimes non-standard etymological usages can become a powerful resource in building up words which harbor more consciousness). I am poorly informed on these things. 2. Is there a standard Marxist interpretation of "balance of trade" issues? It would seem the state interrupts things in a territorial-geographical sense here as well. Such a spatial "dimension" to the thing would have to be well "accounted" (rimshot) for or "mapped out" (yawn). Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cumulative_Current_Account_Balance.png America's "current account balance" has probably gotten a litte better since the above was produced, according to S. Aretesian's (spelling?) statistics, but the simple polarity between the U.S. and China could not be more striking. What are the implications of this? Is there some sort of accounting for this in crisis theory? It seems a thing of great magnitude. Or perhaps it is just a nothing, a rather useless statistical relation? And what of igniting imperialist aggression? What?! Enough for now. The very best, Max Clark http://www.clarkmax.blogspot.com/ From nchamah at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 11:45:06 2009 From: nchamah at gmail.com (Nchamah Miller) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:45:06 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] An Unprecedented Network of Military Bases That is Still Expanding Message-ID: An Unprecedented Network of Military Bases That is Still Expanding http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23167.htm Obama's Empire By Catherine Lutz July 30, 2009 "New Statesman" -- In December 2008, shortly before being sworn in as the 44th president of the United States, Barack Obama pledged his belief that, "to ensure prosperity here at home and peace abroad", it was vital to maintain "the strongest military on the planet". Unveiling his national security team, including George Bush's defence secretary, Robert Gates, he said: "We also agree the strength of our military has to be combined with the wisdom and force of diplomacy, and that we are going to be committed to rebuilding and restrengthening alliances around the world to advance American interests and American security." Unfortunately, many of the Obama administration's diplomatic efforts are being directed towards maintaining and garnering new access for the US military across the globe. US military officials, through their Korean proxies, have completed the eviction of resistant rice farmers from their land around Camp Humphreys, South Korea, for its expansion (including a new 18-hole golf course); they are busily making back-room deals with officials in the Northern Mariana Islands to gain the use of the Pacific islands there for bombing and training purposes; and they are scrambling to express support for a regime in Kyrgyzstan that has been implicated in the murder of its political opponents but whose Manas Airbase, used to stage US military actions in Afghanistan since 2001, Obama and the Pentagon consider crucial for the expanded war there. The global reach of the US military today is unprecedented and unparalleled. Officially, more than 190,000 troops and 115,000 civilian employees are massed in approximately 900 military facilities in 46 countries and territories (the unofficial figure is far greater). The US military owns or rents 795,000 acres of land, with 26,000 buildings and structures, valued at $146bn (?89bn). The bases bristle with an inventory of weapons whose worth is measured in the trillions and whose killing power could wipe out all life on earth several times over. The official figures exclude the huge build-up of troops and structures in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade, as well as secret or unacknowledged facilities in Israel, Kuwait, the Philippines and many other places. In just three years of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, ?2bn was spent on military construction. A single facility in Iraq, Balad Airbase, houses 30,000 troops and 10,000 contractors, and extends across 16 square miles, with an additional 12 square mile "security perimeter". From the battle zones of Afghanistan and Iraq to quiet corners of Cura?ao, Korea and Britain, the US military domain consists of sprawling army bases, small listening posts, missile and artillery testing ranges and berthed aircraft carriers (moved to "trouble spots" around the world, each carrier is considered by the US navy as "four and a half acres of sovereign US territory"). While the bases are, literally speaking, barracks and weapons depots, staging areas for war-making and ship repairs, complete with golf courses and basketball courts, they are also political claims, spoils of war, arms sale showrooms and toxic industrial sites. In addition to the cultural imperialism and episodes of rape, murder, looting and land seizure that have always accompanied foreign armies, local communities are now subjected to the ear-splitting noise of jets on exercise, to the risk of helicopters and warplanes crashing into residential areas, and to exposure to the toxic materials that the military uses in its daily operations. The global expansion of US bases - and with it the rise of the US as a world superpower - is a legacy of the Second World War. In 1938, the US had 14 military bases outside its continental borders. Seven years later, it had 30,000 installations in roughly 100 countries. While this number was projected to shrink to 2,000 by 1948 (following pressure from other nations to return bases in their own territory or colonies, and pressure at home to demobilise the 12 million-man military), the US continued to pursue access rights to land and air space around the world. It established security alliances with multiple states within Europe (NATO), the Middle East and south Asia (CENTO) and south-east Asia (SEATO), as well as bilateral agreements with Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAS) were crafted in each country to specify what the military could do, and usually gave US soldiers broad immunity from prosecution for crimes committed and environmental damage caused. These agreements and subsequent base operations have mostly been shrouded in secrecy, helped by the National Security Act of 1947. New US bases were built in remarkable numbers in West Germany, Italy, Britain and Japan, with the defeated Axis powers hosting the most significant numbers (at one point, Japan was peppered with 3,800 US installations). As battles become bases, so bases become battles; the sites in east Asia acquired during the Spanish-American war in 1898 and during the Second World War - such as Guam, Thailand and the Philippines - became the primary bases from which the US waged war on Vietnam. The number of raids over north and south Vietnam required tons of bombs unloaded at the naval station in Guam. The morale of ground troops based in Vietnam, as fragile as it was to become through the latter part of the 1960s, depended on R&R (rest and recreation) at bases outside the country, which allowed them to leave the war zone and yet be shipped back quickly and inexpensively for further fighting. The war also depended on the heroin the CIA was able to ship in to the troops on the battlefield in Vietnam from its secret bases in Laos. By 1967, the number of US bases had returned to 1947 levels. Technological changes in warfare have had important effects on the configuration of US bases. Long-range missiles and the development of ships that can make much longer runs without resupply have altered the need for a line of bases to move forces forward into combat zones, as has the aerial refuelling of military jets. An arms airlift from the US to the British in the Middle East in 1941-42, for example, required a long hopscotch of bases, from Florida to Cuba, Puerto Rico, Barbados, Trinidad, British Guiana, north-east Brazil, Fernando de Noronha, Takoradi (now in Ghana), Lagos, Kano (now in Nigeria) and Khartoum, before finally making delivery in Egypt. In the early 1970s, US aircraft could make the same delivery with one stop in the Azores, and today can do so non-stop. On the other hand, the pouring of money into military R&D (the Pentagon has spent more than $85bn in 2009), and the corporate profits to be made in the development and deployment of the resulting technologies, have been significant factors in the ever larger numbers of technical facilities on foreign soil. These include such things as missile early-warning radar, signals intelligence, satellite control and space-tracking telescopes. The will to gain military control of space, as well as gather intelligence, has led to the establishment of numerous new military bases in violation of arms-control agreements such as the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. In Colombia and Peru, and in secret and mobile locations elsewhere in Latin America, radar stations are primarily used for anti-trafficking operations. Since 2000, with the election of George W Bush and the ascendancy to power of a group of men who believed in a more aggressive and unilateral use of military power (some of whom stood to profit handsomely from the increased military budget that would require), US imperial ambition has grown. Following the declaration of a war on terror and of the right to pre-emptive war, the number of countries into which the US inserted and based troops radically expanded. The Pentagon put into action a plan for a network of "deployment" or "forward operating" bases to increase the reach of current and future forces. The Pentagon-aligned, neoconservative think tank the Project for the New American Century stressed that "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of ?Saddam Hussein". The new bases are designed to operate not defensively against particular threats but as offensive, expeditionary platforms from which military capabilities can be projected quickly, anywhere. The Global Defence Posture Review of 2004 announced these changes, focusing not just on reorienting the footprint of US bases away from cold war locations, but on remaking legal arrangements that support expanded ?military activities with other allied countries and prepositioning equipment in those countries. As a recent army strategic document notes, "Military personnel can be transported to, and fall in on, prepositioned equipment significantly more quickly than the equivalent unit could be transported to the theatre, and prepositioning equipment overseas is generally less politically difficult than stationing US military personnel." Terms such as facility, outpost or station are used for smaller bases to suggest a less permanent presence. The US department of defence currently distinguishes between three types of military facility. "Main operating bases" are those with permanent personnel, strong infrastructure, and often family housing, such as Kadena Airbase in Japan and Ramstein Airbase in Germany. "Forward operating sites" are "expandable warm facilit[ies] maintained with a limited US military support presence and possibly prepositioned equipment", such as Incirlik Airbase in Turkey and Soto Cano Airbase in Honduras. Finally, "co-operative security locations" are sites with few or no permanent US personnel, maintained by contractors or the host nation for occasional use by the US military, and often referred to as "lily pads". These are cropping up around the world, especially throughout Africa, a recent example being in Dakar, Senegal. Moreover, these bases are the anchor - and merely the most visible aspect - of the US military's presence overseas. Every year, US forces train 100,000 soldiers in 180 countries, the presumption being that beefed-up local militaries will help to pursue US interests in local conflicts and save the US money, casualties and bad publicity when human rights abuses occur (the blowback effect of such activities has been made clear by the strength of the Taliban since 9/11). The US military presence also involves jungle, urban, desert, maritime and polar training exercises across wide swathes of landscape, which have become the pretext for substantial and permanent positioning of troops. In recent years, the US has run around 20 exercises annually on Philippine soil, which have resulted in a near-continuous presence of US soldiers in a country whose people ejected US bases in 1992 and whose constitution forbids foreign troops to be based on its territory. Finally, US personnel work every day to shape local legal codes to facilitate US access: they have lobbied, for example, to change the Philippine and Japanese constitutions to allow, respectively, foreign troop basing and a more-than-defensive military. Asked why the US has a vast network of military bases around the world, Pentagon officials give both utilitarian and humanitarian arguments. Utilitarian arguments include the claim that bases provide security for the US by deterring attack from hostile countries and preventing or remedying unrest or military challenges; that bases serve the national economic interests of the US, ensuring access to markets and commodities needed to maintain US standards of living; and that bases are symbolic markers of US power and credibility - and so the more the better. Humanitarian arguments present bases as altruistic gifts to other nations, helping to liberate or democratise them, or offering aid relief. None of these humanitarian arguments deals with the problem that many of the bases were taken during wartime and "given" to the US by another of the war's victors. Critics of US foreign policy have dissected and dismantled the arguments made for maintaining a global system of military basing. They have shown that the bases have often failed in their own terms: despite the Pentagon's claims that they provide security to the regions they occupy, most of the world's people feel anything but reassured by their presence. Instead of providing more safety for the US or its allies, they have ?often provoked attacks, and have made the communities around bases key targets of other nations' missiles. On the island of Belau in the Pacific, the site of sharp resistance to US attempts to instal a submarine base and jungle training centre, people describe their experience of military basing in the Second World War: "When soldiers come, war comes." On Guam, a joke among locals is that few people except for nuclear strategists in the Kremlin know where their island is. As for the argument that bases serve the national economic interest of the US, the weapons, personnel and fossil fuels involved cost billions of dollars, most coming from US taxpayers. While bases have clearly been concentrated in countries with key strategic resources, particularly along the routes of oil and gas pipelines in central Asia, the Middle East and, increasingly, Africa, from which one-quarter of US oil imports are expected by 2015, the profits have gone first of all to the corporations that build and service them, such as Halliburton. The myth that bases are an altruistic form of "foreign aid" for locals is exploded by the substantial costs involved for host economies and polities. The immediate negative effects include levels of pollution, noise, crime and lost productive land that cannot be offset by soldiers' local spending or employment of local people. Other putative gains tend to benefit only local elites and further militarise the host nations: elaborate bilateral negotiations swap weapons, cash and trade privileges for overflight and land-use rights. Less explicitly, rice imports, immigration rights to the US or overlooking human rights abuses have been the currency of exchange. The environmental, political, and economic impact of these bases is enormous. The social problems that accompany bases, including soldiers' violence against women and car crashes, have to be handled by local communities without compensation from the US. Some communities pay the highest price: their farmland taken for bases, their children neurologically damaged by military jet fuel in their water supplies, their neighbors imprisoned, tortured and disappeared by the autocratic regimes that survive on US military and political support given as a form of tacit rent for the bases. The US military has repeatedly interfered in the domestic affairs of nations in which it has or desires military access, operating to influence votes and undermine or change local laws that stand in the way. Social movements have proliferated around the world in response to the empire of US bases, ever since its inception. The attempt to take the Philippines from Spain in 1898 led to a drawn-out guerrilla war for independence that required 126,000 US occupation troops to stifle. Between 1947 and 1990, the US military was asked to leave France, Yugoslavia, Iran, Ethiopia, Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Algeria, Vietnam, Indonesia, Peru, Mexico and Venezuela. Popular and political objection to the bases in Spain, the Philippines, Greece and Turkey in the 1980s gave those governments the grounds to negotiate ?significantly more compensation from the US. Portugal threatened to evict the US from important bases in the Azores unless it ceased its support for independence for its African colonies. Since 1990, the US has been sent packing, most significantly, from the Philippines, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Vieques and Uzbekistan. Of its own accord, for varying reasons, it decided to leave countries from Ghana to Fiji. Persuading the US to clean up after itself - including, in Panama, more than 100,000 rounds of unexploded ordnance - is a further struggle. As in the case of the US navy's removal from Vieques in 2003, arguments about the environmental and health damage of the military's activities remain the centrepiece of resistance to bases. Many are also concerned by other countries' overseas bases - primarily European, Russian and Chinese - and by the activities of their own militaries, but the far greater number of US bases and their weaponry has understandably been the focus. The sense that US bases represent a major injustice to the host community and nation is very strong in countries where US bases have the longest standing and are most ubiquitous. In Okinawa, polls show that 70 to 80 per cent of the island's people want the bases, or at least the marines, to leave. In 1995, the abduction and rape of a 12-year-old Okinawan girl by two US marines and one US sailor led to demands for the removal of all US bases in Japan. One family in Okinawa has built a large peace museum right up against the edge of the Futenma Airbase, with a stairway to the roof that allows busloads of schoolchildren and other visitors to view the sprawling base after looking at art depicting the horrors of war. In Korea, the great majority of the population feels that a reduction in US presence would increase national security; in recent years, several violent deaths at the hands of US soldiers triggered vast candlelight vigils and protests across the country. And the original inhabitants of Diego Garcia, evicted from their homes between 1967 and 1973 by the British on behalf of the US for a naval base, have organised a concerted campaign for the right to return, bringing legal suit against the British government, a story told in David Vine's recent book Island of Shame. There is also resistance to the US expansion plans into new areas. In 2007, a number of African nations baulked at US attempts to secure access to sites for military bases. In eastern Europe, despite well-funded campaigns to convince Poles and Czechs of the value of US bases and much sentiment in favour of accepting them in pursuit of closer ties with Nato and the EU, and promised economic benefits, vigorous pro?tests have included hunger strikes and led the Czech government, in March, to reverse its plan to allow a US military radar base to be built in the country. The US has responded to action against bases with a renewed emphasis on "force protection", in some cases enforcing curfews on soldiers, and cutting back on events that bring local people on to base property. The department of defence has also engaged in the time-honoured practice of renaming: clusters of soldiers, buildings and equipment have become "defence staging posts" or "forward operating locations" rather than military bases. Regulating documents become "visiting forces agreements", not "status of forces agreements", or remain entirely secret. While major reorganisation of bases is under way for a host of reasons, including a desire to create a more mobile force with greater access to the Middle East, eastern Europe and central Asia, the motives also include an attempt to prevent political momentum of the sort that ended US use of the Vieques and Philippine bases. The attempt to gain permanent basing in Iraq foundered in 2008 on the objections of forces in both Iraq and the US. Obama, in his Cairo speech in June, may have insisted that "we pursue no bases" in either Iraq or Afghanistan, but there has been no sign of any significant dismantling of bases there, or of scaling back the US military presence in the rest of the world. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, recently visited Japan to ensure that it follows through on promises to provide the US with a new airfield on Okinawa and billions of dollars to build new housing and other facilities for 8,000 marines relocating to Guam. She ignored the invitation of island activists to come and see the damage left by previous decades of US base activities. The myriad land-grabs and hundreds of billions of dollars spent to quarter troops around the world persist far beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, and too far from the headlines. Catherine Lutz is a professor at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. ? 2009 The New Statesman From sabocat59 at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 11:55:36 2009 From: sabocat59 at gmail.com (Greg McDonald) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 13:55:36 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Honduras Coup is more bloody than bloodless Message-ID: <6e42edf00908021055p9da2c59o20f8c540ded95c1d@mail.gmail.com> http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/08/02/2009-08-02_honduras_coup_is_more_bloody_than_bloodless.html Albor Ruiz Honduras coup is more bloody than bloodless Sunday, August 2nd 2009, 4:00 AM "The de facto regime in my country has been condemned by the whole world," Celso Castro, a Honduran native and longtime resident of New Jersey told us Wednesday. Castro was referring to the June 28 military coup that kidnapped democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya at gunpoint, forcibly expelled him from his country and replaced him with Roberto Micheletti, who had tried and failed three times before to become president. "The 'golpistas' [the Spanish word for those who take part in a coup] suspended constitutional guarantees and gave themselves a license to violate human and civil rights," said Castro, a chemist. "My mother and my brother live in Honduras. It is very dangerous. Soldiers can come into your home at any time, day or night, and take you with no explanation." "I hope that the constitutional order is restored before more violence is perpetrated against the people." Unfortunately, Castro's wishes were not fulfilled. On Thursday, Roger Abrah?n Vallejo Soriano, a 38-year-old teacher, was shot in the head by the military. At press time he remained hospitalized fighting for his life in Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras. His crime:peacefully demonstrating against the illegitimate government. Honduras, one of the poorest countries in Latin America, is a nation where eight wealthy families control politics, business and the media. "The only thing we want is to live in a country that respects everybody's will, not only the will of the rich," Wendy Cruz, who was with Vallejo Soriano when he was shot, wrote in a harrowing e-mail. "The military were beating everybody and more than 80 people were arrested and taken to 'la Cuarta' police precinct," Cruz added. "There are many people wounded." So much for Micheletti's sanctimonious claims that there is no violence in Honduras. But Vallejo Soriano wasn't the first victim of "golpista" violence according to Dr. Luther Castillo, 33, director of the Luaga Hatuadi Waduhe?u Foundation, a group that brings vital health services to isolated indigenous coastal communities. He left Honduras eight days ago with five other community leaders to "educate the world about 'el golpe.'" "We have denounced many extrajudicial executions," said Castillo. According to Castillo, in addition to Isis Murillo, a teenager killed July 5 at the airport waiting for Zelaya's return, there have been other deaths that can be directly attributed to the Micheletti regime. "On July 2, Gabriel Pino Noriega, from San Juan Puebla, was murdered; on Saturday, July 11, Roger Iv?n B?ez, was shot while entering his home in San Pedro Sula; July 12, Ram?n Garc?a, a 'campesino' leader, was also killed. And there are many more," he said. Castillo says it is ironic that Micheletti claims Zelaya's return would cause a bloodbath. "The bloodbath is already going on courtesy of the military," he said. The U.S. government has condemned the coup and favors a dialogue to resolve the situation. Last weekend, filmmaker Marcos Meconi and journalist Joseph Huff-Hannon went to Ferry Point Park in the Bronx, a favorite weekend gathering place of Hondurans, and talked with several. The result is "Honduran Immigrants Speak Out on the Coup," a valuable and revealing documentary. "If Zelaya committed crimes against Honduran law, why wasn't he impeached and prosecuted in Honduras? Why did they apprehend and remove him from the country? Why not right there?" asked one man interviewed. A great question for which the de facto regime has no answer. Looking into the camera, the man, one of 40,000 Hondurans in New York, ended with a powerful statement: "There is no political event that can justify a coup d'?tat." No, there isn't. Especially one that put in power a hypocritical regime that wraps itself in the Constitution while trampling the democratic process and murdering its people. aruiz at nydailynews.com Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/08/02/2009-08-02_honduras_coup_is_more_bloody_than_bloodless.html#ixzz0N36iBhBU From markalause at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 12:09:05 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 14:09:05 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" with Iran Re: Fred Feldman In-Reply-To: <020.587a05002291754a.271@lws-media.de> References: <020.587a05002291754a.271@lws-media.de> Message-ID: Did anybody here expect any different in terms of U.S. relations with Iran? I can't recall anybody expecting any change with Obama in terms of foreign policy. His primary contribution there was always going to be putting a darker face on Clintonian policies.... As to "defending Obama," it's an earmark of the movement to defend anyone under attack because of the invidious distinctions of race, gender, gender preference, etc. We always have. I regard the "birther" crap as nothing but this, for example. Whilee--as the birther stuff indicates-[-we live in a much dumber universe than we used to, I don't think anyone seriously confuses this with political support...unless they want to, of course... ML From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Sun Aug 2 13:05:27 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 22:05:27 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran In-Reply-To: <4A75C73C.8030201@panix.com> References: <20090802.121945.5564.0.farmelantj@juno.com> <4A75C17D.2070802@panix.com> <4A75C73C.8030201@panix.com> Message-ID: The problem we are expressing and the point we seem to miss in this thread probably this: there is no third front which we may support without any remorse and difficulty. We had the same problem with the invasion of Iraq. Lenin asserts in his book on imperialism that in the age of imperialism no country, even most developed ones, is save against imperialist invasion and occupation. So in the near future the occupation of independent countries by imperialist states is going to be a 'normal' situation. Many of these countries are run by corrupt regimes and dictators. The point for the left is therefore how to coup with this situation. We certainly do not want to support imperialist occupation. But neither to back corrupt regimes. Now, what is to be done in this situation? This is the practical question we have to answer. Sometimes ago after the occupation of Iraq South African communist leader Z. Pallo Jordan suggested that we have to establish an international of people against imperialism. As long as we have not established such a front we will have this problem and continue discussing this issue. I discussed some of these matters in my paper 'The Problem of "Consciousness" in Class Relations and Class Clashes in the Twenty First Century', which most of you will unfortunately not be able to read as it is in Turkish. --------- Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From sartesian at earthlink.net Sun Aug 2 13:19:54 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 15:19:54 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] International Economic Trends References: <322347.43782.qm@web45016.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1BD11320F1344729833E909F6CD7FFB9@dmsthinkpad> Being what must surely be regarded as a non-standard Marxist, I don't know that there is any specific Marxist definition of protectionism; historically protectionism, prohibitive tariffs, are part of a developmental phase of capitalism, seeking to protect the home market, and nascent home industry from imports. Just as historically, protectionism gets played out by advanced economies when profits are declining. As for balance of trade, being non-standard, I don't believe that capitalism as a whole or in part requires a balance of trade; I regard the current concerns about the US balance of trade as being again simply a cover for concerns about profits and profitability. If you look at US trade, not on a "national basis" but on a corporate basis, adjusting the numbers for "related-party trading"-- defined as the trade between the domestic and foreign subsidiaries of corporations, you find that the US trade deficit shrinks radically, and that to 2006 or 2007 it can be explained completely by the change in price of a single commodity-- oil. And we know what the price of oil did-- routed, and routed, all profits into the 2 sectors of the economy-- energy and finance. See the Statistical Abstract of the US and the Energy Information Agency's Financial Results for FRS reporting companies. To me "balance of trade" is a holdover from mercantilism which capitalism has never completely overcome. Back in 1909, I think, Keynes was writing about the damage being done by the trade imbalance between the UK and India, claiming, if I remember correctly which is no sure thing, that the drain of gold from the UK to India was weakening the home industry, and that the UK had to get off the gold standard in order to protect its economy. Well, I think developed economies, by their very nature of being "developed," will generally run trade deficits with "undeveloped" countries, by the very nature of undevelopment, which means they haven't developed the economy to provide the markets for the products of advanced capitalism. Certainly, the weakness in the UK economy was not caused by its trade imbalance with India. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Max Clark" To: Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] International Economic Trends > > Thanks for sharing. A number questions: > > 1. Is there a standard Marxist interpretation of "protectionism"? Doesn't > this word betray the state as an economic entity in its own right? The > state as a giant "public-private" corporation-bank with an attendant armed > force? Aren't citizens just "nano-stakeholders" (nano=really small)? Isn't > that their deep infrastructural-modal identity? (Excuse the "jargon of > authenticity" here but sometimes non-standard etymological usages can > become a powerful resource in building up words which harbor more > consciousness). I am poorly informed on these things. > > 2. Is there a standard Marxist interpretation of "balance of trade" > issues? It would seem the state interrupts things in a > territorial-geographical sense here as well. Such a spatial "dimension" to > the thing would have to be well "accounted" (rimshot) for or "mapped out" > (yawn). From lycophidion at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 14:44:19 2009 From: lycophidion at gmail.com (Michael Friedman) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 16:44:19 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran Message-ID: <709f342d0908021344y41761b7fl97f9604c6e1847ec@mail.gmail.com> This is true, as far as it goes. Socialists in imperialist countries should support any oppressed COUNTRY in a face-off with their imperialism. That necessarily and concretely means siding with the current government of that country in the face-off. Whether that government is Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad, Hamas, Ortega or Chavez. The government's politics don't matter, in that confrontation. Because imperialism doesn't distinguish between the government and the governed when it imposes blockades, disinformation campaigns, destabilization campaigns, dirty wars, invasions, etc. In fact, it ALWAYS targets the people, when it targets the government, the starkest recent cases being Iraq and Panama and Palestine. As far as it goes. But, socialists can't be agnostic with respect to the oppressed classes any more than imperialism is. Our goal isn't anti-imperialism for its own sake, but because imperialism chokes off the lives, aspirations and social advancement of the laboring classes and even sections of the propertied classes in the countries it oppresses, and renders social transformation impossible at home. Message: 12 Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 12:19:44 -0400 From: Jim Farmelant Subject: Re: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran To: marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu Message-ID: <20090802.121945.5564.0.farmelantj at juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii and whether they do so via Trotsky or via Stalin, one of their most basic positions is that in any conflict between an advanced capitalist country (an imperialist country, as Lenin would have it) and a backward country (a colonial, semi-colonial, or dependent country, as Lenin would have it) they will back the backward country regardless of the nature of its regime. This position is a consequence of Lenin's theory of imperialism. If imperialism is what that theory says it is - a monstrous octopus choking more than half the life out of more than half the world - then (almost) anything that weakens it is in the interests of the working class and of progress, (almost) regardless of how reactionary or anti-working-class imperialism's opponent may be. From farmelantj at juno.com Sun Aug 2 14:58:34 2009 From: farmelantj at juno.com (Jim Farmelant) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 16:58:34 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Francis Jeanson dies Message-ID: <20090802.165835.2668.0.farmelantj@juno.com> For those who can read French there is an obit at: He was a philosopher, who was a friend and disciple of Jean-Paul Sartre. He was probably best known for his work during the time of the Algerian struggle for independence when he founded what came to be known as the Jeanson Network which transported funds to the Algerian FLN. For that work he was put on trial for breaching state security but was eventually amnestied and he was able to go back to academic life. Outside the francophone world he is probably best known for his cameo appearance in Godard's 1967 file, "La Chinoise." Jim F. ____________________________________________________________ Find the perfect photo - click now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTEuJC04HMWupUfB6l61YKr5RsvpRwpkH0DxErO5REL0d6cquqeDCI/ From markalause at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 15:32:43 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 17:32:43 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran In-Reply-To: <709f342d0908021344y41761b7fl97f9604c6e1847ec@mail.gmail.com> References: <709f342d0908021344y41761b7fl97f9604c6e1847ec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: But what does any of this mean in practical terms? We are, after all, materialists. Do people really think that what those of us in the U.S. merely say on such a subject strengthens or weakens any of the forces in play in the region? If so, what are the mechanisms you'd posit for that? I think that mattering requires...well, matter. ML From lnp3 at panix.com Sun Aug 2 15:42:37 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:42:37 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran In-Reply-To: References: <709f342d0908021344y41761b7fl97f9604c6e1847ec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A76084D.5040001@panix.com> Mark Lause wrote: > But what does any of this mean in practical terms? We are, after all, > materialists. This is a variation on Carrol Cox's isolationist line and I reject it. There are numerous Iranians on this mailing list and they would be very disappointed if we either ignored their struggle or, even worse, characterized them as friends of the CIA. > > Do people really think that what those of us in the U.S. merely say on > such a subject strengthens or weakens any of the forces in play in the > region? If so, what are the mechanisms you'd posit for that? > > I think that mattering requires...well, matter. It of course strengthens Iranian leftists to know that the largest Marxism list on the Internet is in solidarity with their struggle. From markalause at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 16:11:01 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 18:11:01 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran In-Reply-To: <4A76084D.5040001@panix.com> References: <709f342d0908021344y41761b7fl97f9604c6e1847ec@mail.gmail.com> <4A76084D.5040001@panix.com> Message-ID: Since World War II, "isolationism" has bee the standard imperialist change against anyone who disagrees with U.S. foreign policy on any level. There are no isolationists among internationalists. To the contrary, an internationalist support for Iranian Leftists should preclude arrogating to ourselves what they need to do or not do in relation to the forces and conditions that they are experiencing. Much of the discussion on this list seems to me to involve people outside of Iran doing just that. ML From pieinsky at igc.org Sun Aug 2 16:18:10 2009 From: pieinsky at igc.org (Jay Moore) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:18:10 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran In-Reply-To: <4A759B2A.6070301@panix.com> References: <4A759B2A.6070301@panix.com> Message-ID: <4A7610A2.2030203@igc.org> "Monthly Review" a couple of issues back earlier this year had an article by Samir Amin in which he denounced the notion that Islamicism had some kind of progressive thrust or aspect. I think it's really misreading things to talk about a MR "line," is if it were some kind of democratic-centralist organization. It isn't. There are certainly a variety of views in the Marxist Left about Iran. Why shouldn't they be heard/represented? My objection is that MRZine ought to try to set up some constructive dialogue among the different points of view. jay Louis Proyect wrote: > Yesterday Jim Farmelant said something on LBO-Talk that I have to take > exception to. After Doug posted the info on Barbara Epstein's > resignation, Jim said: > > "Should anyone really be surprised by this? Yoshie's positions, whether > one agrees with them or not, are not really that far out of line with > MR's traditional outlook which has tended to place great emphasis on > anti-imperialism. Remember too that the magazine went through a Maoist > or quasi-Maoist phase back in the 1960s and 1970s. And in any case it > should be obvious that if the board of MR had strong disagreements with > Yoshi they would have relieved her of her duties as MRZine editor a long > time ago." > > I agree with the last sentence, namely that John Bellamy Foster and John > Mage agree with this crap but I do not agree that this was the editorial > position of the magazine in the past. I have access to the MR archives > going back to 1993 and a search on "Iran" revealed 3 articles basically > with the same viewpoint. They could not be more sharply opposed to the > current line. > From lnp3 at panix.com Sun Aug 2 16:19:30 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:19:30 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran In-Reply-To: References: <709f342d0908021344y41761b7fl97f9604c6e1847ec@mail.gmail.com> <4A76084D.5040001@panix.com> Message-ID: <4A7610F2.6010601@panix.com> Mark Lause wrote: > Since World War II, "isolationism" has bee the standard imperialist > change against anyone who disagrees with U.S. foreign policy on any > level. There are no isolationists among internationalists. > > To the contrary, an internationalist support for Iranian Leftists > should preclude arrogating to ourselves what they need to do or not do > in relation to the forces and conditions that they are experiencing. > Much of the discussion on this list seems to me to involve people > outside of Iran doing just that. So some people accuse the mass movement as a puppet directed by the CIA and other people view it as legitimate protest against the same clerical authoritarian system that assumed power in 1980. And you are put off because some of us want to take part in this debate. What would be a legitimate area for us to write about? Lincoln's bowel movements? The status of the Green Party in southern Illinois? From markalause at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 16:58:07 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 18:58:07 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran In-Reply-To: <4A7610F2.6010601@panix.com> References: <709f342d0908021344y41761b7fl97f9604c6e1847ec@mail.gmail.com> <4A76084D.5040001@panix.com> <4A7610F2.6010601@panix.com> Message-ID: I certainly haven't remained silent on these things. I have clearly been quite put off by the people insisting that we not differentiate ourselves from the Iranian state. Making it an "acid test" opposition to imperialism is laughable. That said, I don't think the Iranian power structure rests any easier because of it. My comments on this have been in plain English. I'm sorry that Louis had a bad night of sleep and would suggest that a nap might be more useful than his innovative Wendell Wilkie-baiting.... :-) ML From Waistline2 at aol.com Sun Aug 2 16:57:57 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 18:57:57 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Post Message-ID: >> ell me exactly where "majority rule" and "democracy" figured into the events in the USSR after 1928, or even before... Majority of what? Democracy where? The party, in an economy that was characterized by Lenin as a "petty-producer" economy? In the 3rd International? That's the historical, material analysis that has to be undertaken when evaluating "isms" and "enemies" << Comment There is a disconnect. I reread my post and said nothing of ?Majority rule. ? Nor did I use the word democracy. It is a fact that the October Revolution occurred and this was of the majority against the minority. The majority spontaneously express a desire - drive, for cooperation based on mutual interest and concerns. as distinct from the property relations of the capitalist class. The majority was the workers and peasants. Even the peasants express a drive for exchange of values rather than just capitalism. It is understod that the small peasant house hold can only alienate their product on the basis of exchange. This exchange can/could be on the basis of socialism than than captialism. This political revolution on behalf of the majority is the meaning of democracy in its broad meaning and class meaning. Socialism, as an economic law of reproduction - no matter what is constitutional expression, is an important part of the meaning of democracy . . .. at least for communist. Democracy is a form of political rule enforces a property - production or social relations, or the relationship of people to property int he process of production. Democracy also embody constitutional rights. Constitutional rights deal with the sovereignty of the individual and are spelled out in law. Even with huge distortion in the police policies of Soviet life democracy existed and was easy to navigate for the majority of Soviet citizens. Me . . . I am part of the political class, but would have found Soviet society easy to navigate. Most certainly if I were a party member. This is because of my understanding of the boundary of democracy within the party and the impact of the personality of Stalin as the Stalin regime took shape. See, I will be 57 in September and survived America so far, without an "outdate." Everyday and waking moment of my life is an adventure, constructed to evade the political police and the state authority in general. Democracy is real and existed in the Soviet Union. What existed was proletarian democracy with distortions. I am saying people could vote in the Soviet Union. The majority could vote all the time. Voting is important to me. Members of party organizations could vote. All the time over various issues. People - elected delegates, voted at Soviet Party Congresses and in the Supreme Soviets. That is democracy. ?Democracy where?? In the Soviet Union. The greatest undeniable expression of majority democracy for the working class was in the construction of a socialist economy after 1928. It is best to compare apples with apples. Compare voting rights and the constitutional right to work and consume socially necessary means of life in the Soviet Union in 1929 with voting rights and rights to socially necessary means of life in 1929 America. Then compare 1936 Soviet Union with 1936 America and all countries on earth in 1936. Compare the democracy of the Soviet Union in 1976 with democracy in 1976 America and all countries on earth Without question the Soviet Union was amongst the most democratic and manifested majority rule. Hey, compare 1980 Soviet Union with 1980 America and all countries on earth . . . the 3rd planet from the sun brother, and once again the Soviets are amongst the most democratic on earth - this world. Democracy is also economic mobility or the means by which the individual can improve their lot in life as compared with their parents. It was easier for the individual worker or peasant to improve their lot and attain positions of high station in life in the Soviet Union - during its entire history, than it was for the individual in virtually every country on earth. This mobility and ability to rise above ones parents station in life is also called democracy. Economic democracy. The Soviet masses voted on the Soviet Constitution. The Soviet masses took part in all kinds of organizations and cooperatives of the working class and peasants. The Trade unions were democratic organizations. This ?taking part? is called democracy. I do not for one moment want to give the impression that harsh laws and actions were not taken against the political class and especially those in the party and government. However, I made it clear in my post that I know how to get along and survive. I publicly stated I know when to shut up. Which is why the post was about dealing with the old Black Panther Party. Then again, I grew up in perhaps the most democratic Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist collective in America. We were always more democratic than the CPUSA or the SWP or the other groups. We had our moments - a wild Maoist moment in Detroit, but we remain communists with a democratic bent without precedent in America. On every issue. This means women, gays, transgender. Yea, the Soviets had democracy big time. The distortions were pretty bad. WL. **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd =JulystepsfooterNO115) From markalause at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 17:00:41 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 19:00:41 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran In-Reply-To: References: <709f342d0908021344y41761b7fl97f9604c6e1847ec@mail.gmail.com> <4A76084D.5040001@panix.com> <4A7610F2.6010601@panix.com> Message-ID: Also, yes, the situation of the Green Party in Illinois is a more appropriate subject for discussion for people in Illinois and I'd like to read what they have to say on it. In the same sense, I'm interested in what people in Iran are thinking on the situation there...much more so than the geniuses who've contributed to making the Left in the western countries what it is... ML From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 17:31:04 2009 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:31:04 +1000 Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" with Iran Re: Fred Feldman In-Reply-To: <020.587a05002291754a.271@lws-media.de> References: <020.587a05002291754a.271@lws-media.de> Message-ID: Friendly & comradely greetings to Luko who in reply to my post on resisting the temptation to rush to defence of Obama instead of sticking to the task of defending the people said "One can't really separate one from the other." My response: Of course we can & moreover we have to. The ruling class need Obama much more than the working class do. True a rabid section of the ruling class is perhaps seeking to destroy him. Though I must register my personal scepticism about this. Just as I was sceptical when Walter (bless him!) raised the Clarence Thomas "attack" on Obama, I am sceptical now. about the existence of any move to destroy Obama's presidency. To my mind it is all going to plan for large sections of the American ruling class. The world is still in love with the "Man from yes we can". True at home in the U.S of A, according to the polls, the glister is appearing to be wearing thin and that is a sign of real hope. I did not really understand Mark's post about the "birther crap" - presumably that is a reference to the smear that Obama was not born in the USA. Of course we defend anyone against racism etc. But what Mark has persistently refused to acknowledge is that there is also an urgent need to attack the illusions in Obama. He and the Democratic Party are the enemy. Just because there also exists a bunch of troglodytes slavering around the place does not mean that we should ever lose sight of what Obama as a bourgeois politician is and what bourgeois politics is all about - maintaining the rule of the bourgeoisie. That is simple but it is not simplistic at all at all. Now just in case someone is tempted to reply with the invective of "ultra-left", I do of course recognize the need to maneuver and to attempt to divide and position factions within the enemy camp and also I see the absolute need to fight for gains however small. Having said that I look forward to the day when the mass of the American people consign the Obama moment to the dust bin of history. regards Gary From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 17:35:43 2009 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:35:43 +1000 Subject: [Marxism] Anthropology, Narrotology & the politics of indigenous suffering Message-ID: I am currently working my way very carefully thru Peter Sutton's The Politics of Suffering (Melbourne Uni Press, 2009). Sutton is an anthropologist with a history of long term involvement with Indigenous Australians. He is a linguist as well speaking three of the Cape York languages. His book is subtitled 'Indigenous Australia and the end of the liberal consensus' It is in fact a polemic against liberal views which emphasize the importance of Aboriginal Culture and the right to self determination of Aboriginal Australians. The book has been endorsed by far rightist Christopher Pearson (The Australian, July 18-19, Inquirer, p.26) as 'the yardstick by which most recent critiques of indigenous affairs policy and what comes out on the subject over the next decade will be judged'. In her preface, the Aboriginal Activist Professor Marcia Langton claims Sutton's book is 'one of the more important works in the Australian Indigenous field in the last quarter of a century' (cited in Sutton, p.vi). I was on the Communist League with Marcia a life time ago and I also have a clear memory of her getting up to lecture Margaret Mead on surplus value when the latter appeared on an ABC discussion show sometime in 1976. Langton is now alas part of the new Indigenous Right along with her friend Noel Pearson. I do intend doing a full seminar paper on The Politics of Suffering, in the mean time there is a useful critique of some aspects of Sutton's work at http://newmatilda.com/2009/07/16/what-liberal-consensus. In this post however I want to broach a topic that has been intriguing me for sometime and the that is historical narratives and how to critique them. Basically and oversimply, I think we can approach narratives along the old Kantian pathways of the good, the true and the beautiful; that is we can ask whether the narrative is true (The Cognitive), how moral is it (The Ethical), and how it is composed (The Aesthetic). The trick it seems to me is to be aware of the need to tread all three pathways and also to be aware of which pathway one is on at any particular time. There are then two narratives at the heart of Sutton's work. They also have two crucial dates. The first of these is 1978, when the missionaries were told to pack up and leave the Aboriginal settlements and the latter were supposed to come under self-determining community councils. This was for Sutton the "road to hell". The moves to get rid of the missionaries and to enshrine self-determination were guided by what Sutton terms the "liberal consensus" which in turn was underpinned by a progressive cultural relativism which valued traditional Aboriginal culture highly. There was also in this move, according to Sutton, an implied rejection of "modernity". The latter is a concept which Sutton does not see the need to theorize in any way. There is for him and Langton too, only one possible modernity and it is also the best of all possible worlds. Indeed Langton, in her preface, goes so far as to say "much of the tragedy, misery and death has been "caused", and I use this very here in a common, imprecise way, by the inability of so many contemporaries of Professor Sutton to imagine Aboriginal life with all the normal trappings of modernity" (p.vi). What is true about this narrative? Well the condition of Indigenous Australia has recently been documented in a government report and it is not good at all and seems to be getting worse if anything (Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage, 2009). So that much of the narrative is true. Especially in the remote communities many indigenous Australians seem to be living in hell. However it is when we come to the cause of all this that the untruth of the narrative appears most starkly. To begin with as Altman (2009) points out there is no "liberal consensus". From 1996-2007 Aboriginal Affairs were run by the very conservative Howard Government, whose actions and policies were certainly not overdetermined by any commitment to an rights agenda. Indeed the very first action of the Howard Government was to cut $470 million dollars from the buget allocated to Aboriginal affairs. There is no mention of this in Sutton's narrative. Rather he aims his polemic at those aspects of traditional Aboriginal culture which he believes have contributed to the present disastrous situation. Thus there are long passages (pp.87-107) on violence in traditional Aboriginal culture as well as sections on child rearing practices such as "crueling' where the child is treated roughly or deprived of food in order to provoke the child's anger (pp.111-112) or where the child's anger especially that of "boys against women" (pp.113-4). It is here that Sutton wants us to look for the causes of Indigenous disadvantage rather than to "dispossession, dislocation, separation, exclusion from services, inadequate services and the tyranny of distance". It will not I am sure have escaped my comrades that Sutton's narrative bears an uncanny resemblance to the Lewis-Huntington/narrative/thesis of the "Clash of Civilizations" as the motor force for the current world disorder (Huntington, 1993). In both cases the narratives serve to justify colonial intervention. In saying this I have I believe laid the gorund for a moral critique of Sutton;'s work. I do not doubt his concern and genuine sorrow at the suffering of his Aboriginal friends. However the logic of his rejection of self-determination and also of his critique of tradition and his romantic idealised view of modernity is that Indigenous Australia should once more be subjected to White Authoritarianism and indeed Sutton is a supporter of the Howard intervention in 2007 into the Northern Territory (see Sutton p.8). Sutton will not come right out and say it but clearly he is here an assimilationist. To say this is to lay oneself open to the charge, and it is one that Sutton explicitly makes (pp.10;42-3) of not caring about the abuse of children in Aboriginal settlements. Just as we are in Afghanistan to liberate women from the burqa it would seem that we are in Aboriginal settlements to save the children. I will pass over here the historical fact that the greatest abusers of Aborigines adults and children have been the white colonists. But I will point out that beneath what is really polemical abuse posing as moral outrage, Sutton has set the stage for those who would trample on Indigenous rights in the name of modernity and of course progress. A final point (and I am getting anxious about the length of this post) about the aesthetics of Sutton's narrative. How is his story told? Well it fits neatly into the decline and fall format. He is reluctant to endorse the regime of the missionaries, but there is a sort of nostalgia for the pre-liberal cnsunsus days. Here on p19 he gives us a short pen portrait of Patrick (Paddy) Killoran, Director of Aboriginal Affairs from 1964 to 1986. Kiloran was a brutal man who ran Aboriginal Affairs as an absolute dictator. Rosalind Kidd (1997) has a good deal to say about his reign and how he fought tooth and nail against equal wages for Aboriginal workers. However for Sutton, it is almost a case of "Come back Paddy, all is forgiven. thus he writes "Now I have a more complex view of Killoran's regime, based partly on archival documents. It was oppressive and could be vindictive. It was chronically short of money. But Killoran was right about the decline of health that would follow liberalisation of local regimes" (p.19). Sutton does not tell us what "archival documents" justify his reassessment of Killoran's rule. Kidd's work is based on a very thorough study of the archives and would seem to deny the possibility of any justification of what Killoran did. Nevertheless for Sutton he was merely a "policy dinosaur" (p.19). Presumably by this Sutton means that Killoran stood in the way of the onward march of modernity. In any case, the granting of equal wages in 1986 to groups like Aboriginal nurses and other workers on the settlements and reserves, was followed by a savage round of job cuts which devastated the economies of the local councils which were then granted "self-determination" Kidd's judgement on all this seems to me to be much more accurate and moral than Sutton's who is totally silent on the 1986 assault on Indigenous workers. She writes "Records reveal the willingness of state bureaucrats and politicians to manipulate the changing options of community management so as to sabotage "opponents" and entrench existing controls. They reveal the horrendous price exacted on the communities as public officers charged as guardians of Aboriginal interests deliberately decimated workforces and infrastructure as wage rates lifted despite them. Queensland Aboriginal communities are today struggling to overcome the legacy of nearly one hundred years of such disgraceful management (2000, p.344)." Kidd's verdict brings us also to the heart of the alternative narrative that Sutton mentions (pp53; 58) but neglects to foreground or develop in his anxiety to blame indigenous culture for the current state of Indigenous Australia. This was the Equal Pay decision of 1968 when Aboriginal workers in the pastoral industry were granted equal wages with their white counterparts by the Federal Court. The pastoralists react4ed by sacking Aboriginal workers and also sacking the Aboriginal domestics. Dawn May (1994) gives a good account of the details of what happened. Incidentally the fight for equal wages had been led by the Australian Communist Party. The impact of the mas sackings in the pastoral industry was the devastation of the indigenous economy. There was no attempt to redress this by governments. It is here however rather than in the practices of "crueling" or the absence of missionary discipline that one can find the causes of the current dysfunction. It is easier of course to blame Indigenous culture and "baby boomers" rather than the often malicious actions of capitalists and government bureaucrats. But the second narrative which revolves around 1968 and not with the departure of the missionaries in 1978 is surely truer in the sense of given us a reason for things i.e. for the devastated state of indigenous communities. There is much more to be said of course on all this, but I am already I suspect testing the patience of our good moderator a deal too much. comradely Gary References Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations, Foreign Affairs Summer 1993, full article is available at < http://history.club.fatih.edu.tr/103%20Huntington%20Clash%20of%20Civilizations%20full%20text.htm >. Dawn May, Aboriginal labour and the cattle industry 1994, See especially chapter 11 equal pay < http://books.google.com.au/books?id=r_k4AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Dawn+May&ei=4D1mSvrdApHWlASZs5H3Ag > Steering Committee for the Review of government Service Provision, Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2009 http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/90129/key-indicators-2009.pdf Peter Sutton The Politics of Suffering, Melbourne Uni Press, 2009 From markalause at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 17:50:41 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 19:50:41 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" with Iran Re: Fred Feldman In-Reply-To: References: <020.587a05002291754a.271@lws-media.de> Message-ID: Gary MacLennan wrote: > > what Mark has > persistently refused to acknowledge is that there is also an urgent need to > attack the illusions in Obama. > Gary's assertion that I've "refused to acknowledge . . . an urgent need to attack the illusions in Obama" is a rather pathetic pinkish reflection of the same kind of assertion the birthers make that Obama hasn't addressed the issue of his birth. I've been fighting the illusions in Obama from the time he became a figure on the national political scene, particularly over the course of the campaign, and haven't seen any reason not to do so. Gary treats what I've actually said on this about as seriously as do my bosses. It's a strange kind of socialism.... ML From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 18:10:55 2009 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 10:10:55 +1000 Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" with Iran Re: Fred Feldman In-Reply-To: References: <020.587a05002291754a.271@lws-media.de> Message-ID: > > I've been fighting the illusions in Obama from the time he became a > figure on the national political scene, particularly over the course > of the campaign, and haven't seen any reason not to do so. > > Gary treats what I've actually said on this about as seriously as do > my bosses. It's a strange kind of socialism.... > > ML I am content to let Mark have the last word here. Moreover if he can direct me to the posts where he has fought the illusions in Obama, I will read them and of course offer a full apology. But I need to see to believe. regards Gary From markalause at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 18:21:12 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 20:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" with Iran Re: Fred Feldman In-Reply-To: References: <020.587a05002291754a.271@lws-media.de> Message-ID: After misrepresenting me, Gary magnanimously declares himself "content to let Mark have the last word here." He also generously declares his willingness to look at the evidence that I've challenged "the illusions in Obama." So I am guilty until I prove myself innocent. Most of what I say on this most explicitly takes place in the real world not on email, but the archives include quite a bit by me on this subject over the last couple of years. Most recently, I wrote "that the ruling class never scheduled an Obama administration but instead scheduled him to provide a figurehead for Clinton Redux. That's been his course, even down to the 'pragmatic' retreat from rhetoric towards the demoralization of his disillusioned supporters and defeat in the first off-year election." The rest of the post continue in that vein, though it was written all the way back on...Friday, July 31... ML From sartesian at earthlink.net Sun Aug 2 18:59:01 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 20:59:01 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Post References: Message-ID: Comrade, Yes, you did: "I do not suffer from that problem. Party politics are simple to navigate if one is honest and truly believes in democracy and majority will. When you feel you are right and outvoted it is best to shut up, go to work and make sure you do your job and party work. If all you want to do is argue and find "fundamental principle differences with everything" you would find yourself in trouble with the local party organization. Not so much out of "irreconcilable differences" but because the workers do not like to meet over 45 minutes. If you argue too much and lengthen the meeting someone was going to report you as an enemy of the people to get you put out of the meeting." __________ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 6:57 PM Subject: [Marxism] Post > Comment > > There is a disconnect. I reread my post and said nothing of ?Majority > rule. > ? Nor did I use the word democracy. From johnedmundson at paradise.net.nz Sun Aug 2 19:40:54 2009 From: johnedmundson at paradise.net.nz (John) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:40:54 +1200 Subject: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran In-Reply-To: References: <709f342d0908021344y41761b7fl97f9604c6e1847ec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1249263655.5900.174.camel@john-desktop> On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 17:32 -0400, Mark Lause wrote: > But what does any of this mean in practical terms? We are, after all, > materialists. > > Do people really think that what those of us in the U.S. merely say on > such a subject strengthens or weakens any of the forces in play in the > region? If so, what are the mechanisms you'd posit for that? > > I think that mattering requires...well, matter. In little New Zealand, the little Workers Party are even more removed from the ability to change anything that's going on in Iran. But we've decided it's still worth doing what we can to educate people in New Zealand about what's going on in the world and challenging Nationalism here. We've written on the situation in Iran even though we can't influence things in Iran. We've done the same with regard to Palestine, the Honduran coup, Iraq etc etc. In the case of Afghanistan, where the NZ army's elite SAS are likely to be redeployed, we've been involved in the antiwar movement. We haven't sided with Ahmadinejad or the Taliban; we've focused on asking people what the hell right anyone has to be meddling in those countries' affairs. We've decided our focus, as Marxists in New Zealand, is to focus on working in, for and with the New Zealand working class because ultimately that's the best help we can give to the comrades in Iran and other countries. Specifically though in our Palestinian work, we've decided to launch a campaign that specifically supports the PFLP. This is not about telling Palestinians who to support; it's about giving practical solidarity to the Palestinian struggle while educating people here of the possibility of a genuine free secular socialist state in Palestine - to break people from the myths of irreconcilability and the inevitability of a 2 state solution. We don't worship the ground upon which the PFLP walks; we just think a practical solidarity campaign is a great way of giving real internationalist support to a vitally important struggle in a region where religious division is presented as the intractable problem. We see that as a good way to raise the consciousness of New Zealand workers and support the Palestinian struggle. In form, what we're doing is producing t-shirts that support the Palestinian struggle and the PFLP. We've developed it as a campaign that won't be "owned" by us, the WP, but by everyone who gets involved (Anti-Semites need not apply!). ALL proceeds (about a third of every shirt) go to the PFLP with no strings attached. We're very specific about that. They can use it for whatever they want. The shirts depict armed Palestinians and bear the PFLP's slogan "Resistance is not Terrorism" so there's no secret what we're supporting. People get a leaflet with the shirt to help equip them for debates they might get into while wearing the shirt. It's a small initiative from a small organisation but it has received favourable coverage in the media in the Middle East and on the PFLP's website. Obviously we were inspired by the Danish groups who were attacked by the state for doing something similar. We saw this as a means of doing the things I've described and also challenge our own anti-terror laws by defying the state to act against us. It turns out that the PFLP are not on New Zealand's terror list so it has limited our ability to use it as a challenge to the terror laws, but by the same token it has enabled us to act more boldly in other ways. It has also allowed groups in countries such as in Europe, where the PFLP are branded terrorists, to support the PLFP since it is the sending of money to the organisation that breaks the law. The point of my mentioning this is that it is possible for tiny left groups in the West to do things that are useful in a directly internationalist way, both to benefit the struggle overseas, if in only a small way, to demonstrate solidarity in a way that is real and good for morale, and to educate our own population. We don't need to either pontificate or abstain. Cheers, John From Waistline2 at aol.com Sun Aug 2 21:57:43 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 23:57:43 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Post Message-ID: "I do not suffer from that problem. Party politics are simple to navigate if one is honest and truly believes in democracy and majority will. When you feel you are right and outvoted it is best to shut up, go to work and make sure you do your job and party work. If all you want to do is argue and find "fundamental principle differences with everything" you would find yourself in trouble with the local party organization. Not so much out of "irreconcilable differences" but because the workers do not like to meet over 45 minutes. If you argue too much and lengthen the meeting someone was going toreport you as an enemy of the people to get you put out of the meeting." Reply Thanks for the quote. Seems . . . I did use the word democracy and majority. I just I used these words because that is what existed in the Soviet Union, with all its distortions. Do you disagree? WL **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd =JulystepsfooterNO115) From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net Sun Aug 2 22:25:35 2009 From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 00:25:35 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Why racial discrimination against class-priveleged Blackso is not a lesser evil (The Nation) Message-ID: <8A993D575AD241ED80C1E92DEE5184D0@office1pc> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090817/younge/print Beer and Sympathy Beneath the Radar By Gary Younge This article appeared in the August 17, 2009 edition of The Nation. July 29, 2009 Taxi drivers provide a perverse service to the racial conversation when they refuse to pick up black people. Clearly it would be better if they stopped, so that we wouldn't be left hailing the night air like fools or relying on white friends to sneak one past the censor like supplicants. But if anyone is going to experience racial hardship, let it be the cab riders. For if you can afford to take a cab, then it is probably not a bad thing to be reminded that racism brooks no exceptions--up to and including the ability to pay. Racism discriminates against people on the grounds of race. Just like it says on the packet. It can be as arbitrary in its choice of victim as it is systemic in its execution. And while it never works alone (but rather in cahoots with class, gender and a host of other rogue characters), it has political license to operate independently. It's a basic lesson at relatively low cost. And yet the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his home in Cambridge, Massachusetts, suggests we are doomed to keep repeating the lesson. Barack Obama was right when he referred to the arrest as a "teachable moment," but given the brouhaha that has followed, it seems that even a moment involving the nation's most prominent black intellectual teaches us nothing. This lesson should come in two parts. First, all such tales attempt to stage racism as a crude morality play, with individuals as absolute victims and absolute villains, rather than as a system of oppression that works primarily through institutions. The victim must have no priors and no drugs. And unless the perpetrator is photographed with a billy club in hand and uses racial slurs that are recorded on tape, we are supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt. For an individual, that is fair. For a system, it is farcical. While it may be intriguing to speculate about what two people may or may not have been thinking, feeling and intending at any given moment, the proof of racism is in the odds. Black people in America fall foul of not just the law of the land but the law of probabilities as well. They are more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, convicted and executed. A ridiculous black man and a ridiculous white man do not stand the same chances when put before a man with a badge, gun or gavel. The figures bear this out, and at the end of the day, nooses and burning crosses shouldn't be necessary to demonstrate racism's reach. Second, the fact that racism might affect a Harvard professor is amazing only if one buys into the idea that black people who have reached a certain status should be exempt from racism. If you believe that, then the problem with Gates's arrest is not racism. It's that he was treated like a regular black person. The issue moves from "If it happened to him it really can happen to anybody" to "It shouldn't have happened to him because he is a somebody." Which brings us back to Obama, who first said the Cambridge police acted "stupidly," only to then "recalibrate" his remarks before inviting the arresting officer, James Crowley, and Gates to the White House for beers and reconciliation. This was primarily remarkable because, for reasons both pragmatic and strategic, Obama's interventions in matters of race are so very rare. So it is curious that he would use the considerable influence he has in this area to defend a tenured Harvard professor who was detained for a few hours. Indeed, the only other public pronouncement Obama has made about race since his election was delivered just a week before Gates's arrest, at the NAACP conference. On the organization's centenary he paid homage to the civil rights movement and, recognizing the inequalities bequeathed by segregation, he started talking about parenting. "We've got to say to our children, Yes, if you're African-American, the odds of growing up amid crime and gangs are higher," Obama said. "Yes, if you live in a poor neighborhood, you will face challenges that somebody in a wealthy suburb does not have to face. But that's not a reason to get bad grades. That's not a reason to cut class.... No one has written your destiny for you.... That's what we have to teach all of our children. No excuses. No excuses." These two interventions feel like the Talented Tenth circling the wagons. There are a huge number of explanations for black underachievement in this country, none of which are merely "excuses." But Gates's experience also gave the lie to Obama's exhortations. Gates got good grades, probably never cut school and does not live amid crime and gangs. If he had, the incident might have ended up in anything from a police record to his death while never even making the local paper. Not that Gates didn't have a legitimate grievance. But he probably could have handled the matter without the help of the commander in chief. The same cannot be said for, say, Troy Davis, who sits on death row in Georgia for the murder of an off-duty police officer, which he insists he did not commit. Seven of the nine witnesses who identified Davis have recanted or contradicted their original testimony, which they claim was made under police coercion. One of the remaining two is also a suspect in the crime. Desmond Tutu, the pope and Jimmy Carter (all conspicuously silent on the Gates saga) have called for a new trial or evidentiary hearing. This is a matter where Obama's involvement could tip the balance between life and death. As I write, the beers are in the presidential fridge. After their drink, Gates will go back to Harvard, Crowley will return to the force, Obama will stay in the White House. Nothing about law or race, not even the national conversation, will have changed. And Troy Davis will remain on death row. For now the only beer he can expect will be with his last meal. And he will be drinking alone. Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 68 cents a week! If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation. Reprint this article. Click here for rights and information. About Gary Younge Gary Younge, the Alfred Knobler Journalism Fellow at The Nation Institute, is the New York correspondent for the Guardian and the author of No Place Like Home: A Black Briton's Journey Through the Deep South (Mississippi) and Stranger in a Strange Land: Travels in the Disunited States (New Press). He is also a contributor to The Notion From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Mon Aug 3 00:16:28 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:16:28 +1000 Subject: [Marxism] What's new at Links: Venezuela, Pacific & climate, Vestas sit-in, nationalise coal!, Honduras, Malaysia, Europe, Zimbabwe, Holocaust, Jonah Raskin book excerpt Message-ID: <4A7680BC.3040105@greenleft.org.au> What's new at Links: Venezuela, Pacific & climate, Vestas sit-in, nationalise coal!, Honduras, Malaysia, Europe, Zimbabwe, Holocaust, Jonah Raskin book excerpt *** Subscribe free to Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 You can also follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism Visit and bookmark http://links.org.au and add it to your RSS feed (http://links.org.au/rss.xml). If you would like us to consider an article, please send it to links at dsp.org.au *Please pass on to anybody you think will be interested in /Links/. * * * Venezuela: Class struggle intensifies over battle for workers' control By *Federico Fuentes* Caracas -- July 25, 2009 -- On July 22, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez again declared his complete support for the proposal by industrial workers for a new model of production based on workers' control. This push from Chavez, part of the socialist revolution, aims at transforming Venezuela's basic industry. However, it faces resistance from within the state bureaucracy and the revolutionary movement. Presenting his government's "Plan Socialist Guayana 2009-2019", Chavez said the state-owned companies in basic industry have to be transformed into "socialist companies". * Read more Pacific islanders struggle for survival against global warming -- `Rich countries must slash emissions now' July 29, 2009 -- For Pacific islanders, climate change is not a threat looming somewhere in the future. Rising sea levels and unpredictable weather are having devastating effects right now. Climate change has already forced some communities to leave their traditional homes.*Simon Butler* spoke to two climate change activists from the Pacific about their campaign for immediate cuts to global greenhouse emissions. * Read more (Updated August 3) Capitalism vs the environment: Wind turbine workers fight factory closure with sit-in * Read more Public ownership of coal industry needed to move to 100% renewable energy and retain jobs *Graham Brown* is a retired coalminer and a climate change activist. He's also a member of the Upper Hunter branch of the NSW Greens party. The Hunter Valley, near the city of Newcastle, is a major source of Australia's coal exports. Brown is helping build a union and community alliance to create a "just transition" to a carbon-neutral economy. Such a transition would ensure workers in the coal industry move into alternative employment. Socialist Alliance's *Zane Alcorn* spoke to Brown. * Read more With Honduras, with all of Latin America -- sign the statement July 31, 2009 -- We, the undersigned social, political and solidarity organisations, faced with the ongoing coup d'?tat in Honduras and the imperialist project of installing military bases in Colombia whose objective is to throttle the hope for liberty and emancipation across the Latin American continent, declare: * Read more Malaysia: 40,000 demand `Abolish the Internal Security Act now!', hundreds arrested By *S. Arutchelvan * August 1, 2009 -- Parti Sosialis Malaysia -- The 40,000-strong mobilisation today in Kuala Lumpur and the thousands who did not make it because of police roadblocks gave a very clear and precise message to Malaysia's Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak: repeal the draconian /Internal Security Act/ (ISA). * Read more A balance sheet of the European elections / /By *Fran?ois Sabado* The principal lessons of the European elections of June 7, 2009, are the following: massive abstention; progress for the right flanked by the far right; a collapse of social democracy; an increase in the votes for the ecologists; while the radical left, left reformists and anti-capitalists maintained their position, without making new advances, except in Portugal and Ireland. * Read more For jobs and the environment: Why the workers occupied the Vestas wind turbine plant Below is the text of a speech written by *a Vestas worker* for delivery at trade union and environmental movement meetings. It gives an excellent insight into the background of the struggle, and its wider political significance. * Read more Zimbabwe: Interviews -- The struggle for a people-driven constitution July 25, 2009 -- The first All-Stakeholders' Conference aimed at drafting a new constitution in Zimbabwe was held in Harare on July 13-14. The constitutional reform process is the result of the agreement reached between President Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), when they formed a power-sharing government in February 2009... Many in the pro-democracy movement believe the constitutional reform process is dominated by politicians and will fail to incorporate the demands of ordinary Zimbabweans suffering worst from the country's social and economic crisis. * Read more The Holocaust: `May history attest to us' -- resistance, collaboration and survival /*Hitler's Priests*, /by Kevin Spicer, Northern Illinois University Press, 2008, 369 pp. US$34.95*/ Who Will Write Our History? Emanuel Ringelblum, the Warsaw Ghetto, and the Oyneg Shabes Archive/*, by Samuel D. Kassow, Indiana University Press, 2007, 523 pP., US$34.95*/ Kasztner's Train: the True Story of an Unknown Hero of the Holocaust/*, by Anna Porter, Scribe, 2008, 548 pp., A$32.95*/ The Complete Maus: A Survivor's Tale/*, Art Spiegelman, Pantheon, 1996, 296 pp., US$35. Review by *Barry Healy* July 28, 2009 -- In October 2008 the Catholic Synod of Bishops convened in Rome for a four-day theological discussion. Without warning, on the first day, Pope Benedict XVI suspended discussion and ordered the 200 participants to attend a special commemoration mass for Pius XII, who was the pope between 1939 and 1958. * Read more Exclusive excerpt from Jonah Raskin's `The Mythology of Imperialism' -- `Kipling's Contrasts' [With the permission of Monthly Review Press, /Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ is making available an exclusive excerpt from *Jonah Raskin*'s /The Mythology of Imperialism: A Revolutionary Critique of British Literature and Society in the Modern Age./ A PDF file, available to read or download, of Chapter 2, ``Kipling's Contrasts'' is below. Readers of /Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ are encouraged to purchase /The Mythology of Imperialism/ from the Monthly Review Press website.] * Read more * * * Links seeks to promote the international exchange of information, experience of struggle, theoretical analysis and views of political strategy and tactics within the international left. It is a forum for open and constructive dialogue between active socialists coming from different political traditions. It seeks to bring together those in the international left who are opposed to neoliberal economic and social policies. It aims to promote the renewal of the socialist movement in the wake of the collapse of the bureaucratic model of "actually existing socialism" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. ATTENTION: Sign up for regular ``what's new'' announcement emails at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 Follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism From bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 01:24:36 2009 From: bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com (Bhaskar Sunkara) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 03:24:36 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] After 60 yrs of Independence, untouchability alive and kicking in India Message-ID: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/After-60-yrs-of-Independence-untouchability-alive-and-kicking-in-India/articleshow/4850136.cms From lueko.willms at t-online.de Mon Aug 3 03:04:31 2009 From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:04:31 +0200 (MES) Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" with Iran Re: Fred Feldman Message-ID: <020.e8eb03001fa8764a.302@lws-media.de> Gary MacLennan (gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com) wrote on 2009-08-03 at 09:31:04 in about Re: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" with Iran Re: Fred Feldman: in response to my short quip: > > "One can't really separate one from the other." he responded: > Of course we can & moreover we have to. > The world is still in love with the "Man from yes we can". True at home in > the U.S of A, according to the polls, the glister is appearing to be wearing > thin and that is a sign of real hope. > there is also an urgent need to attack the illusions in Obama. > He and the Democratic Party are the enemy. > Just because there also exists a bunch of troglodytes slavering around the > place does not mean that we should ever lose sight of what Obama as a > bourgeois politician is and what bourgeois politics is all about - > maintaining the rule of the bourgeoisie. That is simple but it is not > simplistic at all at all. Simplistic is to proclaim that it is one or the other. In reality it is contradictory. "Splitting up the unity and recognition of its contradictory parts is the essence of dialectics" [my translation from German] is how Lenin begins a short article "On the question of dialectics" he wrote in 1915, while he was preparing taking power in the October Revolution by studying Hegel. Obama is not a homogeneous object, he is full of contradictions. Our task, that of proletarian revolutionists, is to recognize those contradictions and act on them. It is necessary to defend Obama's initial remarks about that Gate incident against the racist, white-supremacist campaign he was confronted with afterwards. It is necessary to criticise him for receding in front of those attacks. And it is possible without falling in the trap of proclaiming Obama "all bad" or "all good". Frederick Engels spoke of the "unity of identity and difference". Cheers, L?ko Willms Frankfurt, Germany -------------------------------- visit http://www.mlwerke.de Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotzki in German From jnorem at cox.net Mon Aug 3 04:58:06 2009 From: jnorem at cox.net (John E. Norem) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 03:58:06 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] Wallerstein and Iran Message-ID: <4A76C2BE.4050905@cox.net> Commentary No. 262, August 1, 2009 "The World Left and the Iranian Elections" The recent elections in Iran, and the subsequent challenges to their legitimacy, have been a matter of enormous internal conflict in Iran, and of seemingly endless debate in the rest of the world - a debate that threatens to linger for some time yet. One of its most fascinating consequences has been the deep divisions in this worldwide discussion among persons who consider themselves part of the world left. They have ranged in their views from virtually unconditional supporters of the Ahmadinejad/Khamenei analysis of the situation to virtually unconditional opponents, with multiple positions in-between. This may be as much a commentary on the state of the world left as it is on the state of Iran. What has happened in Iran? There was an election. It had seemingly a very large turnout of voters. The government announced a sweeping victory for the incumbent president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Supporters of the three other candidates have charged that the figures were fraudulent. The two principal bases for these charges were the rapidity and closed nature of the counting process and the implausibility of some of the vote results when broken down by different areas of the country. The ultimate authority in Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, asserted in no uncertain terms that the voting results were essentially correct and that therefore the election was entirely legitimate. He has insisted that everyone acknowledge the validity of the results and cease contesting them. Immediately following the elections, large numbers of persons descended into the streets to protest the reported results and to call for a recount or a new election. As these protests gained steam, Ahmadinejad/Khamenei responded with increasingly severe repressive measures. The Revolutionary Guards and the so-called Basiji (a sort of popular militia) used considerable force to drive protestors off the streets, killing some, and arresting significant numbers in the process. As of now, the major figures in the opposition, the presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi, and two key supporters, ex-presidents Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, continue to argue that the election did not produce a "legitimate" result. They are supported in this by the other two candidates in the race who received smaller votes. What do these major figures want? They all claim to be faithful supporters of the revolution of 1978-79 and devoted to the preservation of the existing Iranian Republic. In short, they are not calling for regime change. On the contrary, they insist that they are more faithful adherents of the original spirit of the Iranian Revolution than the group presently in power. How has the world left interpreted all of this? The present situation in Iran is by no means unique. After all, there have been massive popular protests in many countries across the world at one time or another for a very long time. So, the world left has endless analogies to which to compare the Iranian situation. There is, to begin with, the Iranian revolution of 1978-79. But there are also Tienanmen in China in 1989, the revolutions of 1968 in endless countries, the so-called color revolutions of recent vintage in ex-Communist countries, a large number of happenings in different Latin American countries, and the general strikes in France in 1995. One can go further back to the Russian and French revolutions, if one wishes. To be sure, the "world left" - whatever that is - has no unified view of most of these popular protests. Indeed, one might say that one of the principal problems of the contemporary world left is its collective incoherence faced with the panoply and remarkable concrete variety of such popular protests. The reason for the collective incoherence is threefold. First, there is the long history of disillusionments with the results of such popular protests, especially in the last fifty years. Secondly, there is the objective organizational weakness today of traditional left political movements in most countries. (The principal voices of the world left today tend for the most part to be primarily that either of free-standing intellectuals or of activists who are located in very small organizations.) Thirdly, there is the fact that so-called left analyses differ fundamentally in what they think one should look at when one analyzes concrete situations. Some look primarily at interstate relations. What would be the consequence, geopolitically, of a particular government being either replaced by a different set of leaders, or still more of a regime being changed to a regime of a different kind? In the case of Iran at the present moment, everyone knows that it is in strong conflict with the United States (and to a lesser degree with western Europe), primarily but not at all exclusively over nuclear issues. President Ahmadinejad is identified with a strong Iranian position vis-?-vis the United States. Both he and Khamenei have argued repeatedly that the United States and Great Britain have been behind the popular protests in order to have Ahmadinejad removed in favor of someone more pliable from a U.S. point of view. Hugo Chavez has offered his total support to Ahmadinejad primarily on these grounds. This is a plausible but limited way to analyze a situation. After all, few leftists would support the present regime in Myanmar, which recently brutally suppressed demonstrations by Buddhist monks, on the grounds that the U.S. government would dearly like to see a regime change in Myanmar. Or one can look rather at class divisions within Iran. Some self-identified members of the world left argue that the supporters of Mousavi are largely middle-class and wealthy persons, whereas Ahmadinejad draws his supporters from the popular strata. Therefore, they say, a leftist should support Ahmadinejad. Some other leftists analyze the situation differently, arguing that this is merely a struggle between two varieties of privileged groups, and that Ahmadinejad's support in Tehran's poorer zones is largely the result of top down populism (or worse still, of bread and circuses ? la Berlusconi). Still others point to ethnic realities among the poorer strata, arguing that the non-Farsi-speaking and/or non-Shi'a rural areas are left out of populist distribution, oppressed, and hostile to Ahmadinejad, who represents, they say, merely the dominant ethnic group. In addition, many leftists are fundamentally anticlerical. They refuse to recognize the legitimacy of any regime that is based on a central role for the clergy. They also remind us that the present Iranian regime systematically eliminated all non-Islamic left parties from any role, even those parties that supported the overthrow of the Shah. Tudeh, the Iranian Communist party, has condemned the results of the election, and has supported the demands of Mousavi despite its reservations about Mousavi. There are two things to be said about popular uprisings wherever they occur. The first is that it is never easy for people to go out in the streets to make demands on a government to change its policy. All governments are ready to use force against such demands, some more speedily than others. So when people do go out in the streets, it is never simply because "outsiders" are manipulating them. When the CIA arranged a coup in Iran in 1953, it did not do it by inducing Iranians to go out in the streets. It did it by working behind the scenes with military officers. One ought to respect the political autonomy of groups who actually risk going out in the streets. It is too easy to blame outside agitators. On the other hand, the second thing to say about popular uprisings is that they are always and inevitably a coalition of many elements. Some of the demonstrators are those with specific immediate grievances. Some are aiming to change the personnel in the government but not the regime as such. And some want to change, that is, overthrow, the regime. Popular demonstrations have seldom been composed of an ideologically consistent group of persons. Uprisings normally only succeed when they are such coalitions. But this always means that the post-uprising outcome is inherently uncertain. So the world left has to be careful in offering moral and political support to popular uprisings. We are living in very chaotic times. A coherent world left strategy is not impossible. But it will not be easy. And it has not yet been achieved. The world consequences of the struggle inside Iran are not crystal clear. The world left should not be mute, but it should be prudent. by Immanuel Wallerstein [Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global. For rights and permissions, including translations and posting to non-commercial sites, and contact: rights at agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically, or e-mail to others, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To contact author, write: immanuel.wallerstein at yale.edu. These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.] *Becky Dunlop, Secretary* From naskha3 at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 05:39:09 2009 From: naskha3 at gmail.com (Nasir Khan) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:39:09 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] The Contours of Recent American Foreign Policy Message-ID: <18d70e600908030439p5e51e2dm51df9cc9aee9e7db@mail.gmail.com> The Contours of Recent American Foreign Policy By Gabriel Kolko, Counterpunch, August 2, 2009 War, from preparation for it through to its aftermath, has defined both the essential nature of the major capitalist nations and their relative power since at least 1914. War became the major catalyst of change for revolutionary movements in Russia, China, and Vietnam. While wars also created reactionary and fascistic parties, particularly in the case of Italy and Germany, in the longer run they brought about domestic social changes of far-reaching magnitude. The Bolshevik Revolution was the preeminent example of this ironic symbiosis of war and revolution. Continues >> http://www.counterpunch.org/kolko07312009.html From naskha3 at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 05:44:03 2009 From: naskha3 at gmail.com (Nasir Khan) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:44:03 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] =?windows-1252?q?Castro_to_US_=96_Cuba_will_stay_commun?= =?windows-1252?q?ist?= Message-ID: <18d70e600908030444n1ea8f9b4l87d907a06ee238fe@mail.gmail.com> Castro to US ? Cuba will stay communist http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6736427.ece Ra?l Castro, the Cuban President, vowed to a standing ovation in parliament yesterday that the country would never give up communism, in what appeared to be a direct response to the Obama Administration?s calls for reform. Mr Castro, the younger brother of the ailing Fidel Castro, also defended impending austerity measures amid a sharp economic downturn in the country. He announced that Cuba would cut spending on education and healthcare and called state spending ?simply unsustainable?. The Government would reorganise rural schools and scrutinise its free healthcare system in search of ways to save money, he said. Nevertheless, the political ideology of the regime was not in question, Mr Castro declared. ?I wasn?t elected President to return capitalism to Cuba, or to surrender the revolution,? he said, referring to the armed uprising led by his brother that toppled the US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista half a century ago. ?I was elected President to defend, build and perfect socialism, not destroy it,? he said. President Obama has been trying to engineer a thaw in relations between the United States and Cuba. Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State, said recently that Washington wanted to see economic and social reforms in Cuba before the Washington Administration would do more to improve bilateral relations. Mr Castro reiterated his willingness to improve relations with America and acknowledged ?a decline in the aggressiveness and anti-Cuban rhetoric? since Mr Obama took power in January. The Cuban President made an unusual mention of the mortality of his 82-year-old brother Fidel, something top officials in Cuba almost never do in public. He scoffed at those who thought that Cuba?s political system would crumble after ?the death of Fidel and of all of us?. He added: ?If that?s how they think, they are doomed to failure.? From sartesian at earthlink.net Mon Aug 3 06:50:23 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 08:50:23 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Post References: Message-ID: <040CCF7C13654B56A1918D1EBC208FAF@dmsthinkpad> Of course I disagree. That was the point of my initial post. First, "proletarian democracy" is not measured by, nor a product of, "voting." For it to be democratic, the rule of the proletariat has to be based on the autonomous organs of the class power itself, in one word, soviets with a small s. Soviets had ceased functioning in the USSR by what? 1920? Secondly, the political shifts in the national and international policies of the Communist Party had nothing to do with majority rule and democracy, but everything to do with the backwardness and isolation of fSU, and the defeat of the international revolution, which defeat the 3rd Intl, in its majority rule and democracy, helped secure. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 11:57 PM Subject: [Marxism] Post > Do you disagree? > > > WL From sartesian at earthlink.net Mon Aug 3 07:13:36 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:13:36 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" with IranRe: Fred Feldman References: <020.e8eb03001fa8764a.302@lws-media.de> Message-ID: <086777F6780A426182C7929030E2307C@dmsthinkpad> Right, right. And let's extend that logic to... hey, why not all the bourgeoisie? How about Kissinger? Clinton [either or both]? Bush, Cheney? Hey, let's not leave out Mugabe, Zuma, Lula, Sarkozy, etc. etc. etc. Don't they also embody the "contradictions," good and bad? Hell, let's extend it to all of capitalism-- not all good, not all bad. On the one hand, while on the other hand... What garbage. Such ding-dong, yo-yo "logic" has nothing to do with dialectics. Keerist, has anybody ever actually sat down to read Hegel? You don't "preserve" the "positive" without deploying, animating, exercising the TOTAL NEGATION of the object, movement, force, in this case social system called capitalism, and its agents, in this case Obama. Splitting up the unity and the recognition of the contradictory parts is the essence of dialectics? I'm sorry, I've read Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks, [vol 38 in the English language version of the collected works, isn't it?] and Lenin has a very undialectical apprehension of dialectics. It's more than the splitting of the unity and recognition of contradictory parts. It is the recognition of the totality of the contradiction in the organization, movement, reproduction of the substance and form-- it is the organization of each in the other so that neither has a separate existence, like, for example, wage-labor and capital, so that in fact neither can be overcome without the abolition and overcoming of both, which can only be done by the subject of history, which, [now here's the really good part that Marx extracted and developed in order to stand Hegel on his feet,] is social labor. Is that too opaque? Hey, read the Science of Logic and try making it more transparent than that for us. Wait a minute, somebody already did that-- Marx. History, which is the basis for dialectic, is not "sorting out." It is overthrow. ----- Original Message ----- From: "L?ko Willms" To: Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 5:04 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" with IranRe: Fred Feldman Simplistic is to proclaim that it is one or the other. In reality it is contradictory. "Splitting up the unity and recognition of its contradictory parts is the essence of dialectics" [my translation from German] is how Lenin begins a short article "On the question of dialectics" he wrote in 1915, while he was preparing taking power in the October Revolution by studying Hegel. Obama is not a homogeneous object, he is full of contradictions. Our task, that of proletarian revolutionists, is to recognize those contradictions and act on them. . And it is possible without falling in the trap of proclaiming Obama "all bad" or "all good". From lnp3 at panix.com Mon Aug 3 07:14:45 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:14:45 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Sarah Palin, meet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Message-ID: <4A76E2C5.8010104@panix.com> http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/mrzine-sinks-to-new-lows/ Pouya really pours it on with the decadent Western imperialist imagery. The anti-Ahmadinejad leftists?have either been greatly influenced by the West or have been educated in Europe or the United States and tend to be devoutly secular.? They become enraged when ?rootless villagers? tell them ?how to dress and behave in public?. Oddly enough, this kind of rhetoric evokes the culture wars attack on Barack Obama from the Sarah Palins of the world. No wonder Tariq Ali found it so easy to compare Islamic fundamentalists to the Christian right in the U.S.A. in ?The Clash of Fundamentalisms?. People like Bizhan Pouya made it easy for him. --- http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/03/palin_ahmadinejad/print.html Sarah Palin, meet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad You two right-wing populists have a surprising amount in common By Juan Cole Aug. 03, 2009 Is Sarah Palin America's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? The two differ in many key respects, of course, but it is remarkable how similar they are. There are uncanny parallels in their biographies, their domestic politics and the way they present themselves -- even in their rocky relationships with party elders. Both are former governors of a northwest frontier state with great natural beauty (in Ahmadinejad's case, Ardabil). Both are known for saying things that produce a classic Scooby-Doo double take in their audiences. Both appeal to a sort of wounded nationalism, speaking of the sacrifice of dedicated troops for an often feckless public, and identifying themselves with the common soldier. They are vigilant against foreign designs on their countries and insist on energy and other independence. But above all, both are populists who claim to represent the little people against wily and unscrupulous elites, and against pampered upper-middle-class yuppies pretending to be the voice of democracy. Together, they tell us something about dangerous competing populisms in an age of globalization. Both politicians glory in being mavericks, as a way of underlining their credentials as representatives of the ordinary person. Former beauty queen Palin calls herself a hockey mom and plays up her avocation of wolf and moose hunting, to rally her rural supporters and, perhaps, to disconcert squeamish urbanites. Ahmadinejad, who earned a Ph.D. in civil engineering with top grades, is said to have once dressed up as a janitor and swept the streets when campaigning for mayor of Tehran. Most recently, his supporters have dismissed the Iranian protesters as pampered young people from the wealthy neighborhoods of North Tehran. In fact, both figures are themselves quite comfortable. Palin portrays herself as the small-town outsider. "I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment," she proclaimed last fall. She blamed her bad press on not being in the "Washington elite," when, in fact, self-inflicted debacles such as her deer-in-the-headlights interview with Katie Couric, in which she demonstrated a shaky grasp of world politics, are a better explanation for media questions about her qualifications. In his debates with rivals for the presidency this spring, Ahmadinejad apparently damaged his standing with voters by attacking the wife of his electoral rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi, and tarring previous presidents of the Islamic Republic from the centrist and reform factions as having been corrupt. On June 5, he said on Iranian radio that since he was not a part of that closed "power circle," he had been targeted for both a domestic and an international media "smear campaign." Actually, Ahmadinejad was raked over the coals during the campaign by Mousavi for his ignorant and bigoted statements about Israel, which, Mousavi pointed out, had damaged Iran's standing in the international community. Both so-called mavericks have had tense relations with their party elders at times. Many Republicans have made withering statements about Palin and consider her a "train wreck," and her conflicts with the camp of her former running mate, Sen. John McCain, are legend. Ahmadinejad got into hot water last week with his patron, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, for appointing an overly liberal relative as his first vice-president. Ahmadinejad dragged his feet on firing the man, but in the end bowed to pressure from his fellow hard-liners. On Friday, the president was forced to deny that there was any rift between him and Khamenei. For a maverick populist, such conflicts with the party elders are useful in emphasizing their independence from the establishment even as they remain largely within it. Both leaders see press criticisms as coordinated attempts to discredit them not from the media's duty to examine a political figure's policies or public statements, but from an elite conspiracy. In her farewell address about a week ago, Palin fell into a Shakespearean soliloquy directed at the media, saying, "Democracy depends on you, and that is why, that's why our troops are willing to die for you. So, how 'bout in honor of the American soldier, ya quit makin' things up." Palin did not say what exactly she thought the media was making up about the American soldier. On June 16, in his first news conference after his officially announced victory in Iran's June 12 presidential election, Ahmadinejad complained, "During these elections, our nation was faced with a widespread psychological war and propaganda by some of mass media which have not learned from the past." The people, he boasted, followed not the media but the path of "the martyrs [in war] ..." An armed citizenry is important to Palin's conception of the republic, and she warned in her farewell address, "You're going to see anti-hunting, anti-Second Amendment circuses from Hollywood ..." She continued, "Stand strong, and remind them patriots will protect our guaranteed, individual right to bear arms ..." By talking about "patriots" "protecting" the individual right to bear arms, Palin skated awfully close to the militia or "patriot" movement on the right-wing American fringe (and not for the first time). Ahmadinejad is not similarly in favor of all citizens having guns, but he comes out of a popular militia, the Basij, which consists of hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizen patriots, armed and pledged to defend the constitution of the Islamic Republic. Right-wing populism, rooted in the religion, culture and aspirations of the lower middle class, is often caricatured as insane by its critics. That judgment is unfair. But it is true that such movements often encourage a political style of exhibitionism, disregard for the facts as understood by the mainstream media, and exaltation of the values of people who feel themselves marginalized by the political system. Not all forms of protest, however, are healthy, even if the protesters have legitimate grievances. Right-wing populism is centered on a theory of media conspiracy, a "my country right or wrong" chauvinism, a fascination with an armed citizenry, an intolerance of dissent and a willingness to declare political opponents mere terrorists. It is cavalier in its disregard of elementary facts and arrogant about the self-evident rightness of its religious and political doctrines. It therefore holds dangers both for the country in which it grows up and for the international community. Palin is polling well at the moment against other Republican front-runners such as Mitt Romney, and so, astonishingly, is a plausible future president. At least Iranians only got Ahmadinejad because of rigged elections, and they had the decency to mount massive protests against the result. From Jscotlive at aol.com Mon Aug 3 07:42:45 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:42:45 EDT Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" with IranRe: Fred Feldman Message-ID: Sartesian: You don't "preserve" the "positive" without deploying, animating, exercising the TOTAL NEGATION of the object, movement, force, in this case social system called capitalism, and its agents, in this case Obama. Reply: Capitalism is NOT a social system. It is a mode of production which, as with any mode of production in any given epoch, is the foundation upon which the property relations, social, moral, legal, and juridicial code of society rests - i.e., the aforementioned reflects the current state of the development of productive forces and not vice versa. There is NO total negation of the object, movement, force or whatever. There is on the contrary a change in substance - i.e., a qualitative change - which subsumes elements of that which came before in what is a continual PROCESS and not a metaphysical thing-in-itself or ready made thing. For example, the mode of production known as Capitalism is historically by far the most advanced and progressive in the technological advancement it has spawned, in the way it has harnessed nature, and organised and socialised labor to create wealth and huge abundance. On the other hand it is historically by far also the most regressive insofar as the waste, inefficiency, poverty, and human suffering it has spawned. The first is THESIS: the second is ANTITHESIS (i.e, the contradiction) to which socialism is the SYNTHESIS (i.e the solution) and qualitative change. Socialism will not offer a total negation of the capitalist mode of production. Objectively, it will usher into being a more rational and efficient mode of production at the point at which Capitalism outlives its historical role in the development of productive forces. The technological advances, the organisation of labor,everything progressive and revolutionary developed under Capitalism will not be negated under socialism. Rather these will be harnassed and developed. Everything in nature develops according to the same process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Negation of the negation. What you describe is a metaphysical leap from one thing-in-itself to another, completely shorn of any of the characteristics of its predecessor. As Marx rightly states, the new society comes into being bearing the birth marks of the old. The only thing you say which makes sense is that Marx turned Hegel on his head with his rejection of the absolute concept and big idea which gave rise to Hegel's phenomenology. Before you start running at the mouth, I'd advise a return to the books. From mikedjyates at msn.com Mon Aug 3 07:47:59 2009 From: mikedjyates at msn.com (MICHAEL YATES) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 06:47:59 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] blog post: Support the Troops? No! A Review of The Deserter's Tale by Joshua Key Message-ID: Full at http://blog.cheapmotelsandahotplate.org The United States is the most warlike nation on earth and has been for a very long time. It would take too much space simply to enumerate all of the places where the United States is involved today in wars of one kind or another. Not only are U.S. troops actively fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but our government has military bases in every part of the globe and CIA and other undercover agents in every country imaginable. Yet to hear our leaders and media pundits tell it, we are a peace-loving country. We are drawn into wars with great reluctance and only because of the bad behavior of others. We are good, and these others are bad, some so bad that they are the incarnation of evil, and it is our duty as the greatest place on earth to rid the world of this depravity. We have military outposts and soldiers in foreign countries only to ensure global security and safety. When the United States goes to war, then, our soldiers are the embodiment of our virtue, knights in shining armor sent forth to do good deeds. Newscasters never tire of celebrating and thanking our "heroes," those brave men and women who are sacrificing?and sometimes making the "ultimate sacrifice"?so that the rest of us can remain free. Neither the notion that the United States is a "peace-loving country" nor the image of our soldiers as "embodiments of our virtue" can stand up to a close look. The facts of U.S. war making and the unsavory motives behind it are easy enough to find. Just read Howard Zinn?s A People?s History of the United States for most of the details. Here I want to talk about the troops. Ever since the United States invaded Iraq, we have been admonished by nearly everyone to "support the troops." Even those opposed to the war use this slogan. When we lived in Estes Park, Colorado, we went to a meeting of a local organization called "Patriots for Peace." They were opposed to the war but said that we had to "support the troops." In the discussion that followed the meeting, we discerned an unwillingness by most of the participants to ever say anything negative about U.S. soldiers. If we say that we support the troops, doesn?t this mean that we also support what the troops are doing? If not, then it must mean that we are somehow able to divorce the soldiers as persons from their actions. I don?t see how this is possible. A person cannot be separated from his or her actions. "Actions speak louder than words." "By their fruits ye shall know them." These are cliches, but they are true. There is no other way to judge the troops that to judge their actions. Every year, in honor of my late father, who was indelibly shaped by his experiences in the Second World War, I read a book or two about war. This year I read The Deserter?s Tale by Joshua Key. Key grew up poor in a small Oklahoma town, without a father and a string of violent stepfathers. He learned how to shoot and hunt at a very early age, and he was adept at fighting and fixing things. Army recruiters found their way to the family trailer when he was in high school, but he didn?t join the army until he was in his early twenties. By then he was married with two children and another coming soon. He and his wife couldn?t make enough money to get by, no matter what jobs they took or how many time they moved in search of something better. Their debts began to pile up, mounting to near the breaking point after four trips to the hospital for a kidney stone. In desperation, he and his wife began to think about the military as a way out of their financial mess. The Marines turned him down because he had too many kids and too much debt. The army recruiter, however, saw a warm body who would help him meet his recruiting quota. He told Key how to answer the questions he asked and took a "don?t ask, don?t tell" approach to facts such as Key?s pregnant wife, his two herniated discs, his arrest for hitting a policeman, and his mounting debts. When Key said adamantly that he didn?t want to be separated from his family, the recruiter promised Key that he would get the training he wanted and spend his tour of duty building bridges in the United States, where he would be assigned to a "nondeployable base." Key duly enlisted and soon found out that everything the recruiter told him was a lie. Not long after basic and then specialized training, he was sent to Iraq. He had been taught to make and defuse bombs and mines. From arbetarpolitik at yahoo.com Mon Aug 3 07:56:13 2009 From: arbetarpolitik at yahoo.com (Adam Berg) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 06:56:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Marxism] Leftist comments on new "media law" in Venezuela? Message-ID: <122907.12150.qm@web65709.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Nothing on HoV, venezuelanalysis.com. Does anyone know what the "media law" actually says??Any official views from leftist parties? ? Here is one artically on the law on al-Jazeera. Don?t know what is true and what is not, but I would like to know.. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/08/20098133741167236.html ? /Adam From bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 07:59:55 2009 From: bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com (Bhaskar Sunkara) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:59:55 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Leftist comments on new "media law" in Venezuela? In-Reply-To: <122907.12150.qm@web65709.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <122907.12150.qm@web65709.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Not sure about what the leftist blogosphere is saying about it, but the BNP quasi-fascists love it http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2009/08/hugo-chavez-tackes-media-corporatocracy.html From sartesian at earthlink.net Mon Aug 3 08:11:58 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 10:11:58 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" with IranRe:Fred Feldman References: Message-ID: Once again, thanks for clarifying that you have never read Hegel, and probably little enough of Marx. Don't know where you learned your dialectics comrade, but you should definitely ask for your money back. First: "Capitalism is NOT a social system. It is a mode of production which, as with any mode of production in any given epoch, is the foundation upon which the property relations, social, moral, legal, and juridicial code of society rests - i.e., the aforementioned reflects the current state of the development of productive forces and not vice versa." _____ That's first and that says all we need to know about your analysis of capitalism. Capitalism indeed a mode of production, but it is a specific mode of production based on a specific social relation, social oganization of labor. The property relations are but the congealed, expropriated moments of that organization of labor. That makes capitalism a social system for the reproduction, aggrandizement, and expropriation of wage-labor. Marxism is not "developmentalism," where we worship dams, industrial farms, power plants and say those are the "good things" about capitalism, as that "good" is the product of the "bad"-- the immiseration of labor, the imposition of poverty, the destruction of life, and neither can be separated from the other without the.... expropriation of the expropriators. Does that sound familiar to you? It does to me, and you know what else, that happens to be exactly what is meant by negation of the totality, or... negation of the negation. It appears to me that you have never grasped, besides Hegel, Marx's fundamental starting point, that is of the commodity as not just a use-value, but as the embodiment of a social relation of labor, the congealed moment, so to speak, of wage-labor. Use-value does not exist for the social system that aggrandizes wage labor separate and apart from exchange value. It cannot exist separate and apart from that, which is why capitalism, when stronger, or strong enough, works so furiously to destroy communal production AND subsistence agricultural production. __________ Second: "For example, the mode of production known as Capitalism is historically by > far the most advanced and progressive in the technological advancement it > has spawned, in the way it has harnessed nature, and organised and > socialised labor to create wealth and huge abundance. On the other hand > it is > historically by far also the most regressive insofar as the waste, > inefficiency, > poverty, and human suffering it has spawned. > > The first is THESIS: the second is ANTITHESIS (i.e, the contradiction) to > which socialism is the SYNTHESIS (i.e the solution) and qualitative > change. > Socialism will not offer a total negation of the capitalist mode of > production. Objectively, it will usher into being a more rational and > efficient > mode of production at the point at which Capitalism outlives its > historical > role in the development of productive forces. The technological advances, > the organisation of labor,everything progressive and revolutionary > developed > under Capitalism will not be negated under socialism. Rather these will > be > harnassed and developed. Everything in nature develops according to the > same process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." __________________________ This is one of the clearest examples of mechanicism pretending to be Marxism, or dialectics, I have read since I stopped reading Kautsky, Workers Vanguard, etc. Capitalism will of course be negated under socialism. It has to be. Again capitalism is not simply things, objects, or "a mode of production." It is a social relation which requires the aggrandizement, expropriation, and expulsion of wage-labor, in to appropriate surplus value and accrue profit. Socialism, or communism, is suppose to be, according to Marx, the free association of producers. Free associations of producers do not exploit wage labor to accumulate exchange value. Important distinction. And since you don't recognize that, then you truly recognize nothing about the commodity, capital, wage-labor, dialectics, socialism or Marx, which explains a lot about your uncritical tailing and obedience to then Arafat, now Hamas, etc. Capitalism does not exist as a collection a mass of means of production, separate and apart from the class of capitalists and that class's property. In fact, a thorough analysis of capital and CAPITAL will show that the accumulation the means of production by the bourgeoisie is an "accidental," contingent, secondary development, the "necessary evil" which the bourgeoisie are always trying to escape. For the working class to take power means to seize the means of production but the nature of capital, of dialectics if you prefer, is that it cannot do so without abolishing all of capitalism, all of its social system, its relations of property, its organization of labor as wage-labor; thus the proletariat has to mindfully create its own abolition of wage-labor-- it must abolish the totality of the social relation which is also itself. That is negation of the totality of capitalism. I'd advise you to return to the books, but I suspect "return" would not be appropriate. Perhaps pay a first visit. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 9:42 AM Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" with IranRe:Fred Feldman From lnp3 at panix.com Mon Aug 3 08:15:47 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:15:47 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Leftist comments on new "media law" in Venezuela? In-Reply-To: References: <122907.12150.qm@web65709.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A76F113.6010504@panix.com> Bhaskar Sunkara wrote: > Not sure about what the leftist blogosphere is saying about it, but the BNP > quasi-fascists love it > http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2009/08/hugo-chavez-tackes-media-corporatocracy.html The top post right now at Harry's Place is a smear of Hugo Chavez by trying to link him the UK neo-nazi outfit, the British National Party. I won't link to their site but it's easy to find and it often bears more than a passing resemblance to Harry's Place. Well, a leading light (or should that be leading white?) at the BNP is a chap called Lee Barnes and he had a post on his blog (again I won't link) about how Hugo Chavez gets a bad press and how the BNP gets a bad press so Mr Barnes approves of the way that Chavez takes on the press. So according to the loons at Harrys Place this means that Chavez and the BNP are some kind of bedfellows. It apparently doesn't occur to them that islamophobia and militarism give HP more in common with the BNP than anything Chavez might have in common with either. full: http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2009/08/harrys-place-links-to-fascists-go-viral.html From sartesian at earthlink.net Mon Aug 3 08:23:12 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 10:23:12 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" withIranRe:Fred Feldman References: Message-ID: <650FF9492E5F4C88BFE4D416B9E8FD55@dmsthinkpad> And not to beat a dead horse to make him drink, but--- But can anyone explain how J's mechanical interpretation of socialism giving a more rational expression to capital's technical developments HAS ANYTHING to do with Luko's post advising us to "separate" the negative from the positive, not in the Hoover Dam, but in the chief executive of the bourgeoisie's state, Obama? Dialectics, indeed. From Jscotlive at aol.com Mon Aug 3 09:01:12 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 11:01:12 EDT Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" withIranRe:Fred Feldman Message-ID: Sartesian: Capitalism indeed a mode of production, but it is a specific mode of production based on a specific social relation, social oganization of labor. The property relations are but the congealed, expropriated moments of that organization of labor. That makes capitalism a social system for the reproduction, aggrandizement, and expropriation of wage-labor. Reply: Nonsense. Capitalism describes a mode of production predicated on the objective of capital accumulation. It describes a specific state in the development of productive forces - i.e., socialised labor - and the ownership of the means of production - i.e, private. Capital accumulation is the objective, social labor is the means to that objective, and Capitalism is the mode of production which describes this process. The social system - the division of society into antagonistic social classes - is a product, a symptom, of this economic system and not the other way round. Sartesian: It appears to me that you have never grasped, besides Hegel, Marx's fundamental starting point, that is of the commodity as not just a use-value, but as the embodiment of a social relation of labor, the congealed moment, so to speak, of wage-labor. Use-value does not exist for the social system that aggrandizes wage labor separate and apart from exchange value. It cannot exist separate and apart from that, which is why capitalism, when stronger, or strong enough, works so furiously to destroy communal production AND subsistence agricultural production. Reply: It appears to me that you have failed to grasp anything of Marx at all. Yes, a commodity is the embodiment of social labor - what of it? How does this support your argument that Capitalism is a social system first and foremost. An economic system and a social system are NOT one and the same. An apple cannot be an orange at the same time as it's an apple. The social system in any given society reflects its mode of production, period. The inner workings of Capitalism, its sine qua non, divide society into social classes as a consequence of its objective of capital accumulation. Social Labor on its own describes one component part of this process. The property relations which sit upon this foundation describe the other. Social labor does not in of itself decide describe the mode of production, rather it describes the a definite stage in the development of productive forces. Sartesian: Capitalism will of course be negated under socialism. It has to be. Again capitalism is not simply things, objects, or "a mode of production." It is a social relation which requires the aggrandizement, expropriation, and expulsion of wage-labor, in to appropriate surplus value and accrue profit. Socialism, or communism, is suppose to be, according to Marx, the free association of producers Reply: Social labor, a component part of the capitalist mode of production, will clearly NOT be negated under socialism. The private ownership of the means of production shall, along with the antagonistic class divisions it has spawned. The first and elementary stage of socialism is state ownership of the means of produciton. It is NOT he abolition of social labor. Communism is that stage in the development of socialism, which again develops as a process, where from each according to his ability to each according to his means comes into being as a definite stage of the development of productive forces. Capitalism, again, is a mode or production which gives rise to definite social relations and not the other way round. Sartesian: Free associations of producers do not exploit wage labor to accumulate exchange value. Important distinction. And since you don't recognize that, then you truly recognize nothing about the commodity, capital, wage-labor, dialectics, socialism or Marx, which explains a lot about your uncritical tailing and obedience to then Arafat, now Hamas, etc. Reply: What on Earth are you talking about? Free associations of producers is Marx's definition of the state of communist society when abstract labor has been abolished. Getting there entails a process of development, especially when concerning the experience of really existing socialism that has thus far occurred. And given the mish-mash of Hegel, Marx and passages from Capital that you through around like confetti and clearly misunderstand, it explains your repeated asinine and bumptious contributions. Btw, Marx's work on dialectics is explicitly a critique of Hegel, not as you suggest an affirmation. It was a clear attempt at removing the abstractions from Hegel's materialism, which rendered him incapable of breaking entirely from idealist blinkers. There is nothing mechanical about this process either. Marx's work lays out the objective groundwork and conditions under which human progress will occur. But before he was a philosopher or economist, he was a revolutionary, and contained in his works is an agitational tone, a clear attempt to stir the proletariat to action. The required subjective factor, as history has shown, is neither guaranteed nor predictable. From markalause at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 09:12:14 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 11:12:14 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" with IranRe: Fred Feldman In-Reply-To: <086777F6780A426182C7929030E2307C@dmsthinkpad> References: <020.e8eb03001fa8764a.302@lws-media.de> <086777F6780A426182C7929030E2307C@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: Yes, the world's regrettably made up of contradictions and we can't behave as if we're in a comic book. Sartesian rhetorically offers us a list of scandalous bastards and asks if we'd defend them. Some of that list are black or Jewish. Kissinger's lifetime of despicable conduct has nothing to do with whether we mean we don't counter blood libels and Antisemitism.... So, my answer is that, yes, if they are attacked or slandered on those grounds, we don't ignore it...and we deal with it as appropriate to the slander or attack. ML From sartesian at earthlink.net Mon Aug 3 09:47:17 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 11:47:17 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" withIranRe:FredFeldman References: Message-ID: <229A051EA6AF48A1B116417168570C39@dmsthinkpad> Perhaps you don't understand. When I say capitalism is a social system, I am saying its a system that requires a specific organization of labor. It is a system that maintains itself through the reproduction of a society based on a class ownership of private proverty in the means of production, and the organization of labor as wage-labor. Marx was neither a philosopher nor an economist. Marx begins, maintains, and concludes with the critique of political economy, after he finishes his critique, overthrow of philosophy. What is economics for Marx? The analysis of the social relations of production. That's it. That's the demystification Marx practices-- that's why he begins with the commodity which is the embodiment of a specific social relation. That's why capitalism as an "economic system" is not distinct from capitalism as a social organization of labor. That's why the organization of the means of production as capital is contradictory, and that, based on wage-labor and private property, the commodities' values are not immediately and directly realizable. Capitalism does not so much "give rise" to a specific set of social relations as it IS a specific social relation, wage-labor and capital each exist only in the organization of the other. "Capitalism describes a mode of production predicated on the objective of capital accumulation"? That's supposed to be what, a definition? A description? A tautology? Certainly sounds like the latter, doesn't it? Capitalism requires capital accumulation? No shit. And what does that mean? Capital to become capital must organize the means of production as private property and labor as wage-labor. It must reproduce that organization in the existence of the "living pools"-- capitalists and wage-laborers. The fact that you don't understand in the slightest what Hegel or Marx meant by negation says loads about your demand for blind obedience in the support of "left, and petty-capitalist" formations. Right, separating the "positive" from the "negative" has been so productive regarding such formations like the KMT, Fatah, the Popular Front govt in Spain or Chile. Tell me, are the bourgeoisie a progressive class? In Mexico in 1910? Were they a progressive class in 1905? In the Spanish-American war of 1898? What was positive and negative about the destruction of the the liberation movement in the Philippines by Pershing? Are the positives separable from the negatives? Absolutely not. Only by overthrowing the totality of the CLASS POWER, of its organization of labor, can anything "positive" be realized. Note to Mark Lause: My position is not to argue that we don't oppose racism. I have said many times, as despicable as Mugabe is, or Hussein was, fundamentally we oppose any attempt by the Western countries to remove them. Similar circumstances with Obama. Of course we oppose racist attack. I believe right here on this list I stated that if Obama supporters were at a rally supporting women's rights to abortion, and they were attacked by Christian goons, we would defend the Obama supporters. But that's not the issue Luko was raising. He was raising the issue of sorting out the "positive" in Obama. There is no positive in Obama. Just as there is no positive in the bank bailouts, the stimulus programs, Obama's healthcare proposals. Marxists are under no obligation to support any of that, and in fact should not. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 11:01 AM Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" withIranRe:FredFeldman > From binesi at gvtel.com Mon Aug 3 09:59:09 2009 From: binesi at gvtel.com (David Thorstad) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:59:09 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] interesting article on a Chicago defense case from 1947 Message-ID: <4A77094D.1020501@gvtel.com> The following link has an excellent article in /Dissident Voice/ about the Hickman Defense Committee, organized by the Chicago Socialist Workers Party in 1947, that won freedom for James Hickman, a black worker who shot his black landlord to death following a fire that killed four of his children. One of the leaders of that defense committee, Frank Fried, wrote me yesterday to thank me for my reminiscences of Ray Dunne, leader of the 1934 Minneapolis strikes, which someone had sent to him. Frank had been an SWP member till he left the party with the Cochranites in the 1950s. I had never known about either him or this case before, but thank him for opening up a window onto it for me. David http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/07/the-fight-to-save-james-hickman-in-post-wwii-chicago/ From sabocat59 at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 10:09:57 2009 From: sabocat59 at gmail.com (Greg McDonald) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 12:09:57 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] ILC Interview with Honduran Labor & Resistance Leader Carlos H. Reyes Message-ID: <6e42edf00908030909p57997d0avd4d774514dacc608@mail.gmail.com> International Liaison Committee of Workers & Peoples P.O. Box 40009, San Francisco, CA 94140. Tel. (415) 641-8616; fax: (415) 626-1217. To UNSUBSCRIBE, contact website: www.owcinfo.org ------------------------------------------------ [please excuse duplicate postings] ILC Interview with Honduran Labor & Resistance Leader Carlos H. Reyes [Note: Following is an interview conducted by the ILC International Newsletter with Carlos H. Reyes, general secretary of the Beverage Industry Workers Union (STIBYS), leader of the Bloque Popular and member of the Coordinating Committee for the National Front Against the Coup. The interview took place on Monday, July 27, 2009 -- three days before Brother Reyes was badly beaten at a peaceful march of striking public-sector workers demanding the immediate and unconditional reinstatement of President Manuel Zelaya. At this writing, Brother Reyes is still hospitalized. -- A.B.] ILC: On Sunday [July 26] there was an attack on the union headquarters. What happened? Reyes: The assembly of the National Front had finished 15 minutes before the attack occurred. The participants had gathered for a memorial to the young man, Pedro Mu?oz, who was killed by the Honduran army on the border with Nicaragua. There were no victims from the attack on our headquarters. ILC: Was this a warning to your union and to the Front? Reyes: No question about it. ILC: Who makes up the Front, and what are its objectives? Reyes: The resistance is composed of popular organizations from around the country. To begin with, there are three union federations: the CUTH, the CTH and the CGT. There are organizations of campesinos, students, women, and indigenous peoples. There are also churches and human rights groups. There is the Party for Democratic Unification (UD), a small party on the left, as well as a section of the Liberal Party that supports Zelaya. The main objective of the Front is to ensure the return to institutional legality, the reinstatement of President Mel Zelaya, and the continuation of the process toward the Constituent Assembly. ILC: What did the assembly of the Front decide on July 26? Reyes: We decided to continue the resistance movement, issue a new call for a national work stoppage on Thursday and Friday, July 30 and 31, and continue with the sit-ins and highway roadblocks. ILC; What is your position on the Arias Plan? (1) Reyes: Our position has been crystal clear from the beginning. We are against this so-called mediation. We cannot accept the recognition of a de-facto government established by a coup d'etat. This is a military dictatorship. We reaffirm our demand for the immediate and unconditional return of institutional legality and the continuation of the process toward a Constituent Assembly. We are also opposed to the two-track position of the U.S. administration. On one hand, Obama condemns the coup but on the other hand the U.S. military-industrial complex supports it. Besides, it is clear that the Honduran dictatorship is not willing to accept the Arias Plan. ILC: What is the present situation on the border with Nicaragua? Reyes: Thousands of people mobilized to the border to escort their present back to the capital, but they were blocked by the army, which had cordoned off entire regions and instituted a state of siege. Hundreds of activists were detained, and there has already been the first assassination -- that of compa?ero Pedro Mu?oz. The situation is intolerable. ILC; How did this entire struggle begin? What prompted it? Reyes: At the root of it all is the undemocratic 1982 Constitution, which allowed the large businessmen and the multinationals to monopolize all the power. (2) It promoted "free trade" and sweatshop pass-though industries, which have destroyed the national production of our country and our jobs. They, the oligarchy, are the ones who have benefited from the 1982 Constitution and who organized the June 28 coup to preserve their interests. ILC: What should the international labor movement do on your behalf? Reyes: We need the broadest possible solidarity from the international labor movement. Through you, we call on all the workers' organizations worldwide to organize the most powerful solidarity effort with our resistance movement. Our union, the Beverage Industry Workers Union (STIBYS), has issued an appeal to the International Union of Food Workers (IUF). We especially call on the dockworkers and their unions to block the ports and boycott all cargo bound for Honduras. And we call on you to demand of your governments that they act decisively to promote the return of institutional legality in our country, just as the main international institutions have demanded. ---- ENDNOTES (1) Seven-point "mediation" plan put together by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias at the behest of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary that would permit Zelaya to return to Honduras but on the condition that he form a "national unity government" with the coup plotters and that he explicitly renounce the effort to promote a Constituent Assembly and a new constitution. (2) The 1982 Constitution in Honduras, the country's 15th Constitution, was drafted by a 71-member "Constituent Assembly" selected by the brutal and pro-oligarchy military junta headed by Policarpio Paz Garc?a. It is so undemocratic that even the U.S. State Department report on human rights in 1992 had to acknowledge that there are no safeguards in the document that protect basic democratic and human rights. The demand to draft a new Constitution in the interest of the workers and peasants of Honduras has been a long-held demand of the workers' and popular movement in that country. From markalause at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 11:39:42 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:39:42 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" withIranRe:FredFeldman In-Reply-To: <229A051EA6AF48A1B116417168570C39@dmsthinkpad> References: <229A051EA6AF48A1B116417168570C39@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: Obviously, everything embodies contradictions, but we need to ask whether and how those contradictions have political meaning and utility for us. The Obama administration offers many opportunities for us to take some initiatives to call them to account on its rhetoric and expectations. None of these existed under Bush when you had an administration with few expectations for serious change. What amazes me is that, thus far, the socialist Left has generally sat back and waited for the people who elected Obama to wake up to the point where THEY will take the initiatives. The health care issue provided us with a golden opportunity. So did the Democratic "stimulus" that looked so much like the Republican "bailout." If anything positive comes out of the contradictions plaguing health care in America, what will have been the role of the Left? ML From lnp3 at panix.com Mon Aug 3 11:58:23 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:58:23 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Yanomami Science Wars: part five Message-ID: <4A77253F.2010802@panix.com> Critique number one: Marvin Harris This will be the first in a series of posts about Napoleon Chagnon?s critics. It will begin with a review the arguments of Marvin Harris, a long-time member of the Columbia University faculty who died in 2001. Harris described his approach as cultural materialism, clearly influenced by Karl Marx. Harris is best known for ?Cannibals and Kings: the Origins of Culture?, a book written in 1978 that explains human history as a struggle to achieve nourishment, including the Aztec?s whose ritual sacrifices were interpreted as a means to a better diet! Many anthropologists regarded this approach as one-sided, including Marshall Sahlins who was Harris?s peer and also influenced by Marxism. In a November 23, 1978 review in the New York Review of Books, Sahlins faulted Harris for being overly deterministic: Applied to the explanation of Aztec cannibalism or Hindu taboos, Harris?s utilitarianism incorporates the meanings other people give their lives within the kind of material rationalizations we give to our own. Sartre appropriately called a similar intellectual procedure ?terror,? for its inflexible refusal to discriminate, its goal of ?total assimilation at the least possible effort.? Sartre was referring to the ?vulgar Marxism? which could only see in an act of politics or a poem of Val?ry?s some version of ?bourgeois idealism.? Everything in the social superstructure could be reduced to its economic function. Given this context, it should come as no surprise that Harris?s main beef with Chagnon was over whether the Yanomami were as well-fed as he claimed. If warfare was understood as the need to gain control over scarce meat protein in the rainforest, then the whole business about gene diffusion became less convincing. read full article: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/yanomami-science-wars-part-five/ From lnp3 at panix.com Mon Aug 3 12:24:23 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:24:23 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Post WWII fiction Message-ID: <4A772B57.3030109@panix.com> http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/016_02/3847 June/July/Aug 2009 Shop Talk Is the writing workshop a crucible for an aesthetic based on shame? Mark Greif Some of the big questions about US fiction since World War II are obvious. Why did the enormous novel of technical, scientific, or historical knowledge become the highest credential for male writers (Pynchon, Gaddis, DeLillo, Wallace)?and why have its authors been mostly elite and white? Did fiction truly split up after the ?60s on lines of identity, as many think, so that female authors had to decide whether they were creating ?women?s writing,? and the minimalists of the ?80s (Carver, Jayne Anne Phillips) became representatives of marginalized whiteness? And there?s perhaps the most complex question of all: What has the movement of postwar writing into the university done to our literature? Few professional writers in the second half of the twentieth century escaped attending college. Many wound up in MFA programs. Still more acquired university patronage as teachers or paid visitors. And the most esteemed, ?high literary? books have sustained their sales and prestige in large part through assignments to undergraduates. The obvious nature of this last question only places the decades-long lack of a proper answer in higher relief. It is proportionately exhilarating to find, in Mark McGurl?s The Program Era, a brilliant and comprehensive mind developing one at last. McGurl trains his gaze on the university writing programs and some of the masterful novelists they have incubated. But he makes his most compelling arguments at the level of the writer?s practical place in the academy, examining the distorting (and enabling) effects of university discipline on individual artists, and considering the wider role of ?creative writing? within a chain of notions of creativity (lasting from high school to the service-economy workplace) that inculcate skills for late-capitalist life. (CLIP) From Jscotlive at aol.com Mon Aug 3 13:41:03 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:41:03 EDT Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement" withIranRe:FredFeldman Message-ID: Sartesian: Tell me, are the bourgeoisie a progressive class? In Mexico in 1910? Were they a progressive class in 1905? In the Spanish-American war of 1898? What was positive and negative about the destruction of the the liberation movement in the Philippines by Pershing? Are the positives separable from the negatives? Absolutely not. Reply: 'The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part. The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations.' The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Sartesian: Only by overthrowing the totality of the CLASS POWER, of its organization of labor, can anything "positive" be realized. Reply: Yes, but also only by harnessing the technological advances it has wrought, the advances in the organisation of labor, through the collective ownership of the means of production, can socialism enter history as an advanced economic and social system. The alternative is to what? Smash the machines? Engage in a frenzy of Luddite-like return to year-zero, ala Khmer Rouge? Smashing class power is to smash existing property relations, which have become a fetter on production rather than its motor.. It is clearly NOT to dispense with the progress made under a mode of production which was an advance on that which went before. Finally, with your continued jibes about 'tailing Hamas' it is clear to me that you are a fool. In Marxist terms the word is revisionist. Rather than extrapolate your conclusion from an investigation of the facts, you instead have applied your conclusion to that investigation beforehand, and thereafter sought to build an argument in support thereof. To clarify, I do not tail Hamas. I support Hamas, 100 percent, in its resistance to settler colonialism, apartheid and ethnic cleansing - but even more importantly, in its resistance to a gendarme of the common enemy of humanity in our term, US imperialism. For you, it is clear, imperialism is nothing more than an abstraction, a word completely shorn of meaning, much less an economic category. Your enemy is Hamas, mine happens to be imperialism. Hamas are not a progressive entity in of themselves, but in their resistance to the aforementioned, and in global and regional terms, they certainly play a progressive role. The form of resistance changes, this is a product of specific historical conditions previously gone over. The one absolute necessity (be careful now, cause I may just about to get all Hegelian on your ass) is resistance. Oppression tends to breed it, you know. Why is it an absolute necessity? Because all that is rational carries within it the seeds of its own irrationality, including Hamas, including the bourgeoisie, including Capitalism - including the Obama administration - including everything that exists in and of human society. From shmage at pipeline.com Mon Aug 3 13:43:17 2009 From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:43:17 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Monthly Review's past articles on Iran In-Reply-To: References: <20090802.121945.5564.0.farmelantj@juno.com> <4A75C17D.2070802@panix.com> Message-ID: <4385B62F-D51B-4FA1-B242-D365E0F0D531@pipeline.com> On Aug 2, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Richard Fidler wrote: > Louis: "So Trotsky says that there is a semifascist regime that > revolutionaries should hate and that if it is victorious in a war with > Britain, it will lead to the downfall of the Brazilian government... > the > analogy with the Vargas regime in Brazil seems quite apt to me... if > Iran > were victorious in a military conflict with the United States...That > is > by no means excluded...to defend a reactionary semicolonial > regime against imperialism in the here and now. That takes real > backbone. A war in 1938 between England and Brazil could have been envisaged only as a hypothetical fantasy. A US war against Iran in 2010 can be envisaged only as a nightmare, or as a fantasy conjured up by oil speculators. A US military defeat by Iran is a much less likely fantasy than either. Shane Mage > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it > always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, > kindling in measures and going out in measures." > > Herakleitos of Ephesos From fred.fuentes at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 13:50:18 2009 From: fred.fuentes at gmail.com (Fred Fuentes) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:20:18 +1930 Subject: [Marxism] Leftist comments on new "media law" in Venezuela? In-Reply-To: <122907.12150.qm@web65709.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <122907.12150.qm@web65709.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: There will be an article on this issue posted at Venezuela Analysis later today. A quick note though, no new law on media has been passed, instead the old one is being implemented. The radio stations were "shut down" in the same way that drug labs get "shut down" - they were operating illegally on state regulated frequencies. On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Adam Berg wrote: > Nothing on HoV, venezuelanalysis.com. Does anyone know what the "media law" actually says??Any official views from leftist parties? > > Here is one artically on the law on al-Jazeera. Don?t know what is true and what is not, but I would like to know.. > http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/08/20098133741167236.html > > /Adam > > > > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/fred.fuentes%40gmail.com > From lnp3 at panix.com Mon Aug 3 13:56:03 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:56:03 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] The infernal island Message-ID: <4A7740D3.700@panix.com> http://www.latamrob.com/?p=892 Forget Open Veins of Latin America, Lars Schoultz offers a much more enlightening window upon the main obstacle to better US relations in Latin America That Infernal Little Cuban Republic: The United States and the Cuban Revolution Lars Schoultz 2009, University of North Carolina Press 745 pages, hardback Reviewed by Gavin O?Toole WHAT is it about ?respect? that you don?t understand? is a question that seems to permeate every page of Lars Schoultz?s comprehensive survey of relations between the US and Cuba. As this veteran observer of US policy towards Latin America points out in That Infernal Little Cuban Republic, the principal message that Cuba?s revolutionary regime has tried to convey in the 50 years since ties broke down irrevocably is that the island simply wants to be treated with respect. Notwithstanding the fact that the desire for self-determination and liberty reflected in Cuba?s revolution responded directly to the founding principles of the US itself, and that the term ?respect? has become a mantra of social standing in the hazardous inner city, this aspiration is not exactly rocket science. It lies at the heart of the art of diplomacy, and Washington?s failure to acknowledge it has been a persistent irritant in its interactions with its Latin neighbours. The Mexicans, for example, have in the past gone to great lengths to ensure that diplomatic relations are conducted on the basis of parity and to counter hidden meaning in the presidential set-pieces that define bilateral contacts and any assumption of Anglo-Saxon superiority or hint of cultural condescencion. Barack Obama appears instinctively to have grasped this with his insistence that relations with Latin America will henceforth be conducted on the basis of ?mutual respect? with ?no junior or senior partner?. Of course, only time will tell. Arrogance Although Schoultz does not go on to explore explicitly what ?respect? between states means in theoretical terms, it is not hard to figure out from this excellent historical introduction and overview of the most intractable issue in US policy towards Latin America, and we have many other examples of imperial overreach to guide us. A mentality of arrogance, often based upon racial assumptions, that establishes a higher position in the hierarchy of peoples lies at the heart of an imperial power?s hatred for the weak states that dare to defy it. The British imperial attitude towards reluctant subject peoples, such as the Irish, for example, greatly hampered efforts to find a solution to the violent relations that prevailed in the north or Ireland. It was only the British Labour party?s effort to acknowledge the respect agenda - through an implicit recognition of Ireland?s sovereign integrity - that broke the destructive 500-year cycle of mutual antipathy and paved the way for today?s uneasy peace. As Schoultz writes: ?Fidel Castro put his finger on what has always been the central problem for Cuban nationalists, telling [Peter] Tarnoff and [Robert] Pastor that ?it is difficult to talk to you, a powerful, rich and highly developed country with a mentality of arrogance.?? [p. 554] This was well illustrated in 1978 when the US resumed its spy plane overflights of Havana under a Democratic president just prior to Tarnoff and Pastor?s audience with the Cuban leader. Schoultz writes: ?? the Carter-era overflights were simply one more lesson in Realpolitik 101, the goal of which was to teach a group of slow learners what Thucydides said twenty-five hundred years ago: the strong can do what they want and the weak will accept what they must.? [p. 555] Schoultz has put his finger on an issue that is likely to grow in prominence in the study of international relations, and one that Obama?s policy advisers would do well to explore. In an excellent recent paper on the importance of respect in international relations, Reinhard Wolf* points out that scholars seem to have regarded respect as a superfluous, symbolic asset and that states strive only for concrete and tangible goals, such as security, power and wealth. For Anglo-Saxons in particular, it has been natural to take international respect for granted, with the US and Great Britain sitting firmly at the heart of the international system as established powers not to be messed with. Yet as Wolf points out, this neglect in scholarship comes at a considerable price, for it blinds it to a major influence on co-operation and conflict in world politics. He goes on to sketch out a working definition of respect in international relations and its importance to states, international organisations, movements and individual decision-makers. The antipathy that lies at the heart of the relationship between Washington and Havana helps to explain why respect has rarely entered the equation. The relationship that has been formulated since 1959 - through the hailstorms of the Cold War into the uneasy Cold Peace since 1991 - has been based on the mutual understanding of where power resides, and in particular the astuteness of the Cubans in determining the line they could not cross without triggering a revolution-ending reaction. And that has been the basis of the relationship ever since: learning how to live without crossing the line. Yet a key point of departure in any conscious effort to change US relations with Cuba would be to invest in symbolic assets that have less to do with power and more to do with prestige. Symbols often play a more important role in the politics of the developing world, and Obama?s recent effort to reach out to the Muslim world does appear to reflect an understanding of this. Wolf writes, for example: ?? there are strong indications that feelings of disrespect aggravated quite a number of bilateral relations. US-Iranian relations, US-Russian relations or recent Polish-German relations seem to be obvious cases calling for detailed investigations. (Also, one may wonder if the US occupation of Iraq might have been far more successful if, instead of condoning the torture and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners, high ranking administration officials had clearly expressed their great admiration for the Iraqi cultural heritage.) Furthermore, polling data show that the perception of disrespect plays a major role in relations between Muslims and Western civilization.?* Returning to Latin America, Schoultz points out that the attitude maintained by the US towards Cuba exposes a paternalistic ideology of benevolent domination originating in the expansionism of the 19th century that seeks to steer its people, like minors, towards a better future. It is this attitude that remains at the core of the problem, the latest presidential example of which was the creation of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba unveiled in 2004, which set out Washington?s vision of the best form of government for the island, and the latest congressional example of which was the Helms-Burton Act, specifying the type of economic system the Cubans should adopt. Schoultz writes: ?A hostile policy towards any particular Cuban government has always been only a symptom of the underlying problem: Washington?s uplifting mentality. Clearly delusional, for more than a century this mentality has led otherwise sensible people to believe that these Caribbean neighbours will welcome the opportunity to be guided toward a higher and better civilisation by the United States of America, even if these same sensible people would be outraged should some foreign government create a Commission to Improve the United States, especially if this imagined commission were to begin its report by listing sixty-two steps it intended to take to overthrow the current government in Washington.? [p. 557] Forget Open Veins of Latin America - the book about the rape of the region given a new lease of life when the Venezuelan leader Hugo Chav?z handed it very publicly to Obama with a handshake and an appeal for friendship - That Infernal Little Cuban Republic by Professor Schoultz offers a more nuanced and potentially enlightening window upon the main obstacle to better US relations in the region. For while providing a valuable explanation for why policy has remained so doggedly unchanged - largely domestic politics, and the protection of economic elites in the form of the wealthy Miami Cubans - Schoultz also provides a mature set of reflections about how to interpret democracy when considering the lessons of policy in the Caribbean Basin. ?? nobody is born a democrat. People become democrats by sharpening their negotiating skills slowly, through debates with others who disagree, often in fundamental ways and often over truly important issues?No rational Cuban on either side of the Straits of Florida would go through the arduous process of negotiation and compromise while the president stands on the White House lawn and waves a 423-page plan to solve everything.? [pp. 565-66] * Wolf, Reinhard. 2008. ?Respect and International Relations: State Motives, Social Mechanisms and Hypotheses?. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association?s 49th Annual Convention, Bridging Multiple Divides, Hilton San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA, March 26, 2008 Gavin O?Toole is Editor of the Latin American Review of Books From fred.fuentes at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 14:00:45 2009 From: fred.fuentes at gmail.com (Fred Fuentes) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:30:45 +1930 Subject: [Marxism] more on recent moves against coup-plotting media in Venezuela Message-ID: Two short articles from government news service ABN The radio electrical concessions are being rescued for the people http://www.abn.info.ve/noticia.php?articulo=193261&lee=17 Caracas, Aug 03 ABN.- ?Mr. Belfort Yibirin, we are not fighting with you for your private company, we are instead rescuing for the country, for the people, the concession you are using illegally,? stressed the director of the Venezuelan telecommunications commission Conatel, Diosdado Cabello. During a program broadcast by the Venezuelan state-run television, the Minister explained that the head of the CNB network, Nelson Belfort, did not present the required documents to prove the validity or legality of the use of the concession. For such reason, the national telecommunications commission Conatel was compelled to establish sanctions so as to regulate the radio electrical spectrum. Moreover, Cabello presented an official document dated in 1983 in which is evidenced that the radio frequency 102.3 was granted to Rosa Iblia de Rodriguez. ?Here is the document of that concession, where is Belfort's to prove he is a Conatel license holder',? the Director wondered. ?We called to update the data. Some came and others did not. Most of those who did not came did not have arguments to appear in Conatel. On the basis of i,t we have made a review of each of these cases,? he expressed. Thus, Cabello stressed that the decision of the telecommunications commission is within the Law on Telecommunications and the National Constitution, reason why the different criticism issued by the opposition sectors lack of arguments to attack the legality of the measure. ?Nobody has said that these measures are against the law; nobody has presented a single argument to say that we are against the Law on Telecommunications or against the Constitution; they (the owners of the networks) have taken the side that is convenient for them,? he stated. Diosdado Cabello reaffirmed that such measures are aimed at extending the use of the radio electrical spectrum for all Venezuelans, a spectrum that is monopolized by some families with a great economic power. Likewise, the Conatel director stressed that now the independent national producers have more opportunities to work in the radio stations of the country and present their projects since they have more spaces to do it. ?The independent national producers have to make the most of this, so that they go to the radio stations and they can have their space,? the director proposed. Moreover, Diosdado Cabello highlighted that it has just opened the possibility of giving back to the people the right of participating in the social media outlets. ?If the radio electrical spectrum is in hands of the people, we are granting the success,? he said. ?I invite the people to join us to see how we build a real communication that reaches where it has never reached,? Diosdado Cabellos said. Measures imposed to radio stations seek to rescue freedom of speech http://www.abn.info.ve/noticia.php?articulo=193253&lee=17 Caracas, Aug 03 ABN.- The Venezuelan Minister of Communication and information, Blanca Eekhout, affirmed that the measures taken by the national telecommunications commission Conatel with regards to the 34 radio stations answer to the intention of the Venezuelan Government to rescue the freedom of speech so that it an be kept by the people instead by the owners of the private media outlets. Therefore, the Minister supported Conatel's decision and she expressed that it was necessary because the national mass media have always acted according to their self-interests and economic interests. Moreover, she recalled the actuation of the newspapers, television and radio stations during the events on February 1987, where they ?criminalized the protests of the people and took the side of the oppressors and supported the massacre against the collectivity.? Also, she affirmed that the constant attacks of the different media outlets and opposition sectors to the measures taken by Conatel owes to the fact that the different ?oligarchic groups? want to maintain the old model of ?monopolies and giving the nation to foreign protests.? In such model, in accordance with the Information Minister, there was an scheme in which imposed the media power and the economic power in order to avoid the appearance of any kind of competence would awake the conscience of the people. About the matter, she expressed that before this revolutionary process, the media outlets ?held sway over? the independent national producers, so that they could not take part on the radio electrical spectrum. Eekhout expressed as well that the entrepreneurs of the media outlets have unleashed a national and international campaign that expects to patent a campaign of opinion that relate the Venezuelan Government with subversive, terrorist or drug dealing groups, and this way halt the progresses achieved in matters of regional integration. On the other hand, the Minister affirmed that the future of the mass communication is in hands of the communitarian media outlets, who shall train the collectivity with regards to the use of the media. This expects to ?demystify? the television and radio stations so that people can discern the contents they receive through the radio electrical spectrum. Likewise, she called to ?review the habits of the TV audience? so that they can be more critics and avoid that children are exposed to antivalues and the ?deculturation? that the different television stations have subjugated along the years. From lnp3 at panix.com Mon Aug 3 14:03:28 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:03:28 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Class warfare rhetoric Message-ID: <4A774290.7040905@panix.com> http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3846 Extra! August 2009 For Media, ?Class War? Has Wealthy Victims Rich getting richer seldom labeled as belligerents By Radley Glasser and Steve Rendall During an ABC Nightline interview on May 21, 2003, host Ted Koppel suggested that his guest was engaging in ?class warfare? by arguing that the wealthy should pay increased taxes. While the exchange was not unusual?Koppel?s use of the term ?class war? to characterize bottom-up or populist economic rhetoric is the norm?what was unusual was that his guest was the second-richest man in the world, Warren Buffett. The interview is worth remembering primarily for Buffett?s commonsense response: ?Well, I?ll tell you, if it?s class warfare, my class is winning.? The brief comment serves as one of the very few prominent admissions that the class war can go both ways: top-down as well as bottom-up. And the current degree of economic inequality in the United States backs up Buffett?s claim. In his 2007 book Categorically Unequal, Princeton sociologist Douglas Massey showed that of all advanced industrial nations, the U.S. ranks highest in inequality of both income and wealth distribution. Massey explained (Media Matters, 8/27/07): "Since the mid-1970s, mechanisms in the American political economy that were enacted in the 1930s to limit stratification and promote equality have been dismantled and replaced with new mechanisms that institutionalize exploitation.?The rules of the American political economy were rewritten to favor the rich at the expense of the middle and lower classes. Unions were weakened, entry- level wages reduced, access to social protections curtailed, anti-poverty spending cut back, and taxes on lower-income families were raised while those on upper-income families were reduced, yielding a sharp reduction in the size of the welfare state." These actions?along with many other policies that favor the wealthy?clearly pit the well-being of one economic class against another, and yet the media rarely refer to them as ?class warfare.? Instead, a new FAIR survey shows that within top national media outlets, ?class warfare? terminology is almost exclusively employed to characterize as belligerent actions taken on behalf of the non-rich. The result is a biased national discourse that portrays ?class war? as an ongoing persecution of the wealthy at the hands of the poor and working class and their populist leaders. FAIR?s study examined every use of the terms ?class war,? ?class warfare? and ?class warrior? by the New York Times, Washington Times, Fox News and CNN over a nine-month period (9/1/08?5/31/09). In 71 percent of the instances where the term was used, there was a clear indication as to what types of actions ?class war? was meant to describe. In the remaining 29 percent, the phrase was used more ambiguously, with no reference to specific instances or policies. When there was a clear direction implied, the study shows a striking bias in the use of the ?class warfare? label: In all outlets combined, the phrase was almost 18 times more likely to describe bottom-up action?rhetoric or policy decisions perceived as benefiting the poor or lower classes?than it was to describe top-down action (90 percent vs. 5 percent of occurrences). One might expect any conflict termed a ?war? to be covered as a two-way street, but the outlets only did so in 5 percent of the cases where the term was employed. Going by media coverage, it is not so much a class war as it is a class massacre, with a revolutionary rabble siphoning wealth downward (never mind how the wealth got up there in the first place). The bias held across the outlets, but fell into two distinct groups: significantly unbalanced and completely unbalanced. At the New York Times, descriptions of ?class warfare? as bottom-up outnumbered top-down descriptions 6-to-1, while at CNN the imbalance was 8-to-1. The right-wing outlets in our sample, Fox and the Washington Times, never presented ?class warfare? as anything other than action taken on behalf of the poor or against the wealthy. Fox was far more vehement in its lopsidedness, however, managing to present this version 40 times, while the Washington Times employed it in 14 articles. Fox?s unbalanced numbers were dramatically bolstered by commentators Bill O?Reilly and Sean Hannity, whose heavily promoted shows were by far the frontrunners regarding quantity of ?class warfare? rhetoric. Together, the two shows accounted for half of Fox?s total bottom-up references. All outlets surveyed were most likely to feature accusations of bottom-up ?class warfare? in quotes from sources (54 percent of such references) or in commentators? opinion (35 percent), with just 11 percent of such references being made in a news reporter?s own voice. Bottom-up ?class warfare? references suggest that lower economic classes are openly hostile and irrational, seeking the destruction of the rich even to the ruin of the nation. The upper class is at such great risk, it seems, that they are reminded in a New York Times op-ed (3/25/09): ?The system works badly if the poor, always a majority, feel the rich are getting a good deal unfairly. But if the rich show moderation, class warfare is less of a threat to economic development.? In other words, the rich must hide their wealth not only for their own sake, but for the sake of the nation?s overall economy, which can be jeopardized by an acquisitive majority. The Washington Times (10/9/08) went so far as to suggest that the economic system itself is unfairly biased against the rich, and that average Americans need to correct the injustice; after all, "U.S. corporations are taxed at one of the highest rates of the world?s industrialized nations, second only to Japan. This issue still resonates with Americans if it is explained clearly and powerfully, but it must be tied to Mr. Obama?s inexperience and his irrational class warfare hostility toward corporations and wealth." Fox News host Glenn Beck (3/3/09) issued the American lower class a similarly stern warning: ?You don?t want to go on class warfare because?when you go global, the poorest person in America is still some of the wealthiest 2 percent in the world. We are the rich. We?re the ones that the rest of the world is going to come and take our wealth.? (Actually, the richest 10 percent of individuals in the world have incomes greater than $25,000 a year?which is obviously much more than the ?poorest person in America? makes, given that a minimum wage job pays $15,000 a year.) Beck seemed to fear that the U.S. poor would get a taste of the persecution that comes with being a millionaire; as Beck?s colleague Sean Hannity reminded us (Fox, 3/12/09), ?It may not mean a lot to people that like class warfare, but there?s 27 percent fewer millionaires now in America than there was last year.? News coverage during this time period was not devoid of critical references to top-down action and policies. On the contrary, there was substantial discussion of the bank bailouts as a policy which unfairly aided the rich at the expense of the rest. However, such coverage rarely employed ?class warfare? rhetoric. Only three articles could be found in the study period that referred to bank bailouts as top-down ?class warfare.? Top-down action and sentiment also increased recently as a response to the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), legislation aimed at easing the process of workplace unionization. Anti-labor sentiments are often boldly class-conscious, such as those of Lee Scott, the former CEO of Wal-Mart, who declared that ?we like driving the car, and we?re not going to give the steering wheel to anybody,? or Bernard Marcus, former CEO of Home Depot, who said of the anti-unionization movement, ?If a retailer has not gotten involved with this, if he has not spent money on this... he should be shot? (Wall Street Journal, 11/19/08). However, few such comments are characterized as ?class warfare? by the media in the manner progressive comments often are. It?s a long-standing trend: In a study of nine top media outlets from January 1995 through July 2000, Extra! (1?2/01) found that references to ?class war? were seven times more likely to describe bottom-up than top-down actions. When Diane Sawyer, in a PrimeTime Live interview with a group of teenage mothers, referred to beneficiaries of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program as ?public enemy No. 1? (ABC, 2/16/95; Extra!, 5?6/95), or when then?House Majority Whip Tom Delay said, ?Organized labor is part of the extremist, left-wing clique that is destroying this country? (Newsday, 8/18/00), little suggestion was made in the media that either was waging ?class war,? despite their robust rhetoric and top-down policy advocacy. Using ?class warfare? rhetoric to describe actions in favor of the poor and lower class, while using less pejorative language to describe top-down actions, raises more than a question of balance; that the ?class war? is reported as waged nearly exclusively from the bottom up is an indication of corporate media?s own place in the economic struggle. From fred.fuentes at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 14:04:24 2009 From: fred.fuentes at gmail.com (Fred Fuentes) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:34:24 +1930 Subject: [Marxism] Bolivian Indians in historic step Message-ID: http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/2009/08/bolivian-indians-in-historic-step.html BBC, August 3 The Bolivian government has begun implementing provisions outlined in the new constitution that give indigenous people the chance to govern themselves. President Evo Morales, Bolivia's first indigenous leader, enacted a decree setting out the conditions for Indian communities to hold votes on autonomy. These referendums will take place in December, alongside presidential and parliamentary elections. The new charter was bitterly opposed by Bolivia's traditional elite. On Sunday, the provisions allowing for votes on indigenous autonomy were presented in a special event in the eastern region of Santa Cruz. Mr Morales said it was "a historic day for the peasant and indigenous movement". "Your president, your companion, your brother Evo Morales might make mistakes but will never betray the fight started by our ancestors and the fight of the Bolivian people," he said. Mr Morales has championed Bolivia's indigenous people, who for centuries were banished to the margins of society and did not enjoy full voting rights until 1952. But many opposed to Mr Morales and the new constitution believe he is polarising the country by dividing it along along racial lines. Many Bolivians of European or mixed-race descent in the fertile eastern lowlands, which hold rich gas deposits and are home to extensive farms, rejected the constitution. The new charter came into force in February after being approved by 61% of the electorate. It enshrines state control over key economic sectors, and grants greater autonomy not only for the nine departments but also for indigenous communities. But the clauses regarding layers of autonomy could lead to a raft of competing claims, correspondents say. From sartesian at earthlink.net Mon Aug 3 14:22:39 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 16:22:39 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement"withIranRe:FredFeldman References: Message-ID: One thing you have certainly mastered, never answer a concrete question. The emancipatory, "progressive," element in capitalism is not the "dual role" of the bourgeoisie as Marx imagined, and only imagined, it to be in 1848,[ as a careful examination of the struggle against the ancien regime and its remnants shows that the bourgeoisie itself hardly played a revolutionary role, but in fact the actions of the rural and urban poor, the petty bourgeoisie were the revolutionary drivers and the revolution itself only became bourgeois in its defeat], is not and does not exist in "things." It does not exist in the accumulation of the means of production as means of production because in fact no such accumulation exists. The accumulation of the means of production exists only as part of the process of the accumulation of values. The "progress" such as it is exists, and exists only, in the expropriation of the expropriators, in the social act of revolution. It should be pointed out that as a corollary to the "bourgeoisie gaining the upper hand" there was not the simple ending of feudal, partriarchal, idyllic relations. That is to say that the bourgeoisie had to join hands, under the table and above the board, with feudal, partriarchal, idyllic relations. The bourgeoisie adapted itself to them, as in countries in Latin America, or adapted them to itself again countries in Latin America, as, for example, in the haciendas of Mexico between 1867 and 1910-- and even after the revolution. What J exhibits is formalism-- "on the one hand.... while on the other hand" ersatz-dialectics, as if history, and the struggle for emancipation, is some sort of big tally sheet, with positive on one side, and negative on the other, and the task is simply accumulating more pluses instead of minuses. I am hardly an anti-technology, primitivist or naturalist. I think my arguments against peak oil theory and its incipient Malthusianism are clear enough evidence of that. What is required is specific understanding of the conflict between means and relations of production, and how expropriation of the expropriators is achieved. That is done on a class basis, not an "anti-imperialist," diffuse, popular basis. As has been repeated ad nauseum, not subordinating Marxist analysis, class program to formal adherence of a Fatah or Hamas is not support for, nor failure to defend against, imperialism, just as defending Iran's Ayatollahs, or Iraq's Hussein from imperialist attack does not mean, require, muting criticism of those governments. J's doesn't just support Hamas 100%, he opposes any criticism of Hamas' program, at least that is what he has stated here. And I'm sure he must now oppose any criticism of the govt. of Iran since it so clearly is in the "front lines of the struggle against imperialism." J argues not for the defense of Hamas, but the subordination of all movements to Hamas' discipline. The issue is this notion of "separating" the "progressive" from the reactionary, that movements like Fatah, Sinn Fein, KMT, Hamas, even the ANC are "progressive" and do not contain, based on their inherent internal configuration, their precise lack of class differentiation, their own conversion into instruments of oppression and exploitation. These movements do contain that conversion based precisely on their "national" organization. I'm waiting for you to get all Hegelian on my ass, but I'm not holding my breath, as I'm sure it will take you some time to find your Cliff Notes on Hegel's Phenomenology. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 3:41 PM Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement"withIranRe:FredFeldman From pt_costello at yahoo.com Mon Aug 3 15:16:44 2009 From: pt_costello at yahoo.com (Pat Costello) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 14:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Marxism] Otto Reich's role in the Honduran coup PART 2 Message-ID: <129488.53168.qm@web63106.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Otto Reich and the Honduran Coup D?Etat: The Provocateur, his Prot?g? and the Toppling of a President (Part Two) By Machetera* (continued from Part One) The Circling Sharks ?What is going to happen in this country if the government no longer receives the important revenues that are going to be generated through Hondutel? We?ve come to this company with one mission from President Manuel Zelaya Rosales: We have to go out and defend this company, because they want to eat it like sharks, and that?s what we?re doing, defending it tooth and nail and only with the collaboration of certain friends who are opening this kind of space for us.? - Marcelo Chimirri, Hondutel Director, September 13, 2007 (From an interview conducted 5 days after Arcadia?s corruption accusations were first reported.) Arcadia would wage its ?grey traffic? crusade in Honduras from September 2007 until the present. Carmona-Borjas first targeted the Rosenthal media family, but his focus and passion quickly began to shift to the fertile territory offered by Marcelo Chimirri Castro, Hondutel?s director.... full: http://machetera.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/otto-reich-and-the-honduran-coup-d%E2%80%99etat-the-provocateur-his-protege-and-the-toppling-of-a-president-%E2%80%93-part-two/ From sabocat59 at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 16:21:10 2009 From: sabocat59 at gmail.com (Greg McDonald) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 18:21:10 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement"withIranRe:FredFeldman Message-ID: <6e42edf00908031521h6fc4cad1r2bdc7b8c6a4eacb0@mail.gmail.com> S. Artesian wrote: The emancipatory, "progressive," element in capitalism is not the "dual role" of the bourgeoisie as Marx imagined, and only imagined, it to be in 1848,[ as a careful examination of the struggle against the ancien regime and its remnants shows that the bourgeoisie itself hardly played a revolutionary role, but in fact the actions of the rural and urban poor, the petty bourgeoisie were the revolutionary drivers and the revolution itself only became bourgeois in its defeat], is not and does not exist in "things." Greg: Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this apply only to Germany under the Junkers? S. Artesian: That is to say that the bourgeoisie had to join hands, under the table and above the board, with feudal, partriarchal, idyllic relations. The bourgeoisie adapted itself to them, as in countries in Latin America, or adapted them to itself again countries in Latin America, as, for example, in the haciendas of Mexico between 1867 and 1910-- and even after the revolution. I would be careful about extrapolating european feudalism and applying it to social relations in colonial latin america. Greg From Waistline2 at aol.com Mon Aug 3 16:24:16 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 18:24:16 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Post Message-ID: >> First, "proletarian democracy" is not measured by, nor a product of, "voting." For it to be democratic, the rule of the proletariat has to be based on the autonomous organs of the class power itself, in one word, soviets with a small s. Soviets had ceased functioning in the USSR by what? 1920? Secondly, the political shifts in the national and international policies of the Communist Party had nothing to do with majority rule and democracy, but everything to do with the backwardness and isolation of fSU, and the defeat of the international revolution, which defeat the 3rd Intl, in its majority rule and democracy, helped secure.<< Comment Class rule is always based in and made manifest as a definable configuration of property or as economy. There is government as an institution and the meaning of property. Then of course the relations of a political party within this system is important. The CPSU was not the government. The CPSU was not the state. The CPSU was not the property relations. Finally the CPSU was not the Constitutional regime or the trade unions, or the system of cooperatives or the Soviet form . . . small and large s. ?the autonomous organs of the class power? means exactly what. What are these organs of class (property/economy) politically independent of? Or are these autonomous organs to be understood as being organizationally independent and independent of what? Property? What is the relationship of people to property in/as the process of reproduction of value? If there was no capitalist class in the Soviet Union who owned the means of production and how did this manifest itself as a property form? If the state owned the primary means of production in everything fundamental to the society infrastructure . . . . Wait a minute, the state cant really own means of production. One can speak of state property but the state is an organization of class rule. Its is not like the KGB, army forces, police and system of incarceration owned the productive forces in Soviet society. If the Soviet Union - (the country and not the party), was not democratic then how would you describe its economy - 1928 to say 1980 and then its political form of rule and the Constitutional regime? The USSR was in fact a Constitutional regime - democracy, with distortions. To be specific a proletarian democracy with bureaucratic distortions. The proletariat state did what all states do, guard and protect the property relations. My definition of democracy begins with the property relation; embody the constitutional regime and the sovereign rights of the individual. Voting by the masses and the right to vote is important - very important, given the logic of our curve of history, as this history is inexplicably bound up with overthrowing hereditary rule or monarchy. Voting is not the definition of democracy but it is important to confirming democracy. Yes? The class rule of the proletariat is above all a property relation first and then a Constitutional regime. In fact there is no other litmus test for class rule other than the configuration of property and the relationship of people to property in the process of production. Proletarian property and democracy is first of all founded on ?class rights.? This class right - democracy, is fundamental to, determines and manifest ownership rights in society. Socialism - an economic formation, does not require Soviets - a political form of rule, with a small s or large c as a precondition for socialist reproduction to take place. The state and government can most certainly block the individual from converting means of consumption into ownership rights of productive forces and setting into motion the laws peculiar to captialist commodity production. The shape of the constitutional authority - as a general category of the superstructure, can swing back and forth between extremes and even exist at loggerhead with the property relations. In discussion such as this there is a tendency to by pass the Constitutional regime - authority or democracy, and by pass economic democracy and focus on the role of the CPSU. I am not oposed to this but sooer or later one must speak of the shape of property as it excites the production of value. The fact of the matter is that ? nothing but means of consumption? could pass into the hands of the city workers - proletarians if you will, between 1928 and roughly at least 1976. Soviet socialism in 1936 looked pretty damn good compared with most countries on earth. Much has been written on the growth of secondary economy in the Soviet Union, but socialist property relations characterized everything fundamental to the society infrastructure and the production of socially necesary means of life. The CPSU was not the government or state. Shifts in government policy are not the same as shifts in party polices or for that matter state policy. The political conundrum arises when the head of government is also head of state, and becomes really confusing, when he is also head of the party. Such was the conundrum presented by the Stalin regime. Party policy was voted on at various level of the party and at the highest reaches struggles and fights for consensus always took place. WL. **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (ht tp://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd =JulystepsfooterNO115) From sabocat59 at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 17:30:16 2009 From: sabocat59 at gmail.com (Greg McDonald) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 19:30:16 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] DIRTY WAR TACTICS OF STATE TERRORISM INCREASE IN HONDURAS Message-ID: <6e42edf00908031630y230dacffq561a6d8f0d703205@mail.gmail.com> DIRTY WAR TACTICS OF STATE TERRORISM INCREASE IN HONDURAS Day 37, Honduran Coup Resistance, August 3, 2009 (Alert#41) The Honduran regime is increasing its tactics of repression, including ?dirty war? tactics of state terrorism, in direct response to the extraordinary size of the pro-democracy movement, and its creativity, peaceful nature and resiliency. The coup regime is hanging on to its illegal power through its wealth and use of repressive force; it has no legitimacy whatsoever. The onus increases on the ?international community?, particularly those countries and entities (private companies and banks, the ?development? banks) that maintain financial and commercial relations, and military relations with the pro-coup sectors in Honduras. Please re-distribute this information all around. To get on/ off Rights Action's email list: http://www.rightsaction.org/lists/?p=subscribe&id=3/ To donate funds to pro-democracy movement in Honduras: see below * * * DIRTY WAR TACTICS OF STATE TERRORISM INCREASE IN HONDURAS http://www.diariodigital.com.do/articulo,43507,html Martin Florencio Rivera Barrientos, age 37, took a taxi home following the wake for Roger Abraham Vallejo Soriano, the teacher killed last Friday, after being shot in the head by police. Reports indicate that Florencio was followed home and when he got out of the cab, he was stabbed 25 times, similar to the death squad type murder of Pedro Magdiel a week ago in El Paraiso near the Nicaraguan border. Teachers have been leading effective strikes, and are clearly the target of the repression perpetrated under the coup regime. * * * DESPERATE REGIME Gloria Oqueli Gloria Oqueli, president of the Central American parliament, said: "They are desperate because they will be defeated, because power will be taken from them by a people with no machete, with no gun, with no weapon." http://www.telesurtv.net/noticias/secciones/nota/55020-NN/presidenta-del-parlacen-dice-que-protestas-han-desesperado-a-gobierno-de-facto/ La presidenta del Parlamento Centroamericano (Parlacen), Gloria Oqueli, dijo este viernes en San Salvador que la "resistencia popular" en Honduras ha "desesperado" al gobierno de facto que encabeza Roberto Micheletti. "Ya est?n desesperados, porque hay un pueblo que sin ning?n machete, sin ninguna pistola, sin ning?n arma, los va a derrocar, los va a quitar", declar? Oqueli, quien particip? en la capital salvadore?a en un foro sobre la situaci?n en su pa?s. Asegur? que esa "forma de llegar al poder ya no se puede permitir en este tercer milenio". * * * * * * * INTERNATIONAL MISSION FOR SOLIDARITY, ACCOMPANIMENT, AND OBSERVATION IN HONDURAS, July 31 Press Release CRISIS IN HONDURAS DEEPENS - violence erupted again in Tegucigalpa yesterday - Honduras now in a state of brutal dictatoship - international attention and solidarity needed to restore democracy and human rights in Honduras Yesterday, Thursday 30th July, political violence returned to Tegucigalpa, the capital of the Central American state, Honduras, as police fired at a peaceful demonstration in support of the deported president of the country, Manuel Zelaya. In the attack, Roger Abraham Vallejo Soriano, a 38 years old teacher, was shot in the head from close range. (He later died in Hospital) Nine more persons were taken to the local hospital for medical treatment, including Carlos H. Reyes, a coordinator of the National Front Against the Coup and chairperson of the trade union STIBYS, and an independent presidential candidate for the elections scheduled for November this year. Reyes was treated for a fracture of one arm and sown with ten stitches in the head near the left ear. In the afternoon members of the mission met Reyes in the hospital. Reyers seemed to have recovered well and was given interviews from a stretcher there. Members of the mission could also yesterday visit inside the jail of the fourth police district in Tegucigalpa. At least 80 persons from the demonstration had been detained, many of whom had been beaten with sticks with bad bruises. Some where covered with blood on their head and clothes, others were in a shock. Three women we talked with complained about sexual harassment. At least five children and youngsters were among the detained persons. Juan Barahona, another leading figure of the national front against the coup, was also among the detained. The demonstration in Tegucigalpa yesterday continued an unbroken series of 33 days of peaceful popular manifestations and resistance against Roberto Micheletti who was installed after the coup. During the past month parts of the country have been heavily militarized. The border area of El Paraiso next to Nicaragua, visited by the mission on Monday, is partly under marshal law, with heavy presence of the army and also police forces. According to several civil society sources and individuals other areas of the country, such as Copan, have also been militarized with road blocks under army control, detentions and curfew from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. Thursday marked the return of violence to Tegucigalpa, where demonstrations have proceeded peacefully since the clash at the airport when Zelaya tried to return to the country by air. Interviews and observations in public places made by the members of the mission during the past week show severe limitation and abuses of basic human rights including state violence against innocent people and severe restriction on the freedom of movement and expression, imposed by the Micheletti regime. According to written documentation and reports from interviews that include, among others, interviews with two parliamentarians from the Liberal Party the party of both ousted president Zelaya and the president of the coup regime, Micheletti) and two MPs from the opposition party Partido nificacion Democratica there are major irregularities in the parliamentary procedures. Severe allegations are made against the Supreme Court of the country, but under the current circumstances, when there is no confidence in the capacity of the de facto government to provide credible information, these remain extremely difficult or impossible to verify. The mission also notes the occurrence of obscure, extreme violence that, as ny individuals we have talked with independently interpret it, seems to be the expression of the new strategy of terror imposed by the coup government. Rodrigo Trochez, an MP from the liberal party testifies that while he was with a delegation to Washington to lobby for US support of the reinstallation of Manuel Zelaya his son, Juan Carlos Tochez was the victim of an armed attack on a petrol station. A car drove up beside the car of Juan Carlos Trochex, shooting 40 bullets, four of which hit and injured him severely. Juan Carlos Trochez is not critically wounded but receives medical treatment in a hospital in Santa Barbara. According to reports from the police in the capital of Tegucigalpa, gathered by the Hondurian human rights organization, CODEH, there were 62 people murdered here during the first 28 days after the coup. According to the director of Codeh, Andres Pavon, many of the victims have been shot dead with bullets of the same caliber as is used by the police and the armed forces. The body of one young man dressed in a t-shirt defending the democratically elected president was found in a garbage bin in the streets says Andres Pavon. The International mission for Solidarity, Accompaniment, and Observation in Honduras must in the light of the observations made here during the last week conclude that Honduras has entered into a brutal dictatorship. Despite prolonged peaceful resistance the situation has worsened during the past week. Popular mobilization to restore the democratic government of Manuel Zelaya still continues here, with more manifestations announced at least for today by the popular front of movements, trade unions, indigenous groups, farmers, artists, concerned citizens, student?s movements, and others. The international mission condemns the repression by the dictatorship and appeals to the international community to take all measures to promote the restoration of democracy and human rights in Honduras. Tegucigalpa, Honduras Members of the International mission for Solidarity, Accompaniment, and Observation in Honduras include: Nora Corti?as, Madres de la Plaza de Mayo-L?nea Fundadora/Jubileo Sur (Argentina) Thomas Wallgren, member of the city council in Helsink (soc.dem)/ FinnishRefugee Council / Coalition for comprehensive democracy ? Vasudhaiva utumkakam (Finlandia) Mauricio Valiente, Comisi?n Espa?ola de Ayuda al Refugiado-CEAR (Espa?a) El padre Efr?n Reyes, from Servicio Internacional Cristiano de Solidaridad con los Pueblos de Am?rica Latina Oscar Romero -SICSAL (El Salvador) Claire Chastain, International Relation, Communist Party of France-European Left Party Martha Figueroa Mier, World March of Women, (M?xico Bernadete Esperan?a Monteiro, World March of Women, (Brasil), and Tom Kucharz, Ecologistas en Acci?n/Transnational Institute (Espa?a) * * * COLIN BURGON, BRITISH MP, SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON HONDURAS COUP http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090721/debtext/ 90721-0012.htm (Distributed from the UK by Dr Francisco Dominguez, depaula_frank at hotmail.com, Campa?a de Solidaridad con Venezuela, Gran Breta?a) Neville Chamberlain once talked about ?a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.? That could apply to the subject that I want to raise today?the recent military coup in Honduras. People probably do not know much about Honduras, but the journal Business Week tells us: ?Honduras is one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere. Two-thirds of its 7.8 million citizens live below the poverty line...The country has one of Latin America?s most unequal distributions of wealth: the poorest 10 percent of the population receives just 1.2 percent of the country?s wealth, while the richest 10 percent collect 42 percent.? President Zelaya was elected to lead the country in 2005. A member of the Honduras Liberal party, he was a wealthy rancher and a man of the centre or centre right. Under pressure of events, however, he began to change his politics and he implemented several progressive measures during his time in office. He raised the minimum wage by 60 per cent.?something that new Labour might note. He also gave out free school lunches and provided milk for babies and pensions for the elderly. He cut the cost of public transport, made scholarships available for students and forged alliances with the progressive Governments in the continent of Latin America such as those of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. President Zelaya also sought to institutionalise many of his progressive developments with constitutional change. The non-binding poll of the public that he proposed for 28 June was aimed at gauging support for a proposed constituent assembly to redraft the constitution ahead of a ballot in November. This is the translation of the question: ?Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?? That step was too much for the military, and as a result, on 28 June?the day the ballot was supposed to take place?the President was kidnapped, bundled on to a plane and flown out of the country, and the military junta and the leading oligarchs in the country came together to form what is effectively an illegal Government. The Honduran junta has rightly been almost totally isolated. It has been rejected by the General Assembly of the United Nations, the Organisation of American States and the European Union, among others. It is rare that I pay tribute to Ministers, but I pay tribute to the newly installed Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has responsibility for Latin America. He responded very quickly and efficiently and made a statement to put on record Britain?s opposition to the coup. It is also important that the EU yesterday suspended more than $90 million in aid to Honduras in the wake of the coup. However, such opposition has so far been ineffectual in restoring Zelaya to government and stronger action is need. Obviously, that stronger action should come from America, because at the end of the day, it calls the shots in what is historically its back yard. There were hopes of real change with the election of President Obama, but we can see that there are tensions within the American Government. Clinton, the Secretary of State, is possibly somewhat enamoured of the new regime and does not want to take the action that others in America would like. If the US is to break with the past and work with people rather than against them, as President Obama told the conference of Latin American leaders it wants to, the steps that he must take are clear. The Honduran Government?or rather, the supposed Government?must be replaced and a democratically elected President must be installed. We hear lots about human rights in the media, but since the coup on 28 June that installed Roberto Micheletti, the regime has unleashed a wave of repression of human rights. Protesters and political activists have been killed, 1,300 people have been arrested, and there have been curfews, widespread media censorship and the violation of other civil liberties. That is important, because although we have joked in the past about banana republics and Governments being changed on a monthly or daily basis, most of Latin America has emerged from that darkness and the people have begun to take charge of their destiny. We have seen that throughout the Latin American continent, including central America. The military junta represents an attempt to turn the clock back to those dark, dark days. If those dark days return, it will mean real hardship for the millions of people in central and Latin America. I hope that the deputy Leader of the House will re-confirm that the UK is absolutely and implacably opposed to the Honduran military regime, and that the UK will do all it can to restore the democratically elected regime. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090721/debtext/ 90721-0012.htm * * * TO DONATE FUNDS TO PRO-DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT IN HONDURAS, MAKE TAX DEDUCTIBLE DONATIONS TO ?RIGHTS ACTION? AND MAIL TO: UNITED STATES: Box 50887, Washington DC, 20091-0887 CANADA: 552-351 Queen St. E, Toronto ON, M5A-1T8 CREDIT-CARD DONATIONS: http://rightsaction.org/contributions.htm Upon request, Rights Action can provide a proposal of which organizations and people, in Honduras, we are channeling your funds to and supporting. AMERICANS AND CANADIANS SHOULD CONTACT YOUR OWN MEDIA, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, SENATORS & MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT, EVERY DAY, DAY AFTER DAY,TO DEMAND: an end to police, army and para-military repression respect for safety and human rights of all Hondurans unequivocal denunciation of the military coup no recognition of this military coup and the ?de facto? government of Roberto Micheletti unconditional return of the entire constitutional government concrete and targeted economic, military and diplomatic sanctions against the coup plotters and perpetrators application of international and national justice against the coup plotters reparations for the illegal actions and rights violations committed during this illegal coup FOR MORE INFORMATION: Karen Spring (Rights Action), in Honduras: spring.kj at gmail.com[504]9507-3835 Sandra Cuffee (Journalist), in Honduras: [504]9525-6778 Grahame Russell (Rights Action), in USA: info at rightsaction.org From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Mon Aug 3 17:45:05 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:45:05 +1000 Subject: [Marxism] =?windows-1252?q?=28Updated_August_4=29_Urgent_Appeal?= =?windows-1252?q?=3A_Ssangyong_Motor_workers=92_lives_in_danger!_Solidari?= =?windows-1252?q?ty_urgent!_=7C_Links?= Message-ID: <4A777681.2090706@greenleft.org.au> Added to http://links.org.au/node/1165 Monday, August 3, 2009 Korean Metal Workers Union (KMWU) inter at metal.nodong.org Dear friends, We urgently request your solidarity regarding Ssangyong Motor Workers? dispute. It is urgent for the Korean government to step up and play a role toward a peaceful settlement! Our union members? lives are in danger. - Ssangyong Motor management unilaterally broke off negotiations and - management is calling for riot police to raid the paintshop building or they will use their privately built up forces to enter the paintshop, further they have cut off the electricity, making for an extremely dangerous situation. The company has used these private forces to repeatedly attack the sit-in strike and incite clashes. The police should not allow company-hired private security forces and company-organised goons to attack the striking workers with nunchakus, pipes and other artillery, but the police allow them in and work together with them, dividing up responsibilities with non-State actors such as hired thugs who have no accountability and feel immune to law since they are already working joint operations together with the police. Thus, the workers on a long strike with tension and lack of sleep and a very sensitive state are incited by the thugs to act in self-defence, while the government plays the role of precipitating violence by allowing these thugs into the dispute and also escalating tensions and self-defense instincts by creating a climate of fear and intimidation with continuously flying helicopters above, dropping chemical substances on sit-in strikers giving them chemical burns, and not allowing humanitarian aid such as food, water, medical care freely pass unimpeded. Even prisoners of war are treated better than our union members on strike. For almost the whole time, management has been urging the riot police to stamp out the strike, but briefly came to the negotiating table. But with riot police, private security forces and goons training and waiting during the negotiations and maintaining the blockade on water and food. Thus, management does not feel pressure to genuinely try to come to terms with the union because it can also resort to calling the riot police and management decided to walk out of negotiations, informing us through press conference . PLEASE INFORM US OF YOUR SOLIDARITY ACTIONS! In solidarity, Hyewon Chong KMWU _inter at metal.nodong.org From pt_costello at yahoo.com Mon Aug 3 17:45:35 2009 From: pt_costello at yahoo.com (Pat Costello) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 16:45:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Marxism] Play the "End of America" game Message-ID: <370857.19631.qm@web63106.mail.re1.yahoo.com> http://sdn.slate.com/features/endofamerica/default.htm From sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com Mon Aug 3 18:18:39 2009 From: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com (sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:18:39 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] post "Totalitarianism" Message-ID: <20090804001839.32F2220042@smtp.hushmail.com> Bashkar wrote: >The label "totalitarianism" is a staple of >bourgeois blather (used to denounce everything >from the French Revolution to food stamps), >but as a denunciation of Stalinism it's perfectly >acceptable. > No. it's not acceptable because the bogus concept of "totalitrianism" is still bourgeoisie blather especially when it is applied to the Soviet Union or Nazi German or anywhere else for that matter. Spare me the sermon on the omnipresence of the NKVD and fearful conformity of a population brainwashed by propoganda. There were large administrative regions of the Soviet Union where the total NKVD contingent was less less than 10, a third of them were bridge inspectors, and the official mode of transportation was by bicycle. As undeniably vast as the gulag was, it is also undeniable that repression was never uniformly applied nor consistently administered and that large sections of the population supported the regime for reasons that had nothing to do with state terror. "Totalitarianism" as a concept is a staple of the brainwashing begun in school textbooks to construct a fearful "otherness" for revolutionary movements or regimes by trying to make them all equivalent to Nazism. Let's see, Stalin and Hitler both had secret police who tortured political prisoners and therefore they are the same phenomenon. We should, therefore, be eternally grateful that we live under a regime that doesn't engage in propaganda and imprison its enemies in secret prisons where they are systematically tortured. The above is a much abridged version of most high school civics courses and of course it is utter bullshit. Communism is not fascism no matter what Glen Beck believes or what the correct answer is on a high school exam. The Stalin era came nowhere close to achieving the "total control" over its people as posited by the totalitarian model. From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 18:43:52 2009 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:43:52 +1000 Subject: [Marxism] post "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: <20090804001839.32F2220042@smtp.hushmail.com> References: <20090804001839.32F2220042@smtp.hushmail.com> Message-ID: There is a really good (IMHO) take on totalitarianism and its uses in Robert Paul Rewsch's *Utopia, Dystopia, and the Middle Class in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four in boundary, *2 24: 1 1997, pp132-176. If I can get the time somehow I will try and do a post on it. regards Gary From lnp3 at panix.com Mon Aug 3 19:19:40 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:19:40 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] post "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: References: <20090804001839.32F2220042@smtp.hushmail.com> Message-ID: <4A778CAC.2000504@panix.com> http://www.since1865.com/doc/19820227/sontag This is a link to a symposium on Communism and the left held by the Nation Magazine in 1998 that touches on these questions. It was in response to Susan Sontag's claim: All this is obvious, or almost, when one uses the word "fascist" to describe the present Polish government. But I mean to use the word in a further sense. What the recent Polish events illustrate is something more than that fascist rule is possible within the framework of a Communist society, whereas democratic government and worker self-rule are clearly intolerable--and will not be tolerated. I would contend that what they illustrate is a truth that we should have understood a very long time ago: that Communism is fascism--successful fascism, If you will. What we have called fascism is, rather, the form of tyranny that can be overthrown=-that has, largely, failed. I repeat: not only is fascism (and overt military rule) the probable destiny of all Communist societies--especially when their populations are moved to revolt--but Communism is in itself a variant, the most successful variant, of fascism. Fascism with a human face. From markalause at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 19:40:31 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 21:40:31 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] post "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: <4A778CAC.2000504@panix.com> References: <20090804001839.32F2220042@smtp.hushmail.com> <4A778CAC.2000504@panix.com> Message-ID: The expression used to be "red fascism." The trouble with the entire concept of "totalitarian," of course, is that most of the so-called "Free World" during the Cold War were military dictatorships that were as totalitarian as they could afford to be. The "benign" default capitalism implied in all this rested directly upon these. ML From wsredden at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 21:17:00 2009 From: wsredden at gmail.com (Shawn Redden) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 23:17:00 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] excellent report on Honduras resistance & dictatorship Message-ID: Comrades, If you've got some time, take a listen to the Flashpoints interview of Sandra Cuffe, a freelance journalist on the ground in Honduras. The interview runs from roughly the 5 minute mark of the show until about the 17 minute mark. http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/52923 The Cuffe interview is followed by an interview of Eva Golinger. Solidarity, Shawn From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net Mon Aug 3 22:12:20 2009 From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:12:20 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Bolivia bans use of animals in circuses as cruelty Message-ID: <182E4589829C402EBB509811632FF4BC@office1pc> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/31/bolivia-bans-circus-animals/prin t Bolivia bans all circus animals Law defines use of animals in circus an act of cruelty 'Groundbreaking' move follows undercover inquiry Associated Press, La Paz guardian.co.uk, Friday 31 July 2009 12.24 BST Use of wild and domestic animals have been banned in Bolivia, the first law of its kind anywhere in the world, say animal welfare activists Bolivia has enacted what animal rights activists are calling the world's first ban on all animals in circuses. A handful of other countries have banned the use of wild animals in circuses, but the Bolivian ban includes domestic animals as well. The law, which states that the use of animals in circuses "constitutes an act of cruelty", took effect on 1 July with operators given a year to comply, according to the bill's sponsor, Ximena Flores. The law was proposed after an undercover investigation by the nonprofit-making London-based group Animal Defenders International (ADI) found widespread abuse in circuses operating in Bolivia. Flores said authorities aim to stop circus operators from killing animals they can no longer use. "About 50 animals are circulating in national and international circuses at the moment [in Bolivia] and we want to negotiate to make sure that the animals aren't eliminated," she said. The ADI chief executive, Jan Creamer, called the law "groundbreaking". The group's investigators in Bolivia worked side-by-side with circus workers and filmed disturbing mistreatment, she said, adding that poorly paid and badly trained workers routinely abused animals. "If they wanted an animal to move, their immediate reaction was a kick or a punch or a shove," she said. She said circus animals suffer everywhere - including in developed countries - from living in tight quarters and being constantly transported. "It's rather as if you and I were asked to spend the rest of our lives living in our bathroom," said Creamer. "In Bolivia there were three brown bears being kept in tiny compartments just 2 by 3 metres." The law sets fines for infractions and allows for animals to be confiscated by authorities, added Flores. From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Mon Aug 3 22:54:42 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:54:42 +1000 Subject: [Marxism] Venezuela: `The democratisation of the mass media has begun' | Links Message-ID: <4A77BF12.1080504@greenleft.org.au> Community media stations are ensuring true freedom of speech and expression in Venezuela. The media conglomerates that are trying to take this democratic process out of the hands of the people can be fought and defeated with the awakened, aware and united voices of the Venezuelan people. Full articles at http://links.org.au/node/1182 Subscribe free to Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 You can also follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net Mon Aug 3 23:38:21 2009 From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 01:38:21 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Gates case didn't come from nowhere: NYT op-ed on Harvard Blacks Message-ID: <2425ADFFAA0840FC964FEB89124C8155@office1pc> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/opinion/04herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinion How many six-year olds go to jail for throwing tantrums in class in Cuba? Allow me to pick a figure out of the air. Zero sounds right. Or are we to assume that no six-year-olds would dare misbehave in "totalitarian" Cuba? At any rate, this is a valuable item on the background to the Gates case. Fred Feldman August 4, 2009 Op-Ed Columnist Innocence Is No Defense By BOB HERBERT Cambridge, Mass. Last August the president of Harvard University, Drew Gilpin Faust, set up a committee to respond to the concerns of black faculty members and students who were uneasy, and in some cases upset, about the treatment of blacks by the campus police. The arrest last month of Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. did not occur in a vacuum. While his encounter was not with the Harvard University Police Department (he was arrested by a member of the Cambridge force), it was the latest in a series of troubling incidents that have left law-abiding members of the Harvard community feeling as though they were unfairly targeted and humiliated because of their race. The incident that ultimately led Ms. Faust to establish the committee concerned a black high school student who was working in a youth employment program at Harvard. The Harvard police, responding to a phone call, spotted the youngster attempting to remove a lock from a bicycle. He tried to explain that the bike was his and that his key had broken off in the lock. One of the officers reportedly pulled a gun and pointed it at the teenager. The frightened youngster said he did not have any photo identification, but he showed the officers his library card. Traumatized, he started to cry at one point. When the boy's story was eventually confirmed, he was allowed to leave with his bike. In 2004, the campus police stopped S. Allen Counter, a distinguished professor of neuroscience at the Harvard Medical School as he was strolling across Harvard Yard. Professor Counter, who is black and had been at Harvard for 30 years when the incident occurred, was viewed by the police as a robbery suspect. They asked him if he belonged at Harvard. He did not have his identification with him. In a particularly humiliating ritual, the officers went to University Hall and asked two students to confirm that the professor had an office there. They did. As these types of incidents accumulate, resentments build. Black students that I've spoken with at Harvard over the past week have not complained about overt racism or widespread police misconduct. Rather, they have expressed their sense of unease over encounters that others might dismiss as aberrations or think of as trivial but that collectively make the students feel as if they are being treated differently - unfairly - at their own school, and they don't like it. Nworah Ayogu, a senior who is studying neurobiology, told me about a well-known incident that occurred in 2007 when a number of black students were playing games like dodge ball and capture-the-flag on the Quad as part of an annual field-day-type celebration. White students called the Harvard police to investigate. The police showed up on motorcycles and asked the black students for identification, even though the students were wearing all kinds of Harvard regalia - caps, crimson T-shirts with "Harvard" emblazoned in white, and so forth. Mr. Ayogu said the cops actually seemed to be embarrassed by the situation and were not confrontational. "The whole thing made us feel like we didn't belong," he said. "What was most offensive was that our own classmates called the police on us." Harvard has made an aggressive effort to deal with these situations and create what the school describes as a more welcoming atmosphere for everyone. But it should be easy to understand that one distasteful encounter after another - not just at Harvard or in Cambridge, but nearly everywhere in this country - cannot help but lead to the expectation among blacks that cops will target people and treat them badly solely because of their race. Too often that expectation is realized, sometimes tragically. Think Amadou Diallo, who died in a hail of police bullets (fired for no earthly reason) outside of his home in the Bronx. No one is immune. Colin Powell told Larry King that he had been profiled many times. Attorney General Eric Holder spoke last week about how humiliated he felt as a college student when a cop made him stop his car and open the trunk so it could be searched for weapons. No one is too young. I traveled to Avon Park, Fla., a couple of years ago to write about the arrest of a black 6-year-old named Desre'e Watson. She threw a tantrum in her kindergarten class. The police were called, and the terrified child was arrested, handcuffed (the handcuffs were too large to fit her wrists, so she was cuffed on her upper arms) and driven off to headquarters. When I asked the police chief about the incident, he said: "Do you think this is the first 6-year-old we've arrested?" Young, old, innocent as the day is long - it doesn't matter. Your skin color can leave you perpetually vulnerable to a sudden and devastating criminal injustice. From ecosocialism at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 01:20:47 2009 From: ecosocialism at gmail.com (Ian Angus) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 03:20:47 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] New at Socialist Voice: Vancouver Socialist Statement; Left Refoundation Message-ID: <733b65360908040020v89acf78m8c0f335055cf3c3b@mail.gmail.com> SOCIALIST VOICE Marxist Perspectives for the 21st Century www.socialistvoice.ca August 4, 2009 VANCOUVER SOCIALIST FORUM STATEMENT OF PURPOSE Vancouver Socialist Forum was formed in 2007 by political activists from a variety of political backgrounds, to organize educational events on social justice issues and socialist theory and practice. VSF adopted the following statement of purpose on May 29, 2009. Continued: http://www.socialistvoice.ca/?p=468 ***** LEFT REFOUNDATION: FOR NEW UNITY ON AN ANTI-SECTARIAN BASIS *LeftViews* is Socialist Voice?s forum for articles related to rebuilding the left in Canada and around the world, reflecting a wide variety of socialist opinion. This article is an excerpt from a statement by Rowland Keshena, an indigenous socialist activist in southwestern Ontario. It was published in his blog, By Any Means Necessary, which ?aims to be a home for anyone who wants to change the current system of oppression and exploitation.? Continued: http://www.socialistvoice.ca/?p=464 ************************* SOCIALIST VOICE Web: www.socialistvoice.ca Email: socialistvoice at sympatico.ca Editors: Ian Angus, Roger Annis, John Riddell Associate Editor: Mike Krebs Readers are encouraged to forward or distribute Socialist Voice as widely as possible. To subscribe, send a blank email to Socialist-Voice-subscribe at yahoogroups.com. To unsubscribe, send a blank email to Socialist-Voice-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com FEEDBACK: Socialist Voice welcomes questions, comments and debate on the articles we publish. Please use the `Feedback' box at the bottom of each article on our website. LINK DOESN'T WORK? Some email programs block links to websites. If clicking on a link in Socialist Voice doesn't work, try holding down the CTRL key as you click, or copy the link address into your browser. ------------ From stuartmunckton at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 02:44:02 2009 From: stuartmunckton at gmail.com (Stuart Munckton) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 18:44:02 +1000 Subject: [Marxism] Dublin: Occupying workers violently evicted Message-ID: <2c6145850908040144p1b0ad08au3b3f8eaef41ca225@mail.gmail.com> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0804/breaking1.htm Thomas Cook workers removed from Dublin officeRONAN McGREEVY Former staff of Thomas Cook who have been occupying the company's shop in Grafton Street were arrested by gardai this morning in a dawn raid. More than 15 officers from Pearse Street Garda Station broke down the door of the premises and arrested all those inside at just after 5am. Around 20 former Thomas Cook employees, along with a number of officials from their union, the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association, and the People for Profit campaigner Richard Boyd-Barrett were taken to the Bridewell Garda Station for questioning. Each of the protesters were removed one-by-one from the shop. The occupiers clapped and cheered as they were taken out. A doctor accompanied a pregnant woman to the garda van. Councillor Richard Boyd Barrett of the People Before Profit Alliance in Dun Laoghaire was among those arrested. The protesters will be taken to a sitting at the High Court in front of Mr Justice Michael Peart at 2pm where they may be charged with contempt of court. Mr Justice Peart ordered their arrest when they refused to obey a court order issued on Saturday for them to vacate the premises. The ex-staff occupied the premises after being told by management on Friday afternoon that the shop would be shut immediately as a result of actions taken by the TSSA which included a public protest against the terms of a redundancy deal offered to 77 Thomas Cook staff. The shop and another, Direct Holiday's, a subsidiary in Talbot Street, were due to shut on September 6th, but the closure date for the Grafton Street branch was brought forward. Former staff are holding out for a redundancy deal which would give them eight weeks per year of service. The company is currently offering five weeks per year of service. The former workers claim that Thomas Cook is a hugely profitable company which paid its chief executive ?7 million last year and can afford an enhanced redundancy deal. Unite the union whose members staged a seven week occupation at Waterford Crystal earlier this year has called this morning?s removal of workers from the Thomas Cook store as ?a dark stain on the history of industrial relations in Ireland.? ?These are ordinary working people standing up for their rights?, said Unite Regional Secretary Jimmy Kelly. ?They have a right to be treated with respect and for their employer to hold to a standard of engagement that in this case has merely been cast aside. -- "The free market is perfectly natural... do you think I am some kind of dummy?" ? Jarvis Cocker "The basis of optimism is sheer terror" ? Oscar Wilde From arbetarpolitik at yahoo.com Tue Aug 4 02:46:21 2009 From: arbetarpolitik at yahoo.com (Adam Berg) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 01:46:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Marxism] Leftist comments on new "media law" in Venezuela? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <13288.14507.qm@web65716.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Thank you Fred! ? I read cde Kiraz' article. It was interesting. ? However, I find it a bit difficult to fully understand this issue without an available copy of the actual law - the Telecommunications Law. ? According to Human Rights Watch it is a crime to disseminate news that "harms the interest of the state": http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/31/venezuela-repeal-measures-aimed-critics ? True or not true? I do not automatically trust info from?HRW, so I would like to see for myself. ? /Adam --- On Tue, 8/4/09, Fred Fuentes wrote: From: Fred Fuentes Subject: Re: [Marxism] Leftist comments on new "media law" in Venezuela? To: "Adam Berg" Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009, 3:50 AM There will be an article on this issue posted at Venezuela Analysis later today. A quick note though, no new law on media has been passed, instead the old one is being implemented. The radio stations were "shut down" in the same way that drug labs get "shut down" - they were operating illegally on state regulated frequencies. On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Adam Berg wrote: > Nothing on HoV, venezuelanalysis.com. Does anyone know what the "media law" actually says??Any official views from leftist parties? > > Here is one artically on the law on al-Jazeera. Don?t know what is true and what is not, but I would like to know.. > http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/08/20098133741167236.html > > /Adam > > > > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/fred.fuentes%40gmail.com > ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/arbetarpolitik%40yahoo.com From sabocat59 at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 03:40:25 2009 From: sabocat59 at gmail.com (Greg McDonald) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 05:40:25 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Occupying workers violently evicted Message-ID: <6e42edf00908040240m443b70ddp3560adac0e58ca4@mail.gmail.com> In a scene all-too-familiar to people living under dictatorship, the police choose the early hours of the morning to break down the doors. But what happened this morning didn't take place in North Korea or Burma. It was Irish police who chose to raid the Thomas Cook shop in Dublin at 5 AM today to forcibly remove workers engaged in a peaceful protest. Some 20 workers and officials of their union were taken out one by one, including at least one pregnant woman. According to newspaper reports, the defiant workers clapped and cheered as they were taken out. As one union official put it, this morning?s removal of workers from the Thomas Cook store as ?a dark stain on the history of industrial relations in Ireland ... These are ordinary working people standing up for their rights. They have a right to be treated with respect." For full coverage of this breaking story, go here: http://www.labourstart.org/cgi-bin/show_news.pl?country=Ireland&langcode=en The union's website is here: http://www.tssa.org.uk/ From bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 04:05:35 2009 From: bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com (Bhaskar Sunkara) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 06:05:35 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Question for German comrades Message-ID: A few days ago, one of the major unions in Germany said they wouldn't be supporting any party in the upcoming general election. In the past, the union supported the SPD. Where is Die Linke's union activity? Can anyone shed more light on this for me. *** I don't mean for this to be a rehash of the many other threads on Die Linke, just a question. From naskha3 at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 04:12:48 2009 From: naskha3 at gmail.com (Nasir Khan) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:12:48 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] Uncle Sam, More War, Please Message-ID: <18d70e600908040312p163fa08cn90ec24cb90b66b4b@mail.gmail.com> Uncle Sam, More War, Please By Philip Giraldi, Campaign For Liberty, Aug 3, 2009 In ?Julius Caesar? Shakespeare?s Brutus counsels ?There is a tide in the affairs of men, which, taken on the flood, leads on to fortune.? Shakespeare was describing how powerful men seeking yet more power, blinded by hubris, collectively brought about the destruction of the very republic that they claimed to love. Brutus was urging his fellow conspirator Cassius to fight the forces of Anthony and Octavian on the following day at Philippi in the belief that one more battle would end the civil war that had begun with the assassination of Caesar. Brutus concludes his exhortation with a personal note revealing that for all his high mindedness he was not unmindful of the lure of military glory, ?omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries.? As has become increasingly clear to many, in ?Julius Caesar? Shakespeare could have as easily been writing about contemporary America as the Roman Republic. Continues >> http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=155 From markalause at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 05:17:42 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 07:17:42 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Uncle Sam, More War, Please In-Reply-To: <18d70e600908040312p163fa08cn90ec24cb90b66b4b@mail.gmail.com> References: <18d70e600908040312p163fa08cn90ec24cb90b66b4b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: As the site describes the author, "Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D. is the Francis Walsingham Fellow at The American Conservative Defense Alliance." The imperial Roman model of republican decline is as old as the hills...all seven of them. ML From eindeoc at freenet.de Tue Aug 4 05:19:22 2009 From: eindeoc at freenet.de (Einde O'Callaghan) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:19:22 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] Question for German comrades In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A78193A.60908@freenet.de> Bhaskar Sunkara wrote: > A few days ago, one of the major unions in Germany said they wouldn't be > supporting any party in the upcoming general election. In the past, the > union supported the SPD. > > Where is Die Linke's union activity? Can anyone shed more light on this for > me. > *** > I don't mean for this to be a rehash of the many other threads on Die Linke, > just a question. Die LINKE does have some influence in the trade unions, mainly at the lower level, but the overwhelming majority of trade union officials were and still are connected with the SPD. The fact the the IGMetall, one of the bigger unions, has for the first time ever said it won't make a recommendation is a sign of a growing breach between the unions and the SPD, which can onyl be welcomed by socialists and activists. This decision was taken despite the fact that the head of teh union is a member of the national executive of the SPD and the majority of member of teh union executive are also SPD members. It was however among local officials of the IGMetall that one of the initiatives arose that led to the founding of the WASG, which fused with the PDS to form DIE LINKE. IGMetall is the engineering and metal-workers union. Another area where there is some support is in teh public sector workers union, ver.di. In the east a number of prominent trade union officials, some of them originally from the West, have joined DIE LINKE in the recent past. Einde O'Callaghan From sabocat59 at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 05:53:52 2009 From: sabocat59 at gmail.com (Greg McDonald) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 07:53:52 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] USA preparing political conditions for the marines to intervene in Honduras? (spanish) Message-ID: <6e42edf00908040453v1119c03ere6d09e5c9bcc2688@mail.gmail.com> http://www.rlp.com.ni/noticias/general/57906 ?EEUU prepara condiciones pol?ticas para que sus marinos intervengan Honduras? Tegucigalpa. Por Dick Emanuelsson, Radio La Primer?sima. | agosto 4, 2009 El indiscutible promotor de la lucha por los derechos humanos en Honduras de mayor prestigio, Andr?s Pav?n, cree que hay una posibilidad terrible para Honduras y Am?rica Latina: la invasi?n militar norteamericana, alegando que llegan a salvar al pa?s de una guerra civil. Ante la tumba del maestro R?ger Vallejo, una nueva v?ctima de la dictadura de los golpistas hondure?os, Pav?n ha declarado que una posible maniobra de Estados Unidos, es estar creando las condiciones para una intervenci?n militar en el pa?s, similar a la que se ejecuta actualmente en Hait?. "Hay otra lectura tambi?n del conflicto y esa lectura podr?a ser que a los asesores m?s cercanos de Obama les vendan la idea de que este es una oportunidad para que ellos se vuelvan la polic?a volver a retomar su influencia de ser polic?a en Am?rica Latina. Porque cuando nosotros le pedimos que no solo levante visas, casi le estamos diciendo que intervenga Honduras, que aqu? haya una intervenci?n militar similar a la que hubo en Hait?, asegura Pav?n. "Es posible que con eso el gobierno de Obama pretenda prestigiarse en situaciones como ?sta", sentencia el principal defensor de los Derechos Humanos en Honduras. "Yo estoy seguro que si los marines intervienen en Honduras ser?an aplaudidos por el mont?n de gente que nos encontramos ac?, sin so?ar que a futuro le estamos dando la puerta para futuras intervenciones en Am?rica Latina y volverlos la polic?a latinoamericana. Esos son detalles que est?n ah? en el escenario", declara Pav?n con aplomo. En otro orden, Pav?n tambi?n confirma la denuncia de que asesores sionistas han sido contratados por la dictadura hondure?a para entrenar en terror?ficos m?todos represivos a la polic?a hondure?a. No es de extra?ar. Los principales profesores de terrorismo de estado vienen del estado sionista para ense?ar en muerte, inteligencia, terror y saber como sostener un estado contra una poblaci?n que lucha por sus derechos constitucionales o reivindicaciones. O, como en el caso del pueblo de Honduras, para restablecer la democracia. A continuaci?n la entrevista a Andr?s Pav?n que se puede escuchar tambi?n en audio (mp3) Estamos frente al edificio del COPEMH que es el gremio sindical de los trabajadores del magisterio de Educaci?n Media, tambi?n tenemos ac? el doctor Ren? Andr?s Pav?n en el Presidente del Comit? de Derechos Humanos de Honduras, CODEH. Dick Emanuelsson (DE): Ayer sali? un comunicado por parte de CODEH denunciando varias cosas, entre una de esas denuncias fue que el gobierno de facto de Micheletti ha contratado comandos israelitas o gente que puede capacitar a las fuerzas militares-policiales hondure?as. Lo que sabemos de la guerra civil en Colombia, es que esos comandos tambi?n han estado all? asesorando a las fuerzas militares colombianas. ?Que est?n haciendo esos israelitas ac?? Andr?s Pav?n (AP): Hasta ahora lo que nosotros tenemos nos indica que la misi?n que ellos tienen es preparar a la Fuerzas Armadas y la polic?a para disuadir manifestaciones de manera agresiva y violenta, tratando de cometer cr?menes de naturaleza selectiva con el fin de construir miedo, construir escenarios de terror y lograr la desmovilizaci?n de la resistencia. Otras acciones que est?n haciendo es lograr que algunos empleados de las empresas de seguridad privada se pongan el uniforme de la polic?a y cometan actos de agresi?n directa contra los manifestantes, ya que el polic?a de alguna manera ha tenido formaci?n para disuadir movilizaciones y es un poco temeroso al momento de agredir a los manifestantes, porque de alguna manera algo se le ha quedado en materia de formaci?n en derechos humanos. En cambio los guardias de seguridad son doblemente pagados y se les garantiza la impunidad. Estas son pr?cticas que est?n desarrollando utilizando la experiencia del conflicto palestino y la puesta en pr?ctica de algunas de estas acciones en Colombia. DE: ?Cu?l es el saldo hasta ahora, estamos a cinco semanas despu?s del golpe de estado, cuanta gente ha muerto y cuanta gente ha sido detenidas torturadas, golpeadas? AP: Nosotros tenemos un registro que desde el toque de queda se han registrado m?s de 2200 personas detenidas arbitrariamente privadas de su libertad. Y en acciones directas en el momento de disolver manifestaciones ya registramos m?s de 600 personas. El n?mero de personas lesionadas supera las 120 y personas muertas en acciones directas en movilizaciones van tres, y otros tres m?s que se supone la caracter?stica apuntan a una muerte planificada y dirigida por esta estructuras. Es bueno anunciar ?por primera vez vamos a decir un dato? que durante los de queda se registraron m?s de 37 homicidios con armas de fuego en horas donde la polic?a y el ej?rcito ten?a el control de las calles. Nosotros vamos a pedir nombre y apellido de las victimas PARA que se proceda hacer las investigaciones pertinentes, en raz?n de que el principal sospechoso es el Estado. DE: De la muerte de un muchacho Pedro Magdiel en El para?so el 24 al 25 de julio, ahora hay tambi?n una fotograf?a en el diario La Tribuna que sali? el mismo d?a del levantamiento de ese muchacho donde se puede distinguir que hay un oficial del ej?rcito arrastrando ese muchacho que apareci? muerto al otro d?a. ?Hasta d?nde ha llegado la investigaci?n sobre este caso? AP: Si, nosotros tenemos la investigaci?n pertinente en el caso de Magdiel. Lo primero es que fue retenido por la polic?a y esto apunta a una muerte con car?cter extralegal, plenamente caracterizada. Sabemos que en Danl?, en El Para?so, hay estructuras paramilitares que est?n trabajando en coordinaci?n con las fuerzas armadas y la Polic?a que se encuentra en ese sector. Creemos que este muchacho fue entregado por la Polic?a a esta estructura que cometi? este b?rbaro crimen. Eso nos indica que hay un patr?n reconocido de la conducta de agresi?n est? desarrollando el Estado. Otra de las estrategias es que los israelitas est?n entrenando a un grupo para posesionar en el consciente social, es la idea de que los l?deres que estamos frente a este movimiento tenemos un pasado de terrorismo o que estamos ligados a las mismas estructuras de polic?a. Me lo dec?a ayer una persona que pretenden tirar afiches, pegarlos en las paredes para ir creando la desconfianza en aquella poblaci?n que todav?a no est? consciente de lo que los l?deres en este pa?s, seg?n ellos quiere que el pueblo sepa que han sido; eso es una estrategia hist?rica en Am?rica Latina, luego querer justificar en el marco de estas contradicciones que la muerte de algunos l?deres provienen a ra?z de la contradicci?n". DE: La raz?n porque toda esta masa esta aqu? afuera en la sede de COPEMH es que muri? el s?bado a la 1 en la madrugada Roger Vallejo, 38 a?os, dirigente de este gremio, a ra?z de un tiro de un francotirador el mi?rcoles pasado en la toma de la Carretera Norte de Tegucigalpa por parte del Frente Nacional contra el Golpe de Estado. ?Que se sabe de eso? Porque ya es la segunda muerte de francotiradores. El primero fue el en aeropuerto el 5 julio y ahora tenemos otro muerto, donde supuestamente un francotirador hab?a disparado contra ese se?or. AP: Es una muerte premeditada con algunas caracter?sticas de selectividad. Seleccionaron un maestro para poder afectar a uno de los gremios que actualmente forma parte de la resistencia, que cuenta con un gran n?mero de personas ligadas al frente de resistencia. Todo indica que fue un acto de premeditaci?n. La doctrina del Estatuto de Roma, bajo la que se puede llegar a la Corte Penal Internacional, establece que no necesariamente hay que conocer el nombre del que dispar?, basta conocer el nombre de quien dirige una pol?tica represiva en contra de un alto conglomerado de la poblaci?n civil con la intenci?n de provocar ciertas reacciones de naturaleza psicol?gica en la poblaci?n. En eso pues no cabe duda, el acto de premeditaci?n tendr? en su momento que ser objeto de una denuncia formal ante organismos que bien es cierto en el pa?s est?n ligados con las estructuras represivas del Estado. Pero eso nos va a permitir demostrar ante el fiscal de la corte penal internacional que aqu? algo est? sucediendo y que ese algo que est? sucediendo es una pol?tica de Estado y que esa pol?tica de Estado contribuye a generar todos los actos de represi?n que actualmente estamos viviendo. DE: ?Podr?a ser tambi?n una expresi?n de asesoramiento por parte de los israelitas de hacer esa selecci?n de ese se?or? AP: ?Si claro! Esto coincide mucho con la caracterizaci?n que refleja el conflicto colombiano en donde s? hay una confrontaci?n con una correlatividad de fuerzas un poco similar en conflicto armado. Aqu? en Honduras la correlativa de fuerzas no es similar a la que pasa en Colombia, aqu? son ciudadanos civiles que est?n armados de conciencia de valor, de verdad y que en factores de autodefensa lo ?nico que usan de vez en cuando es una piedra o un pedazo de palo. Ellos tambi?n tienen sus m?todos para poder intervenir en situaciones como estas, parecido a lo que ha pasado en Gaza y en este sector de Sur Jordania. DE: Hablando justamente de Colombia, cuando asumi? la presidencia Obama mucha gente ten?a esperanza que la pol?tica guerrerista por parte de Estados Unidos se iba a cambiar radicalmente. Pero lo que hemos visto es la reactivaci?n de la Cuarta Flota en el mes de julio el a?o pasado, todav?a sigue flotando desde Alaska en el norte hasta Patagonia en el sur. Pretenden instalar cinco nuevas bases militares en Colombia, entre ellas tres contra la frontera con Venezuela y una en la Bah?a M?laga que est?n en la costa pac?fica entre Centroam?rica y Ecuador. Nada indica que esa pol?tica guerrerista se va a terminar. Si Hillary Clinton habr?a querido hacer algo con el gobierno de Micheletti, porque ahora solamente han cancelado las visas por cuatro funcionarios del gobierno Micheletti, pero son cosas cosm?ticas ?o como se interpreta esto? AP: "Lo que Obama dice refleja una realidad y lo que hacen sus m?s cercanos colaboradores a nivel empresarial o este grupo conocido como los halcones, es otro discurso y otra pr?ctica. Eso nos da una lectura de que el se?or Obama esta atravesando un conflicto similar al que est?n enfrentando otros gobernantes en Am?rica Latina aqu? no hay que estar pensando que podr?a haber tambi?n un golpe en Bolivia, uno en Ecuador en Nicaragua y El Salvador. Tambi?n hay que pensar que en Estados Unidos podr?a haber un golpe tarde o temprano esas son cosas que imposibles de so?arlas pero podr?a ser una realidad. Por otro lado hay otra lectura tambi?n del conflicto y esa lectura podr?a ser que a los asesores m?s cercanos de Obama les vendan la idea de que este es una oportunidad para que ellos se vuelvan la polic?a volver a retomar su influencia de ser polic?a en Am?rica Latina. Porque cuando nosotros le pedimos que no solo levante visas casi le estamos diciendo que intervenga Honduras que aqu? haya una intervenci?n militar similar a la que hubo en Hait? y eso pues, es posible que con eso el gobierno de Obama pretenda prestigiarse en situaciones como ?sta. Yo estoy seguro que si los marines intervienen en Honduras ser?an aplaudidos por el mont?n de gente que nos encontramos ac?, sin so?ar que a futuro le estamos dando la puerta para futuras intervenciones en Am?rica Latina y volverlos la polic?a latinoamericana. Esos son detalles que est?n ah? en el escenario. Claro que si esto est? pensando Obama no lo va hacer ahora, eso lo va hacer faltando dos meses para que hayan elecciones en Honduras y as? amarrando totalmente la posibilidad que tenga el Presidente Zelaya de sucumbir frente a una presi?n social que exija la creaci?n de una asamblea nacional constituyente. From sartesian at earthlink.net Tue Aug 4 05:56:56 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 07:56:56 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Korea Message-ID: <1CCEDE6F8A2C477A8CF612D704B62BA0@dmsthinkpad> Reports are that police have undertaken a full scale assault on Ssangyong strikers. full at: http://libcom.org/news/ssangyong-occupation-update-august-4-korea-time-2009-04082009 From billyoc at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 06:24:19 2009 From: billyoc at gmail.com (Bill O'Connor) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:24:19 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Korea In-Reply-To: <1CCEDE6F8A2C477A8CF612D704B62BA0@dmsthinkpad> (S. Artesian's message of "Tue, 4 Aug 2009 07:56:56 -0400") References: <1CCEDE6F8A2C477A8CF612D704B62BA0@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: <86fxc7himk.fsf@gmail.com> "S. Artesian" writes: > Reports are that police have undertaken a full scale assault on Ssangyong strikers. > > full at: http://libcom.org/news/ssangyong-occupation-update-august-4-korea-time-2009-04082009 I'll be speaking to Loren Goldner later today, he knows as much about this occupation as anyone I know. He told me last week that it's not going that well, the workers have no water to wash off the liquid tear gas they're being sprayed with(or to drink). Who knows, if they make it expensive enough to continue the attacks, the company might back off, but it's not looking too good right now. -- In Solidarity, Billy O'Connor From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Aug 4 06:53:59 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:53:59 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Third Bush administration plows ahead Message-ID: <4A782F67.8050903@panix.com> NY Times, August 4, 2009 Firm Stance on Illegal Immigrants Remains Policy By JULIA PRESTON After early pledges by President Obama that he would moderate the Bush administration?s tough policy on immigration enforcement, his administration is pursuing an aggressive strategy for an illegal-immigration crackdown that relies significantly on programs started by his predecessor. A recent blitz of measures has antagonized immigrant groups and many of Mr. Obama?s Hispanic supporters, who have opened a national campaign against them, including small street protests in New York and Los Angeles last week. The administration recently undertook audits of employee paperwork at hundreds of businesses, expanded a program to verify worker immigration status that has been widely criticized as flawed, bolstered a program of cooperation between federal and local law enforcement agencies, and rejected proposals for legally binding rules governing conditions in immigration detention centers. ?We are expanding enforcement, but I think in the right way,? Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary, said in an interview. Ms. Napolitano and other administration officials argue that no-nonsense immigration enforcement is necessary to persuade American voters to accept legislation that would give legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, a measure they say Mr. Obama still hopes to advance late this year or early next. That approach brings Mr. Obama around to the position that his Republican rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona, espoused during last year?s presidential campaign, a stance Mr. Obama rejected then as too hard on Latino and immigrant communities. (Mr. McCain did not respond to requests for comment.) Now the enforcement strategy has opened a political rift with some immigrant advocacy and Hispanic groups whose voters were crucial to the Obama victory. ?Our feelings are mixed at best,? said Clarissa Martinez De Castro, immigration director of the National Council of La Raza, which has joined in the criticism, aimed primarily at Ms. Napolitano. ?We understand the need for sensible enforcement, but that does not mean expanding programs that often led to civil rights violations.? Under Ms. Napolitano, immigration authorities have backed away from the Bush administration?s frequent mass factory roundups of illegal immigrant workers. But federal criminal prosecutions for immigration violations have actually increased this year, according to a study by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a nonpartisan group that analyzes government data. In April, there were 9,037 immigration cases in the federal courts, an increase of 32 percent over April 2008, the group found. Ms. Napolitano said in the interview that she would not call off immigration raids entirely as some Hispanic lawmakers have suggested. ?We will continue to enforce the law and to look for effective ways to do it,? she said. ?That?s my job.? Ms. Napolitano, who as governor of Arizona sparred with Republican legislators seeking tougher steps against illegal immigration, said she was looking for ways to make enforcement programs inherited from President George W. Bush less heavy-handed. She also wants to put the enforcement focus on illegal-immigrant gang members and convicts and on employers who routinely hire illegal immigrants so as to exploit them. Immigration authorities have started audits of employees? hiring documents at more than 600 businesses nationwide. If an employer shows a pattern of hiring immigrants whose documents cannot be verified, a criminal investigation could follow, Ms. Napolitano said. She has also expanded a federal program, known as E-Verify, that allows employers to verify electronically the identity information of new hires. Immigrant and business groups have sued to try to stop the program, saying the databases it relies on are riddled with inaccuracies that could lead to American citizens? being denied jobs. But officials of the Homeland Security Department say technological improvements have enhanced the speed and accuracy of E-Verify. With 137,000 employers now enrolled, only 0.3 percent of 6.4 million queries they have made so far in the 2009 fiscal year have resulted in denials that later proved incorrect, the officials say. That, opponents note, still means false denials for more than 19,000 people. In addition, Ms. Napolitano has expanded a program that runs immigration checks on every person booked into local jails in some cities. And she recently announced the expansion of another program, known as 287(g) for the provision of the statute authorizing it, that allows for cooperation between federal immigration agents and state and local police agencies. In extending 287(g), federal officials also drew up a new agreement, which all of some 66 localities currently participating have been asked to sign, that is intended to enhance federal oversight and clarify the priority on deporting those immigrants who are criminal fugitives or are already behind bars. But advocates for immigrants said the new agreement did not include strong protections against ethnic profiling. They were surprised, they say, that Ms. Napolitano did not terminate the cooperation agreement with the sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz., Joe Arpaio, who calls himself the ?toughest sheriff in America.? Latino groups in Arizona have accused Mr. Arpaio of using the program to harass Hispanic residents. ?If they reform the 287(g) program and Arpaio doesn?t change, it won?t be reform,? said Frank Sharry, executive director of America?s Voice, a national immigrant advocacy group. Ms. Napolitano said it would be up to Mr. Arpaio, like other current participants, to decide whether to sign and abide by the new cooperation agreement. Separately, the Justice Department has opened a civil rights investigation of Mr. Arpaio?s practices. The Obama administration has received support for its immigration position from a leading Democrat, Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, who will be writing an immigration overhaul bill later this year. In preparation for what is likely to be a furious debate, Mr. Schumer has called on Democrats to show that they are serious about immigration enforcement and is even asking them to stop using the term ?undocumented? to refer to immigrants who are here illegally. Democrats have to ?convince the American people there will not be new waves of illegal immigrants? after an overhaul passes, Mr. Schumer said in an interview. Republicans who oppose any legalization of the status of illegal immigrants say they remain unimpressed by the new enforcement measures. ?After 20 years of broken promises, it takes a lot more than token gestures,? said Representative Brian P. Bilbray, a California Republican who heads an immigration caucus in the House. Michael A. Olivas, a professor of immigration law at the University of Houston, said Hispanic advocates were irked by the enforcement measures because they had seen scant sign that the administration was also moving deliberately toward an overhaul bill. ?We literally have the worst of all worlds,? Professor Olivas said. --- NY Times, August 4, 2009 Sidebar Obama Administration Weighs in on State Secrets, Raising Concern on the Left By ADAM LIPTAK WASHINGTON A Supreme Court filing from the Obama administration last month has set off alarm bells on the left. The filing was a friend-of-the-court brief, and it mostly dealt with an excruciatingly technical question about the attorney-client privilege. But its last five pages were about the state secrets privilege, which was not at issue in the case. That privilege, a favorite tool of the Bush administration, allows the government to shut down lawsuits by invoking national security. The Obama administration?s brief argued, though no one had asked, that the state secrets privilege was rooted in the Constitution. The federal government files friend-of-the-court briefs in the Supreme Court all the time, and it is not unusual for it to alert the court to related issues, usually to make sure that the court?s ruling is no broader than it needs to be. But the filing has raised eyebrows and suspicions among liberals already disappointed that the Obama administration has not rejected a number of legal doctrines associated with the Bush administration. Jon B. Eisenberg, a lawyer for an Islamic charity in Oregon, said the filing reflected ?the good old Bush-Cheney inherent presidential power theory.? Mr. Eisenberg said he suspected that the administration was hoping to use the attorney-client case to invite the Supreme Court to say something helpful to it about state secrets. Mathew A. Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said there was no reason for concern. ?The brief says only that the state secrets privilege, along with other governmental privileges, has a constitutional basis,? Mr. Miller said, ?which is a position that has been taken by the Department of Justice for many decades under administrations of both parties.? On the campaign trail and in more recent statements, President Obama has indicated that he wants to limit the use of the state secrets privilege. In courtrooms, however, there has been little evidence of a new approach. The administration?s brief said the government should be allowed to appeal rulings rejecting the state secrets privilege right away, rather than after the whole case is decided. Rulings concerning the attorney-client privilege, on the other hand, the brief said, should not be subject to immediate appeal. The differing treatments are warranted, the brief argued, because the state secrets privilege is grounded in the Constitution. But that point is controversial, and the brief?s account of the relevant decisions was incomplete. A federal judge in San Francisco, for instance, last year rejected a version of the constitutional argument in a case brought by Mr. Eisenberg?s client, Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation. The foundation said it had been subjected to illegal surveillance in the Bush years. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that the charity?s suit must be dismissed under the state secrets privilege. This is where the issue of the pedigree of the privilege really matters. If the privilege is an ordinary common-law rule of evidence, Congress is probably free to alter it. If it is required by the Constitution, things get more complicated. The judge in San Francisco, Vaughn R. Walker, ruled that Congress had indeed overridden the state secrets privilege when it enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The judge said that by setting up a secret court to consider requests for intelligence surveillance, and by setting up other domestic regulations of foreign intelligence surveillance, ?Congress intended for the executive branch to relinquish its near-total control over whether the fact of unlawful surveillance could be protected as a secret.? The government?s recent brief cited the leading Supreme Court decision on state secrets, United States v. Reynolds in 1953, but it said nothing about Judge Walker?s reading of it. ?Reynolds itself,? Judge Walker wrote, ?leaves little room for defendants? argument that the state secrets privilege is actually rooted in the Constitution.? The Reynolds case concerned an Air Force accident report. The government refused to turn it over in an injury lawsuit, saying that disclosure of the report would endanger national security by revealing military secrets. When the report was finally released in 1996, it contained no secrets, but it did show that the deaths of nine men in the crash of a B-29 bomber had been caused by the Air Force?s negligence. Thus, the first case in which the Supreme Court recognized the state secrets privilege illustrated how problematic it can be. By giving the executive branch close to unilateral power to have lawsuits dismissed on national security grounds, the privilege can become a way to conceal government misconduct. The recent brief from the Obama administration cited just one decision directly invoking the Constitution as the basis for the state secrets privilege. Other courts have said the state secrets privilege is rooted in the common law. The decision cited in the brief dismissed a lawsuit from a German citizen, Khaled el-Masri, who said he had been abducted and abused by the Central Intelligence Agency. A report from the Council of Europe substantially confirmed Mr. Masri?s claims. The state secrets privilege, Judge Robert B. King wrote in 2007 for a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Mr. Masri?s case, ?performs a function of constitutional significance.? Mr. Miller, the Justice Department spokesman, cautioned against reading too much into the recent filing. ?The brief says nothing about either the scope of the privilege or the ability of Congress to legislate in the area,? Mr. Miller said. Experts in legal ethics said the solicitor general, who represents the government in the Supreme Court, was not required to cite decisions from lower courts cutting against its position. But issues as urgent and important as the state secrets privilege deserve particularly considered treatment, as Judge King of the Fourth Circuit recognized. ?This inquiry is a difficult one,? he wrote, ?for it pits the judiciary?s search for truth against the executive?s duty to maintain the nation?s security.? From sartesian at earthlink.net Tue Aug 4 07:14:02 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:14:02 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Korea References: <1CCEDE6F8A2C477A8CF612D704B62BA0@dmsthinkpad> <86fxc7himk.fsf@gmail.com> Message-ID: <37D0AA2654574950BF88E319ED9CB49E@dmsthinkpad> Indeed, Loren was invited to by the workers to speak during the first days of the occupation. Those interested can hear an interview on Pacifica with Loren re events in Korea at: http://www.suziweissman.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill O'Connor" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:24 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Korea > I'll be speaking to Loren Goldner later today, he knows as much about > this occupation as anyone I know. From Waistline2 at aol.com Tue Aug 4 07:19:32 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:19:32 EDT Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of "engagement"withIranRe:FredFeldman Message-ID: >> The emancipatory, "progressive," element in capitalism is not the "dual role" of the bourgeoisie as Marx imagined, and only imagined, it to be in 1848,[ as a careful examination of the struggle against the ancien regime and its remnants shows that the bourgeoisie itself hardly played a revolutionary role, but in fact the actions of the rural and urban poor, the petty bourgeoisie were the revolutionary drivers and the revolution itself only became bourgeois in its defeat], is not and does not exist in "things." It does not exist in the accumulation of the means of production as means of production because in fact no such accumulation exists. The accumulation of the means of production exists only as part of the process of the accumulation of values. The "progress" such as it is exists, and exists only, in the expropriation of the expropriators, in the social act of revolution.<< Comment "We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange. Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune(4): here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable ?third estate? of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part." (Communist Manifesto) Private property is set into motion, and attains a self reproducing life cycle with the dissolution of private communism. I am convinced - unshakably, that private property does not arise from the existence of a surplus, or we can forget about the cause of communism. Rather, private property establishes itself on the basis of a surplus. Private property in its genesis is excited to life by a biological driven greed, or biological distortion or metabolic breach - rift, in the human. I have already agreed that it is incorrect to speak of the bourgeoisie as progressive. ?Progressive? conveys the wrong concept that is the property form and its evolution. The bourgeoisie is revolutionary in the context of the evolution of the property form as the meaning of class. It is revolutionary in regard to the role in plays in the destruction of a previously existing property relations. The bourgeoisie is not progressive or revolutionary in relationship to proletariat or wage labor or what is the same, the wage form or the property form of labor. . The problem is that the workers consciousness, as wage labor, evolves behind the consciousness of the bourgeoisie, as both face the property restrains of feudalism. These restrains are social, political, economic and military. In this meaning what really broke up feudalism - as an economic order, was the transition in the form of wealth from landed property to gold. What breaks up feudalism from the standpoint of the development of the productive forces is revolution in the machinery of society. What overthrows feudalism in its political aspects is the emergence of bourgeoisie and proletariat as the unity and strife of new classes underlying new form of property or new production relations. II. "progress" such as it is exists, and exists only, in the expropriation of the expropriators, in the social act of revolution.? Agreed, with qualifications. Marx paints a gigantic cycle - evolution, as negation of negation in Capital 1. The ?expropriators are expropriated,? as the social act of a historically specific social revolution at a historically specific state of development of the productive forces - with the property relations within. What is established is public property or anti-property or classless society. I understand Marx meaning to imply the bourgeoisie is revolutionary in regard to the past; the proletariat in regard to the future. The social problem is that the proletariat in its early phases of development as a class/property configuration lacks consciousness of itself as part of the historical progression. The proletariat fights the enemy of its enemy. III. Marx describes the general formation of the consciousness of the wage workers. "The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages. At this stage, the labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie." (Communist Manifesto) Apparently, in your own way, you have stated no more than the last sentence above. Every . . . (Every!!!) victory obtained, in the fight for the future, is a victory for the bourgeoisie when the whole historical movement is concentrated in its hands. It is of course "cool" to at least try and answer concrete questions concrettly. WL. **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd =JulystepsfooterNO115) From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Aug 4 07:38:58 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:38:58 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] The political consequences of social change in Iran Message-ID: <4A7839F2.6020605@panix.com> This quest for individual rights partly reflects a broader process of individuation that Iranian society has been undergoing in the thirty years since the 1979 revolution. This creeping modernity - resulting from the expanding urbanisation (70%), general literacy (80%), college education, mobility, and the inescapable footprints of globalisation - has been manifested in a host of different social processes; they include "nuclearisation" of the family, the trend towards smaller, two-child households, apartment life, child-centredness, and valuing meritocracy against ageism (as well as, sadly, a trend of possessive individualism). This modernity has not diminished peoples' religious belief per se, though there is a strong disdain for clericalism and political Islam. Rather, Iran has moved into a post-Islamist trajectory where people wish to combine their Islam with modernity, their religiosity with rights, and their faith with freedom. This understanding of "freedom" differs from that of the Islamist leaders. In fact, Islamists in general from the beginning expressed little interest in the idea of freedom. If anything, throughout the 1980s and 1990s, for most of them azadi meant hedonism, moral laxity, decadence, and westernisation; even more so when it had become the main outcry of the banished democrats, liberals, middle-class women, and urban youngsters. full: http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/iran-a-green-wave-for-life-and-liberty --- NY Times, August 4, 2009 Qum Journal Signs of Dissent Emerge in an Iranian Power Base By THE NEW YORK TIMES QUM, Iran ? The smiling face of Mir Hussein Moussavi was scratched out on many of his campaign posters and in one case bashed in by a sledgehammer. Still, the posters were there, one small but notable sign of dissent here in Iran?s religious power base despite heavy security and a conservative majority that stifles open rebellion. The region?s relative insularity and lack of access to the outside world has led to a public silence that suggests that antagonism to the government is mainly limited to the large urban centers. But a recent four-day trip to the region turned up signs that growing segments of these rural populations, particularly the young and the educated, have lost faith in the current government. ?I voted for Moussavi because I want change,? said a 24-year-old recent university graduate who was visiting his hometown, a mud-brick village southwest of Qum that is accessible only by an old tractor trail. ?All the young people like myself moved away because we do not believe in this lifestyle anymore,? he said, speaking anonymously for fear of reprisals. full: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/world/middleeast/04qum.html From lycophidion at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 07:42:32 2009 From: lycophidion at gmail.com (Michael Friedman) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:42:32 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Scientists study huge plastic patch in Pacific Message-ID: <709f342d0908040642g2dfbae57jed63998568699dcc@mail.gmail.com> Scientists study huge plastic patch in Pacific By Steve Gorman Steve Gorman 57 mins ago LOS ANGELES (Reuters) ? Marine scientists from California are venturing this week to the middle of the North Pacific for a study of plastic debris accumulating across hundreds of miles (km) of open sea dubbed the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch." A research vessel carrying a team of about 30 researchers, technicians and crew members embarked on Sunday on a three-week voyage from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, based at the University of California at San Diego. The expedition will study how much debris -- mostly tiny plastic fragments -- is collecting in an expanse of sea known as the North Pacific Ocean Gyre, how that material is distributed and how it affects marine life. The debris ends up concentrated by circular, clockwise ocean currents within an oblong-shaped "convergence zone" hundreds of miles (km) across from end to end near the Hawaiian Islands, about midway between Japan and the West Coast of the United States. The focus of the study will be on plankton, other microorganisms, small fish and birds. "The concern is what kind of impact those plastic bits are having on the small critters on the low end of the ocean food chain," Bob Knox, deputy director of research at Scripps, said on Monday after the ship had spent its first full day at sea. [...] http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090804/us_nm/us_ocean_plastics/print -- Michael Friedman, Ph.D. City University of New York Sackler Institute for Comparative Genomics American Museum of Natural History 79th Street and Central Park West New York, NY 10024 Office: 212-313-8721 Cell: 718-812-4246 From Waistline2 at aol.com Tue Aug 4 07:58:36 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:58:36 EDT Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" Message-ID: >> No. it's not acceptable because the bogus concept of "totalitrianism" is still bourgeoisie blather especially when it is applied to the Soviet Union or Nazi German or anywhere else for that matter. Spare me the sermon on the omnipresence of the NKVD and fearful conformity of a population brainwashed by propoganda. << Comment Inspiring and passionate statement. I do not fear truth. Between 1928 and 1936, the Soviet peoples were building a bright better life while the rest of earth was experiencing the horror of capital exploitation and the front curve what was to become the Second World Imperial War. Millions upon million would perish due to capital. You comment restores balance to the some written comments about the Soviet Union and Soviet life. The condemnation of everything Soviet, under the banner of anti-Stalinism, is unsustainable because it is a lie. Where their distotions in the Soviet Union? Yes, without question. Was it hell on earth as painted by the bourgeosie? No. **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd =JulystepsfooterNO115) From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Tue Aug 4 08:22:13 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 17:22:13 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One may criticise everything of Soviet Union after 1936. But one cannot say it was not an attempt to establish socialism. One may criticise everything of Stalin. But one cannot say he was not a communist. We still owe the defeat of fascism to the Communist Party of Soviet Union, the head of which was Stalin. Everything may be criticised but at least this must be admitted. --------- Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From sebastian at amadeobordiga.u-net.com Tue Aug 4 08:26:59 2009 From: sebastian at amadeobordiga.u-net.com (Sebastian Budgen) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:26:59 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] FOURTH COMINTERN CONGRESS PROCEEDINGS UPDATE Message-ID: <6D972462-A6AB-448B-A3B3-8297327BA541@amadeobordiga.u-net.com> FOURTH COMINTERN CONGRESS PROCEEDINGS UPDATE We've been very pleased by the response to our plan to publish the complete proceedings of the Fourth (1922) Congress of the Communist International. Editor John Riddell reports that work on translation and annotating is on schedule. Publication by the Historical Materialism Book Series is tentatively scheduled for 2010. Answers to two frequent questions: 1. How can I learn more about John Riddell's earlier documentary volumes on the Communist International? Six volumes were published by Pathfinder Press between 1984 and 1993 under the series title The Communist International in Lenin's Time. They cover the preparatory period, the First and Second Congresses, and the Baku Congress. Information about those six volumes can be found aon the Reading from the Left website. Go to 2. When will the documents and proceedings of the Third (1921) Congress be published? A translation of the Third Congress proceeding, prepared under Riddell's editorship, was submitted to Pathfinder Press in 2003. We have no information on when or whether they will publish it. From bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 08:36:29 2009 From: bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com (Bhaskar Sunkara) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:36:29 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dogan Gocmen: We still owe the defeat of fascism to the Communist Party of Soviet Union, the head of which was Stalin. Everything may be criticised but at least this must be admitted.*** No. I refuse to attribute the heroic struggle of the Soviet *people* to a party. I also refuse to degenerate the efforts of the European resistance and the other soldiers and workers of the Allied powers that contributed to the defeat of fascism. So no, no admission here. From farmelantj at juno.com Tue Aug 4 08:40:59 2009 From: farmelantj at juno.com (farmelantj at juno.com) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 14:40:59 GMT Subject: [Marxism] Income Loss Persists Long After Layoffs (NY Times) Message-ID: <20090804.104059.14059.0@webmail22.vgs.untd.com> ____________________________________________________________ Need Legal Advice - Click Here. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTOhQXJyXN7mbrszvS1NviLGpeKmt3Y0uXYhHQ4G0AJQyy72gW8Syc/ From sartesian at earthlink.net Tue Aug 4 08:52:24 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:52:24 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of"engagement"withIranRe:FredFeldman References: Message-ID: <435954430B7A423CA0230AE544C002D6@dmsthinkpad> The central issue for me in the previous round of discussions is those notions that: somehow "dialectic" means that there is "positive" and "negative" in everything; somehow the transformation of a thing into its opposite is based on "external" circumstances and not the manifestation of its inherent qualities, its "essence," its "notion" made evident by its development in the real world; that somehow there is "progress" a "higher rationality" that steadily marches on through history That's the dispute about dialectics. I don't think any of those above assertions have anything to do with dialectics and in fact represent nothing so much as positivism masquerading as Marxist analysis-- positivism being and demanding adherence and obedience to things as they are. I find it more than funny, significant, that some Marxists and many rampant free-marketers like to claim Darwin and evolution as verification of the validity of their positions, perceiving, and mis-assigning, again a notion of "progress" to evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with "progress," with positive and negative, with "improvement" etc. It has to do with adaptability, survivability, but nothing in that requires "progress." There is nothing "progressive" in itself about the bourgeoisie's construction of an auto plant, a steel plant, a cement plant, a road, a dam as the construction of those things like the production of commodities themselves requires and reproduces the expropiation of labor; the dispossession of laborers from the means of labor; the separation of the conditions of labor from the needs for labor. Does the dam prevent flooding, provide water for irrigation. Sure does. And I suggest everyone look at the history of such efforts in California's Imperial Valley, and San Joaquin Valley, and tell me the great progressive impact such construction has had on the agricultural laborers. We don't endorse the bourgeoisie "building" auto plants, steel plants, railroads, etc, because in fact the bourgeoisie don't build, they own. It's one of the critical distinctions in grasping the real dialectic. We endorse the laborers expropriating those owners; expropriating the expropriators. That's where the progress is, and in fact, that is the "revolutionary quality" of capital-- its expropriation. Regarding the political disputes: This WTFAW? [Who the f..k are we} to criticize, to not endorse without exception any organization confronting imperialism, has proven itself a failure in the struggle against global or world or international capitalism or imperialism or whatever you want to call it. If this WTFAW? approach is supposed to be valid, then WTFAW? to say "Oh in 1993 it was clear that Fatah's ability to continue the struggle was compromised, and it was necessary for a new anti-imperialist agent to step forward"? WTFAW to take sides in the struggle between Hamas and Fatah? Is it because Fatah is more acceptable to Israel that we can oppose it now... but not then? And what of Israel's previous acceptance of Hamas? WTFAW? to now say Sinn Fein has betrayed the Irish Struggle? That the ANC is the shield for the post-apartheid immiseration of the people of South Africa by the same capitalism that before was shielded by Smuts, Botha, etc? Clearly, there's a bit more than just a bit of positivism in the WTFAW? analysis. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:19 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of"engagement"withIranRe:FredFeldman From sartesian at earthlink.net Tue Aug 4 08:59:07 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:59:07 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" References: Message-ID: <951D125131C34B3B9DCACD10AEDD624F@dmsthinkpad> One can indeed say all the things you say cannot be said. Including that, while the Soviet Union definitely defeated Germany, turning the tide at the Battle of Kursk, fascism would never have come to power in Germany without the policies of the Stalin dominated Comintern. One can say all that. But, as the moderator has stipulated, none of that, including your claims, should be said on this list. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dogan Gocmen" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Tue Aug 4 09:53:32 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 18:53:32 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: <951D125131C34B3B9DCACD10AEDD624F@dmsthinkpad> References: <951D125131C34B3B9DCACD10AEDD624F@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: "the Soviet Union definitely defeated Germany" You see, no one in the Soviet Union after the defeat of fascism said that they defeated Germany. They clearly differentiated between fascism and its basis on the one hand and German people on the other. They did not want to humiliate Germans but extinguish fascism with its sources. This is the difference. ------ Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From wsredden at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 10:07:36 2009 From: wsredden at gmail.com (Shawn Redden) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:07:36 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] The political consequences of social change in Iran In-Reply-To: <4A7839F2.6020605@panix.com> References: <4A7839F2.6020605@panix.com> Message-ID: At 9:38 AM -0400 8/4/09, Louis Proyect wrote: > >NY Times, August 4, 2009 >Qum Journal >Signs of Dissent Emerge in an Iranian Power Base >By THE NEW YORK TIMES What shit reporting: Judy Miller, but dumber. God I hate the NY Times. Down with the NED! Shawn Redden From markalause at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 10:10:06 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:10:06 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: References: <951D125131C34B3B9DCACD10AEDD624F@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: Dogan Gocmen wrote: > > You see, no one in the Soviet Union after the defeat of fascism said that > they defeated Germany. They clearly differentiated between fascism and its > basis on the one hand and German people on the other. > Yeah, the Soviets distinguished among the Germans. Then, they sprinked the eastern part of the country with pixie dust. Reading this bunik is funnier than the upcoming Comedy Central roast of Joan Rivers.... ML From meisner at xs4all.nl Tue Aug 4 10:17:14 2009 From: meisner at xs4all.nl (Jeff) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:17:14 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] Call to protest Israeli raids in Bil'in Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20090804181714.049bf77c@pop.xs4all.nl> (See www.bilin-ffj.org) Take action against suppression of Palestinian non-violent resistance in Bil'in At around 3am on Monday morning, a large military force wearing combat paint and masks invaded the West Bank village of Bil'in. Israeli soldiers raided several homes, arresting 2 Palestinian children, 5 Palestinian adults including Mohammad Khatib of the Bil'in Popular Committee Against the Wall and Settlements. The home of another member of the Popular Committee was raided, but soldiers could not arrest him because he was not present at home. Also arrested were the three brothers Khaled Shawkat Abd-Alrazic al- Khateeb (age 23), Mustafa Shawkat Abd-Alrazic al-Khateeb (age18), and Mohammed Show gut Abd-Alrazic al-Khateeb (age 16); Abdullah Ahmad Yassen (age 18); Abdullah Mohammed Ali Yassen (age 16); Issa Mahmoud Issa Abu Rahma (age 40); This brings to 19 the number of Bil'iners currently in custody. Monday's raid is another in a series of many that Israeli forces have carried out in Bil'in since 29 June 2009, Israeli forces have arrested 25 people (most are under 18). Israeli forces have been using interrogation techniques to pressure the arrested youth to give statements against Bil'in community leaders. Abdullah Abu Rahme, coordinator of the popular committee stated, "Mohmmad Khatib and Adib Abu Rahme along with other leaders of the Palestinian popular struggle are being targeted because the mobilize Palestinians to resist non- violently. The fact is that the Apartheid Wall and the settlements built on Palestinian land are illegal under international law, in the case of our village even the biased Israeli court declared the route illegal. Yet Israel is prosecuting us as criminals because we struggle nonviolently for our freedom." What you can do? Attempts to criminalize the leadership of non-violent protests were curbed in the past with the help of an outpouring of support from people committed to justice from all over the world. 1. Many of you have met Mohammad Khatib and perhaps one of the others mentioned above. We need you now to personally testify about your knowledge of them and their commitment to non-violence. Write a letter to the Israeli military judge and please send to bilinlegal at gmail.com. 2. Please Protest by contacting your political representatives, as well as you consuls and ambassadors to Israel to demand the release of Mohammad Khatib, Adib Abu Rahme and all Bil'in prisoners. 3. The Popular committee of Bil'in is in desperate need for legal funds in order to pay legal fees and Bail. Please donate to the Bil'in legal fund by paypal click http://tinyurl.com/lcr6rg . If you would like to make a tax deductible donation in the US or Canada contact: bilinlegal at gmail.com. The Bil'in Popular Committee against the Wall and Settlements Background: The Palestinian village of Bil'in has become an international symbol of the Palestinian popular struggle. For almost 5 years, its residents have been continuously struggling against the de facto annexation of more then 50% of their farmlands the construction of the apartheid wall on it. In a celebrated decision, the Israeli Supreme court ruled on the 4 September 2007 that the current route of the wall in Bil'in was illegal and needs to be dismantled; the ruling however has not been implemented. The struggle of the village to liberate its lands and stop the illegal settlements has been internationally recognized and has earned the popular committee in Bil'in the Carl von Ossietzky Meda. http://tinyurl.com/nfmsvm On 21 July 2009, a military judge decided to hold Adeeb Abu Rahma, a leading non-violent activist that was arrested from a demonstration against the barrier that took place in Bil'in village on 10 of July (see video at: http://palsolidarity.org/2009/07/7652), until the end of proceedings against him. This could mean months or a year in military prison for Adeeb, who is being charged with incitement to violence and rioting. He is the sole provider for his family of 9 children, wife and mother. One demonstrator, Basem Abu Rahma, was killed at a demonstration as he was attempting to speak with the soldiers. (Video can be seen on http://palsolidarity.org/2009/04/6185) --~--~---------~--~----~------ ------~-------~--~----~ PLEASE FORWARD THIS UPDATE WIDELY DONATE @ http://palsolidarity.org/donate WEBSITE: http://palsolidarity.org YOUTUBE: http://youtube.com/user/ISMPalestine TWITTER: http://twitter.com/ismpalestine FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/pages/International-Solidarity-Movement/56674479144 Major night invasion in Bil'in 03.08.2009 At 3am, the occupation forces invaded the village of Bil'in. A total of some 200 soldiers with combat paint in their faces and masks entered the village on foot at several points of entry. 5 homes were raided and a total of 8 people were arrested, 7 Palestinians and one international activist from the United States. The arrested Palestinians are: the three brothers Khaled Show gut Abd-Alrazic al-Khateeb (age 23), Mustafa Show gut Abd-Alrazic al-Khateeb (age18), and Mohammed Show gut Abd-Alrazic al-Khateeb (age 16); Abdullah Ahmad Yassen (age 18); Abdullah Mohammed Ali Yassen (age 16); Issa Mahmoud Issa Abu Rahma (age 38); Mohammed Abdulkarim Mustafa Khatib (age 34). The occupation forces threw sound bombs to disperse the villagers who were coming into the streets at day-break throwing rocks at the arriving Jeeps and the soldiers that were still partly disguised from the night. The Jeeps then parked at various locations with their engines running until the end of the operation at 6:45am. The Popular Committee of Bil'in has asked the Human Rights Committee to assist with both the release of the arrested people and the request that the Israeli Army stop the night raids. http://www.bilin-ffj.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=170&Itemi d=1 Thank you for you continued support, Iyad Burnat- Head of Popular Commitee in Bilin co-founder of Friends of Freedom and Justice - Bilin Email- bel3in at yahoo.com Mobile- (00972) (0) 547847942 Office- (00972) (2) 2489129 Mobile- (00972) (0) 598403676 www.bilin-ffj.org From meisner at xs4all.nl Tue Aug 4 10:25:30 2009 From: meisner at xs4all.nl (Jeff) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:25:30 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] Play the "End of America" game In-Reply-To: <370857.19631.qm@web63106.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20090804182530.049c6fd8@pop.xs4all.nl> At 16:45 03/08/09 -0700, you wrote: > >http://sdn.slate.com/features/endofamerica/default.htm Thanks for posting this! It's almost as much fun as throwing shoes at Bush. But unlike that game where 70% of my shoes were wasted :-( in THIS game I achieved the "end of America" 100% of the times I played! I must be a really good player!! But the game is still a bit unfair because it only lets you choose 5 disaster scenarios; I'm going to reprogram it so you can select 30 or 40 (y'know, just to make sure "the job gets done"). Oh don't worry, I'll remove the ones that could also have a negative effect on nearby Cuba (aka "collateral damage" ;-) - Jeff From mdriscollrj at charter.net Tue Aug 4 10:30:08 2009 From: mdriscollrj at charter.net (Ralph Johansen) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:30:08 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] Der Spiegel interviews Zalaya Message-ID: <4A786210.6030608@charter.net> http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,639791,00.html#ref=nlint From billyoc at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 10:31:03 2009 From: billyoc at gmail.com (Bill O'Connor) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:31:03 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] The political consequences of social change in Iran In-Reply-To: (Shawn Redden's message of "Tue\, 4 Aug 2009 12\:07\:36 -0400") References: <4A7839F2.6020605@panix.com> Message-ID: <86zlafr16g.fsf@gmail.com> Shawn Redden writes: > At 9:38 AM -0400 8/4/09, Louis Proyect wrote: >> >>NY Times, August 4, 2009 >>Qum Journal >>Signs of Dissent Emerge in an Iranian Power Base >>By THE NEW YORK TIMES > > What shit reporting: Judy Miller, but dumber. God I hate the NY Times. > > Down with the NED! And it's shameful, scabbing little brother, the Solidarity Center. May we be rid of them both. -- In Solidarity, Billy O'Connor From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Tue Aug 4 10:36:42 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 19:36:42 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: References: <951D125131C34B3B9DCACD10AEDD624F@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: "Yeah, the Soviets distinguished among the Germans. Then, they sprinked the eastern part of the country with pixie dust. Reading this bunik is funnier than the upcoming Comedy Central roast of Joan Rivers..." Mark, if I were you I would have not made fun of that. You left out my last sentence from my post. This is not funny either. It said: "They [Soviet Union] did not want to humiliate Germans but extinguish fascism with its sources." You seem to be lucking of historical knowledge. It was not Soviet Union that separated Germany. It were Western allies, including German capitalists, conservatives, social democrats, trade unionists and liberals, who pretend to be great patriots now. Even Stalin was till the last day before separation for a federal solution of Germany. There is question to you: which country was established first, GDR or BRD? If you can find out this and explain why and how it happened on the basis of historical documents, then, I would ask you whether it still reads like a comedy... ----- Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Aug 4 11:04:22 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:04:22 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] The political consequences of social change in Iran In-Reply-To: References: <4A7839F2.6020605@panix.com> Message-ID: <4A786A16.6030704@panix.com> Shawn Redden wrote: > What shit reporting: Judy Miller, but dumber. God I hate the NY Times. > > Down with the NED! Don't waste Marxmail with this kind of rant in the future. If you think that there are obvious falsehoods in the article, spell them out. For example, what makes you think that this excerpt from the article does not reflect Iranian reality: >>The ruling conservative faction still draws most of its support from such remote and religious strongholds; a 55-year-old farmer said a government official told him villagers overwhelmingly voted for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the disputed June 12 presidential election. Colorful murals extolling the virtues of the Islamic republic and its founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, line the crumbling walls of the village?s winding one-lane streets. One 45-year-old farmer who was standing next to his plot of corn explained that Mr. Ahmadinejad?s populist platform appealed to him and his neighbors. ?Ahmadinejad did many good things for poor people,? he said. ?He gave us free fertilizers, loans to grow our crops and gave money to those who were in very bad situations.?<< Did this sound like Judith Miller to you? It sounds more like James Petras to me. Or do you just react to a NY Times article like one of Pavlov's dogs reacting to the sound of a bell. Please do not salivate here. It is a waste of bandwidth. From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Aug 4 11:24:59 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:24:59 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Everyone's watching us Message-ID: <4A786EEB.6040405@panix.com> From "Goodfellas", a scene between gang leader Jimmy Conway, played by Robert DeNiro, and one of his henchmen who took part with him in a big robbery at JFK airport: Jimmy Conway: Who's this? Henchman: This is my wife. Come here. I want to show you something, Jimmy. Isn't she gorgeous? I bought it for my wife. It's a coupe. I love that car. Conway: What did I tell you? I talked to you, didn't I? Didn't I say not to go buy anything for a while? The fucking car. Henchman: It's a wedding gift from my mother. It's under her name. I just got married. I love that car. Conway: Are you nuts? Henchman: Why are you getting excited? Conway: Are you stupid? We got a million bulls out there. Everyone's watching us. --- http://www.nypost.com/seven/08042009/news/regionalnews/goldman_princes_told__spend_like_paupers_182904.htm GOLDMAN PRINCES TOLD: SPEND LIKE PAUPERS By MARK DECAMBRE August 4, 2009 -- Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein has warned his employess to avoid making big-ticket, high-profile purchases as the gold-plated Wall Street firm hunkers down amid a firestorm of public and political anger over outsize bonus payments. According to sources at the bank, Blankfein has Goldman in particular, should be toned down in light of the billions in bailout money that banks, including Goldman, have gotten from Uncle Sam. A source within the bank said Blankfein first began calling for an end to the conspicuous consumption late last year, but has stepped up his campaign in recent weeks as the White House has sought to rein in compensation and as the firm has gotten dinged by a pair of high-profile magazine articles. "This is a sensitive time for us, and [Blankfein] wants to make sure that we're not being seen living high on the hog," said one Goldman exec. Indeed, the exec said that senior managers were ordered to tell their staffs that just because Goldman made a record second-quarter profit of $2.3 billion, they shouldn't bank on getting a fat bonus just yet. Blankfein was quoted as reminding staff that bonuses are based on full-year results, and that the year is far from over. Blankfein's admonishing of workers about profligate spending comes as the firm has been hit with a barrage of negative press lately over its uncanny ability to make money not only in the best of times -- but also the worst. A Rolling Stone article referred to the firm as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity," while a recent New York magazine piece floated the idea that Goldman benefited from the rescue of troubled insurance giant American International Group. A spokeswoman declined to comment. Goldman's speedy recovery in the wake of the global recession and the demise of many of its rivals has drawn more outrage than awe. Observers question everything from the bank's massive pay to its uncanny ability to serve as a incubator for Washington policymakers. Goldman alumni include former Treasury Secretaries Henry Paulson and Robert Rubin, and Jon Corzine, the current New Jersey governor and former US senator. Goldman accepted $10 billion in rescue funds from Uncle Sam to help it stay afloat last year amid a crisis of confidence on Wall Street but quickly repaid the money thanks to record revenues. The Goldman exec said that while Blankfein was cajoling workers to cut back on their spending to avoid negative publicity, he was also playing cheerleader. In a company-wide voice mail left last week, the CEO assured employees that management is "focused on addressing the negative news and that [Goldman] remains committed to integrity and excellence." "I know you're all working hard," he added. mark.decambre at nypost.com From dmozart1756 at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 11:28:16 2009 From: dmozart1756 at gmail.com (Dennis Brasky) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 13:28:16 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] video - Palestinians Out, Jews In In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53a1ffe70908041028v66641423tfc3414defbc0d8c8@mail.gmail.com> > > > The Magnes Zionist > > Self-Criticism from an Israeli, American, and Orthodox Jewish Perspective > Monday, August 3, 2009 Palestinians Out, Jews In > > Joseph Dana and Mairav Zonszein have made a must-see video about the > expulsion of the Palestinian families from their homes (see below) in Sheikh > Jarrah, where they have lived for over fifty years, and the entrance of the > settlers. > > < > http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2009/08/palestinians-out-jews-in.html > > > > > "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."- *Voltaire* > > ------------------------------ > From Jscotlive at aol.com Tue Aug 4 12:16:06 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 14:16:06 EDT Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy life of"engagement"withIranRe:FredFeldman Message-ID: Sartesian: The central issue for me in the previous round of discussions is those notions that: somehow "dialectic" means that there is "positive" and "negative" in everything; Reply: Correct. Well done. Finally you get it. Sartesian: somehow the transformation of a thing into its opposite is based on "external" circumstances and not the manifestation of its inherent qualities, its "essence," its "notion" made evident by its development in the real world; that somehow there is "progress" a "higher rationality" that steadily marches on through history Reply: Actually, it's both. Evolution, as you mention later in your latest missive, is precisely the adaptation of nature to external factors - e.g. changes in climate, the availability of food, etc. Those species and categories of flora and fauna which have and do adapt successfully is obviously due to their inherent potential to do so. There is nothing rational or irrational about the process involved. It is blind, driven by nothing more than a constant process of coming into being and passing away. The imputation of rationality is subjectivism. There is, however, rationality and irrationality in everything of and within human society, reflective of man's self conscious nature. Sartesian: Evolution has nothing to do with "progress," with positive and negative, with "improvement" etc. It has to do with adaptability, survivability, but nothing in that requires "progress." Reply: Well, this is the first time I heard it said that survivability - adaptability - isn't progressiv. I rather think that by an objective rendering of the facts that the evolution of homosapiens from apes marks a progressive development in terms of the ability of the species to survive and master its environment. It kinda strikes me as the difference between a horse and carriage and a Range Rover. But, of course, with every positive comes a negative, especially as those four wheel drives are a bastard when it comes to carbon emissions. Sartesian. There is nothing "progressive" in itself about the bourgeoisie's construction of an auto plant, a steel plant, a cement plant, a road, a dam as the construction of those things like the production Reply: Of course there is. What absolute nonsense you write. The ability to build automobiles, the invention of cement, etc., are progressive developments, clearly, unless of course you hark back to the days of cottage industries and spinning wheels. Maybe you do, I don't know. Perhaps you should delve into the Communist Manifesto. As Marx himself wrote: ''The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part. The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations.' Was he lying? Sartesian: Regarding the political disputes: This WTFAW? [Who the f..k are we} to criticize, to not endorse without exception any organization confronting imperialism, has proven itself a failure in the struggle against global or world or international capitalism or imperialism or whatever you want to call it. Reply: And here we return to the objective behind Sartesian's mish-mash of a theory - an attempt to erect an argument in support of his desire to withhold solidarity from oppressed peoples and nations lying in the crosshairs of our respective ruling classes in the West. Why? As far as I can see, because in his estimation they fail to pass his checklist of approval - namely, the fact they do not subscribe to his notion of a pure, secular, socialist, and clean resistance. Another name for this condition is 'buckling under the pressure of our own bourgeoisie'. Yes, Sartesian, I feel your pain. It's hard to argue support for those recalcitrant Palestinians of Gaza with our liberal friends and work colleagues. Poor us. Poor, poor us. From johnaimani at earthlink.net Tue Aug 4 12:23:40 2009 From: johnaimani at earthlink.net (johnaimani) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 11:23:40 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] Destruction of (Commodity) Capital: WSJ- "The Killer App for Clunkers" Message-ID: (Feeling very much like Rock'n Rollen (of "John 3:16" (and rainbow hair at sporting events fame)) I again pace these halls with signage reading "Marx 3:15" (Capital Vol 3 Chapter XV (esp Sec 3)) at http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch15.htm . For behind the prop about replacing 'gas guzzlers' (although still very serviceable autos) lurks the cynical destruction of commodity capital so as to create new niches for otherwise non-productive (from the standpoint of capital as the cars w/o the 'cash for clunkers' $4500 would be unsaleable) production.) AUGUST 4, 2009 The Killer App for Clunkers Breathes Fresh Life Into 'Liquid Glass' By KEVIN HELLIKER Robert Mueller deals in chemicals for a living -- things that can unstick glue, thin paint, make plastic -- but he'd never seen an order like the one he got for sodium silicate. The compound is typically used to repel bugs or seal concrete, but this buyer's online order form betrayed a whole different intent: "To Kill Car Engines." "That worried me a little, so I picked up the phone and called the gentleman," recalls Mr. Mueller, an owner of chemical-firm CQ Concepts Inc. in suburban Chicago. What Mr. Mueller discovered is that sodium silicate is the designated agent of death for cars surrendered under the federal cash-for-clunkers program. To receive government reimbursement, auto dealers who offer rebates on new cars in exchange for so-called clunkers must agree to "kill" the old models, using a method the government outlines in great detail in its 136-page manual for dealers: Drain the engine of oil and replace it with two quarts of a sodium-silicate solution. A warning adorns an engine disabled with sodium silicate. "The heat of the operating engine then dehydrates the solution leaving solid sodium silicate distributed throughout the engine's oiled surfaces and moving parts," says the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration publication. "These solids quickly abrade the bearings causing the engine to seize while damaging the moving parts of the engine and coating all of the oil passages." In a nation packed with experts on how to keep cars running, the engine-killing powers of sodium silicate are a well-kept secret. "I, like, have so not even ever heard of this before," said Robert Lutz, new marketing chief and renowned "car guy" at General Motors Co., in an email. Often called liquid glass, sodium-silicate solution has been better known for being used to save motors rather than killing them: It is used to stop leaks in the gaskets that seal cylinder heads to engine blocks. At dealerships across America, mechanics accustomed to fixing engines are battling for the chance to ruin them. "Everybody wants to go first, so I'm probably going to have to make them draw straws," says Jim Burton of Randy Curnow Buick Pontiac GMC in Kansas City, Kan. As service manager, however, he might reserve that thrill for himself. "I can't wait," he says. Over the weekend, half a dozen mechanics gathered around three clunkers marked for death at Jim Clark Motors in Lawrence, Kan. As Loris Brubeck Jr., the dealership's president, held a stopwatch, the sodium-silicate solution took two minutes flat to kill a 2002 Ford Windstar, and just a few seconds more to kill a 1999 Jeep. But a 1988 Dodge van lasted more than six minutes. "Sometimes those old engines, they're the hardest to kill," says Mr. Brubeck. The automotive death sentences are meant to ensure that gas-guzzling old models make no return to the road. As sodium silicate disables an entire generation of junkyard-bound cars, the price of used engines will likely skyrocket, predicts Michael Wilson, executive vice president of the Automotive Recyclers Association. "It's the law of supply and demand." Before settling on sodium silicate, the government considered other methods of execution, including drilling a hole in the engine block and running the engine without oil. But it concluded that sodium silicate was safest for mechanics and for the environment. In its instructions to dealers, the government says that the federal Food and Drug Administration classifies sodium silicate as GRAS -- "generally regarded as safe." To engines, however, its damage is irreversible. "Once that silicate plugs everything up, it would be virtually impossible to clean that engine out," says Mr. Burton, the Kansas City service manager. Consisting largely of ingredients as common as salt and sand, sodium silicate isn't hard to make. "It is widely available and inexpensive," said a spokeswoman for the American Chemical Council. For auto dealers, a car-killing dose costs about $5. But while manufacturers have plenty on hand, the government failed to warn distributors about the impending onslaught of demand from car dealers. "It's like the government decided to put every old car in America in mothballs without giving any heads up to mothball" suppliers, says John See, owner of the ChemistryStore.com near Columbia, S.C. Mr. See's business mostly sells ingredients to soap and candle makers, his largest seller being melt-and-pour soap. But within hours of the federal government on July 24 releasing the details of the cash-for-clunkers program, a dealer called Mr. See and asked about sodium silicate. Up to that point, Mr. See's eight-year-old business had sold only about 150 gallons of sodium silicate a year, mostly for use to waterproof masonry. But within moments of learning about its new purpose, Mr. See ordered enormous supplies and purchased prime space on Google, so that his company popped up in searches for sodium silicate. Last week, he sold 4,600 gallons of it, and the rush is continuing. "We're working 16 hour days, and we've got friends and family helping out filling orders," says Mr. See. In Grand Rapids, Mich., a company called Cleaning Solutions Inc. received a call from a dealer ordering a large supply for the clunkers program. When an employee recommended investing heavily in inventory and marketing, owner Ron Balk hesitated. In decades of selling the product, he'd never heard of it used as an engine-killer. But a few calls to local dealers convinced him otherwise: They quickly bought out his existing supply, prompting him to order large amounts of the product. "We've been working 12-hour shifts ever since," says Mr. Balk. Back in suburban Chicago, Mr. Mueller says his company sold 15,000 gallons of sodium silicate last week, up from a typical level of 200 gallons a week. "At one point this week I worked 32 hours without a break," says Mr. Mueller. His company receives the product in 275-gallon containers and sells it in smaller amounts, often five-gallon pails. This week, he says, "the average dealership is ordering one to three pails, and a five-gallon pail will treat 10 cars." Long an obscure item in the CQ Concepts catalog, sodium silicate has become "the best-selling product of the year," says Mr. Mueller. Write to Kevin Helliker at kevin.helliker at wsj.com Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A1 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124934376942503053.html From markalause at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 13:12:18 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:12:18 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: References: <951D125131C34B3B9DCACD10AEDD624F@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: Your USSR was located in such a wonderful Fantasyland, that I'm sure the people there have consistently sustained it and would fight to the death rather than abandon it.... Anybody who cares to examine the facts knows that Stalin's "Great Patriotic War" was not waged with internationalist principles and the official policy of the USSR unleashed a war against German civilians. The terror was imposed with the institutionally sanctioned mass rape of German females of all ages. More generally, the Soviet position was shamefully indistinguishable from the approach of the western allies. And the Communist Parties waged the same propaganda campaign of national hatred. Even in death, the corpse of the USSR prances about aping the western capitalist powers by lying about its past record. ML From wsredden at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 14:01:04 2009 From: wsredden at gmail.com (Shawn Redden) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:01:04 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] The political consequences of social change in Iran In-Reply-To: <4A786A16.6030704@panix.com> References: <4A7839F2.6020605@panix.com> <4A786A16.6030704@panix.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Louis Proyect wrote: > Shawn Redden wrote: >> What shit reporting: ?Judy Miller, but dumber. ?God I hate the NY Times. >> >> Down with the NED! > > Don't waste Marxmail with this kind of rant in the future. I'm wasting bandwith on Iran! That's precious, Louis. As Pete Townshend famously wrote, "Go to the mirror, boy." I suppose I'd be defensive, too, after cut-n-pasting human interest stories about anonymous (probably make-believe, given the track record of the publication) people from anonymous reporters. This is journalism taken straight from the dung-heap, unworthy of publication in a mediocre high-school newspaper. My question for the unnamed reporters: you mention how joyous certain Iranians are to have Western media, specifically the BBC. Why didn't you mention Twitter? Or Facebook? Don't the proletariat of Iran love to Tweet? Shawn From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Aug 4 14:04:41 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:04:41 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] The political consequences of social change in Iran In-Reply-To: References: <4A7839F2.6020605@panix.com> <4A786A16.6030704@panix.com> Message-ID: <4A789459.3010505@panix.com> Shawn Redden wrote: > I'm wasting bandwith on Iran! That's precious, Louis. As Pete > Townshend famously wrote, "Go to the mirror, boy." I suppose I'd be > defensive, too, after cut-n-pasting human interest stories about > anonymous (probably make-believe, given the track record of the > publication) people from anonymous reporters. Do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you just being cute? I cited two paragraphs from the article that could have been written by James Petras. It described Qum as pro-Ahmadinejad. The article was forwarded to the list since it described a rift between rural peasants and college-educated youth. If you see nothing of interest in this reporting, then keep your trapped shut. Don't waste time here sputtering about Judith Miller when you obviously didn't read the fucking article. From wsredden at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 14:05:09 2009 From: wsredden at gmail.com (Shawn Redden) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:05:09 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] The political consequences of social change in Iran In-Reply-To: <4A786A16.6030704@panix.com> References: <4A7839F2.6020605@panix.com> <4A786A16.6030704@panix.com> Message-ID: One more thing: is it your position, Louis, that good reporting means reporting hearsay from a random farmer concerning what a random official said to him about a random population? On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Louis Proyect wrote: > For example, what makes you think that this excerpt from the article > does not reflect Iranian reality: > > ?"a 55-year-old farmer said a government official told him villagers overwhelmingly voted for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" From poeticaleconomy at yahoo.com Tue Aug 4 14:08:42 2009 From: poeticaleconomy at yahoo.com (Max Clark) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 13:08:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Marxism] Socialist Worker (UK) on Ssangyong warfare Message-ID: <295827.62704.qm@web45015.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18715 Day of fierce fighting at occupied South Korean car factory by Owen Miller in Seoul The attack began at dawn today and lasted until late afternoon. Under a hail of metal bolts and stones from Ssangyong company thugs, liquid tear gas dropped from police helicopters, incessant loud music and an all-out assault by police commandos armed with steel pipes and taser guns, the occupying workers at the Ssangyong auto factory in Pyongtaek, South Korea, have held out for one more day. They forced back a number of attempts by police to retake the car plant?s paintshop, using every means at their disposal including flaming barricades, petrol bombs, slingshots and anti-helicopter spikes. This sort of fierce resistance reflects the real desperation of workers faced with the loss of their jobs and unlikely to find another in South Korea?s harsh labour market. It is also a reaction to the sheer brutality of the company and the Korean government in their repeated attempts to crush the occupying workers. There is a widespread belief here that the right wing Lee Myung-bak government wants to make an example of the Ssangyong workers and achieve a decisive victory against unionised labour in Korea in order to pave the way for more widespread restructuring. There are now around 500-540 workers left inside the factory?s paintshop, living under terrible conditions after more than two months of occupation. The company and police have been enforcing a complete blockade on the occupying workers and for the last week they have had very little to eat or drink and practically no water to use for washing or going to the toilet. Many of the workers have sustained injuries during the last week of fighting but the company and police have consistently tried to block medical aid from reaching them. Negotiations took place at the weekend between management and union leaders but they were broken off by the company on Sunday morning. Now the company, which has been under bankruptcy protection since February, faces liquidation in the next day or two and it is likely that many more will lose their jobs. Although it is clear that nationalisation is the only solution for the ailing car company, the Lee Myung-bak government seems quite happy to let it sink as long as it can score a victory against a militant section of the working class. ? The remaining workers say they are ready to fight on and are surrounded by thousands of litres of flammable liquids which pose a threat to both themselves and the attacking police. On the outside of the paintshop building the occupiers have daubed the words, ?If you don?t want to talk, you?d better kill us all!? The families of the Ssangyong workers have been camped outside the plant for weeks and themselves faced violent attacks from company thugs and strike-breaking employees who have smashed up their tents in the early hours of the morning. This evening at 6.30pm, as the day of fighting came to an end, they released green helium balloons over the factory as a signal of solidarity with their loved ones inside the occupation. Despite their pleas for more negotiations there is little doubt that tomorrow morning will bring another savage assault from the police. ? Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original. From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Tue Aug 4 14:41:24 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 23:41:24 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: References: <951D125131C34B3B9DCACD10AEDD624F@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: Mark, the claims you put forward against Soviet Union are products of Western secret and inteligent services. If you are not able to argue based on historical documents leave it there. This rubish you express I can read anywhere in bourgeois media. Soviet Union have not just freed humanity from fascism, but they helped also colonised people to free themsleves from colonialist dominations of imperialist states. ----- Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From sartesian at earthlink.net Tue Aug 4 14:51:39 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:51:39 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy lifeof"engagement"withIranRe:FredFeldman References: Message-ID: > Sartesian: > > The central issue for me in the previous round of discussions is those > notions that: somehow "dialectic" means that there is "positive" and > "negative" in everything; > > Reply: > > Correct. Well done. Finally you get it. Reply to the reply: Obviously, you're an idiot. Oh yes, positive and negative in everything. Why don't you understand there's positive and negative in fascism, there's positive and negative in the bailout of the banks. Why the whole world is just a bunch of pluses and minuses. _________________ > > Reply: > > Actually, it's both. Evolution, as you mention later in your latest > missive, is precisely the adaptation of nature to external factors - e.g. > changes > in climate, the availability of food, etc. > > Those species and categories of flora and fauna which have and do adapt > successfully is obviously due to their inherent potential to do so. > > There is nothing rational or irrational about the process involved. It is > blind, driven by nothing more than a constant process of coming into being > and passing away. The imputation of rationality is subjectivism. There > is, > however, rationality and irrationality in everything of and within human > society, reflective of man's self conscious nature. _____________ Reply to the reply: More of the same from J: rationality and irrationality in everything; good and bad, pluses and minuses, blah, blah, blah, with undying faith in things as they are, or were. > Reply: > > Well, this is the first time I heard it said that survivability - > adaptability - isn't progressiv. I rather think that by an objective > rendering of > the facts that the evolution of homosapiens from apes marks a progressive > development in terms of the ability of the species to survive and master > its > environment. > > It kinda strikes me as the difference between a horse and carriage and a > Range Rover. But, of course, with every positive comes a negative, > especially > as those four wheel drives are a bastard when it comes to carbon > emissions. ____________________ Reply to the reply: Nothing in evolution says the "product," the new DNA is smarter, more clever, more beautiful than the DNA it replaced; only that in the given environment the new DNA, which might make its carrier, like a mouse, less intelligent, less curious, less bold, less beautiful, was more adaptable, gave it, the mouse, the greater chance of transmitting the DNA by making it more timid, less inclined to seek out new territory, etc.. Your ignorance of dialectic is a least equal to your ignorance of evolution. _______ > > Reply: > > Of course there is. What absolute nonsense you write. The ability to build > automobiles, the invention of cement, etc., are progressive developments, > clearly, unless of course you hark back to the days of cottage industries > and spinning wheels. Maybe you do, I don't know. ____________________________ So besides endorsing, without reservation, and requiring all others to endorse the political program of Hamas, does J endorse the FDI by Volkswagen in Brazil, Mexico as progressive? Does this mean that the program of the revolution is "create 2,3, many special enterprise zones"? It is not my argument that in their need to aggrandize surplus value, the bourgeoisie are not forced to augment the productivity of labor, but that their need to augment the productivity of labor does not count as "progress." It may count as "development," and trailing after the great thinkers of the 2nd International, other social democrats, the Cato Institute, and Soviet Union in the 1930s, J may think "development" in and of itself is "positive" or positive and negative, or plus and minus but what is progress is not the construction of the auto factory no more than the overproduction of autos is progressive. What is "progressive" is the negation of the social relation, the expropriation of the expropriators. Without that expropriation "developmentalism" leads to nothing but greater immiseration. Probably too opaque for J, too lacking in pluses and minuses, positives and negatives. ____________________ > Perhaps you should delve into the Communist Manifesto. > > As Marx himself wrote: > > ''The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part. The > bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all > feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations.' > > Was he lying? ________________________________ Reply to the reply: Have you ever had an original thought J? What was that question Leon asked at the start of Blade Runner. "Do you make these questions up, or do they write them down for you?" The bourgeoisie historically have not played the role of the agent of revolution; I think Soboul's studies of the French Revolution puts the actions of the various classes in the waging of revolution and counterrevolution in perspective. Regarding the "revolutionizing" all feudal patriarchal idyllic relations-- well not quite, and not quite so completely-- I guess the qualifier "where it has got the upper hand" is the key to understanding the development of capitalism as a SOCIAL SYSTEM, as a mode of production that is modified by the pre-existing relations of land and labor it encounters, and adapts those same pre-existing relations to itself. We could if we cared to actually look at the concrete development of capitalism in the Philippines, in Ecuador, Bolivia, Mexico, Cuba find capitalism reinforcing the patriarchal, "idyllic" relations of the haciendas, the plantations, the great houses, the manors. Although I bet Marx was laughing up his sleeve when he wrote "idyllic," in reference to feudalism. Capital certainly did try its best, and in part succeeded in putting an end to the communal relations of land and labor that it encountered in the Philippines, Ecuador, Mexico, Bolivia, but the miserable oppression of agricultural labor by tethering to the land; to attaching it to rural property and less than subsistence; to securing its indenture against the detached free labor that capitalism in the abstract, as described in the Manifesto, and in Capital, required? Hell no, capitalism didn't much about that. And we don't even have to look that far, we can look to the US South and see our progressive bourgeoisie, our revolutionary capitalists trembling before the prospects of actually breaking the slave economy, except for a few of its wild-eyed radicals who were indeed more petty-bourgeois than bourgeois; we can see our revolutionary, progressive capitalists and capitalism re-forming the planter class, the planter economy, and utilizing the return of identured labor, complete with its patriarchal, semi-feudal, actually merantile-feudal veneer. But J. of course never deals with the concrete circumstances of capital's development, preferring instead the abstract -- "as it should be"-- that is described in the Manifesto. A little bit of comprehension of dialectics are required to understand Marx, to grasp the distinction between the "abstraction" of the essential relationship of capital, and the concrete mediated forms capital assume when encounter actual pre-existing relations. > Reply: > > And here we return to the objective behind Sartesian's mish-mash of a > theory - an attempt to erect an argument in support of his desire to > withhold > solidarity from oppressed peoples and nations lying in the crosshairs of > our > respective ruling classes in the West. Why? As far as I can see, because > in > his estimation they fail to pass his checklist of approval - namely, the > fact they do not subscribe to his notion of a pure, secular, socialist, > and > clean resistance. Another name for this condition is 'buckling under the > pressure of our own bourgeoisie'. Yes, Sartesian, I feel your pain. It's > hard > to argue support for those recalcitrant Palestinians of Gaza with our > liberal friends and work colleagues. > _____________________ Reply to the reply. What a pantload of crap J spins here. The only solidarity that qualifies as solidarity with the Palestinians is the uncritical obedience to Hamas, just as I'm sure 30 years ago for J it was the uncritical endorsement of Fatah. History is full of lessons, maybe is nothing but lessons, in how that very "positive" obedience, endorsement, solidarity, quickly becomes the overwhelming negative. So everyone participating in demonstrations against Israel's invasion, everyone who opposed the assault on the West Bank, who objected to the Israel "house arrest" of Arafat, who opposed the destruction of Jenin-- if any of those people failed to endorse without qualification the program-- exactly the program of who back then, J? Of Fatah, which was certainly experiencing a major assault by imperialism? Of Hamas? This is supposed to be a Marxist list. I think Marx said something somewhere about merciless criticism of everything in existence. Was he lying? With all comradely wishes........... From nsz at umail.ucsb.edu Tue Aug 4 14:55:16 2009 From: nsz at umail.ucsb.edu (Noah S. Zweig) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:55:16 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] Mike Davis on the California budget crisis Message-ID: <20090804135516.12286cgofgb8md4w@webaccess.umail.ucsb.edu> http://againstthegrain.org/program/210/id/321436/tues-8-04-09-sold-out-rising -- Noah S. Zweig nsz at umail.ucsb.edu From fred.fuentes at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 15:14:20 2009 From: fred.fuentes at gmail.com (Fred Fuentes) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:44:20 -0430 Subject: [Marxism] Leftist comments on new "media law" in Venezuela? In-Reply-To: <13288.14507.qm@web65716.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <13288.14507.qm@web65716.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Adam Berg wrote: > Thank you Fred! > > I read cde Kiraz' article. It was interesting. > > However, I find it a bit difficult to fully understand this issue without an available copy of the actual law - the Telecommunications Law. You can get more info (in spanish) about the actual law passed back in 2003 here http://www.conatel.gob.ve/responsabilidad_social.asp (sorry cant find any english translation of the law > > According to Human Rights Watch it is a crime to disseminate news that "harms the interest of the state": > http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/31/venezuela-repeal-measures-aimed-critics > > True or not true? I do not automatically trust info from?HRW, so I would like to see for myself. > Untrue, this was a proposal raised as part of a discussion about new law, which does not exist even in draft form as yet. and it was not so much harm the interest of the state as of people. But it was just one position expressed as part of this debate. The article at ABN available here http://www.abn.info.ve/noticia.php?articulo=193464&lee=1 makes clear that as off yet there is NO draft Law of media crimes and that this discussion will be taken to the rest of society before returning to the National Assembly were a law will be proposed. Hope that helps Fred From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Aug 4 16:38:01 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:38:01 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Latest anti-Empire report from William Blum Message-ID: <4A78B849.3010606@panix.com> http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer72.html From lycophidion at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 18:10:26 2009 From: lycophidion at gmail.com (Michael Friedman) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 20:10:26 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] On "progressive evolution": Was: End of short unhappy life of"engagement"withIranRe:FredFeldman Message-ID: <709f342d0908041710i31d8c4d5m9bd2a6eea27f49a6@mail.gmail.com> Nope. On this, Sartesian is absolutely on the money. Evolution does not in any way entail progress, except in those caricatures and shaving cream advertisements. The common ancestor of chimps and humans was just as well adapted to its environment as its descendants are to theirs. Homo sapiens' intelligence is just one more adaptation, just like white fur, four legs and a brightly-colored ass. And "all that is solid melts into air," since environments constantly change and over the long term an adaptation may turn into its opposite, and become -- in your vocabulary -- "reactionary." > Reply: > Well, this is the first time I heard it said that survivability - > adaptability - isn't progressiv. I rather think that by an objective rendering of > the facts that the evolution of homosapiens from apes marks a progressive > development in terms of the ability of the species to survive and master its > environment. From tcod at hotmail.com Tue Aug 4 18:30:11 2009 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 00:30:11 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: References: <951D125131C34B3B9DCACD10AEDD624F@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: > Anybody who cares to examine the facts knows that Stalin's "Great > Patriotic War" was not waged with internationalist principles and the > official policy of the USSR unleashed a war against German civilians. > The terror was imposed with the institutionally sanctioned mass rape > of German females of all ages. With all due respect, I think your characterization of the unsavory quality of the Soviet struggle against Nazi aggression is greatly exaggerated. While it may indeed have resembled the "approach of the Western allies" as it quite openly was, I think your assertion that there was mass rape of German citizens as a matter of Soviet government policy is flawed. I'd like to see some evidence for that assertion. True there were atrocities committed in East Prussia by soviet troops committed in the spirit of retaliation and a pathetic flood of refugees that a French SS collaborator in "The Sorrow and the Pity" said made June 1940 look like a picnic. While idealized fairy tales of historical events should certainly be debunked, polemics that create, or appear to create, a moral equivalency between the Allies and the Axis or between the Soviets and the Nazis are misguided and simply wrong. Like the U.S. Civil War in the previous century, WW2 was a fundamental struggle between the forces of progress and reaction. Does that mean the "better" side that it was absolutely necessary prevail was perfect? Obviously not as the real world is never perfect. Does that mean there was no difference between them, as so many liberal and social democratic pharisees carp on was the case in Spain? No. Hey, 25 MILLION soviet people died in World War 2 which in fact was and is viewed-rightly-by a whole section of the masses there as a just "Great Patriotic War" of which they are rightly proud which by no means was "Stalin's" alone, in fact in the summer of 1941 he fully expected to ousted but the rest of the leadership felt they needed to retain him as a national symbol. Moreover, while I'm not an enthusiast of Trotsky and his epigones, the attitude reflected by these comments-at least as to the USSR-was not one that he shared. _________________________________________________________________ Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail?. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/LearnMore/personalize.aspx?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_express:082009 From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Aug 4 18:40:52 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:40:52 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Faulkner in context Message-ID: <4A78D514.7010908@panix.com> Ted Atkinson. Faulkner and the Great Depression: Aesthetics, Ideology, and Cultural Politics. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2005. 288 pp. $39.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8203-2750-1. Reviewed by David A. Davis (Mercer University) Published on H-Southern-Lit (July, 2009) Commissioned by Lisa Hinrichsen Faulkner's Depression Since the publication of Malcolm Cowley?s career-salvaging collection The Portable Faulkner (1946) and the subsequent 1949 Nobel Prize for Literature, William Faulkner has occupied a privileged position in the canon of southern writers, but how he came to occupy that position presents a bit of controversy. Lawrence Schwartz argued in Creating Faulkner?s Reputation (1988) that New Critics deliberately promoted Faulkner as a distinctively American writer during the Cold War.[1] Conspiracy theories aside, an interesting dynamic has developed in Faulkner criticism. The majority of book-length studies employ critical theory to analyze Faulkner?s linguistic form, psychological characterization, or literary influences. Critics who have explored his portrayal of historical context, such as Eric Sundquist in Faulkner: The House Divided (1985) and Joel Williamson in William Faulkner and Southern History (1993), have been more the exception than the rule. In Faulkner and the Great Depression: Aesthetics, Ideology, and Cultural Politics (2006), Ted Atkinson addresses what he sees as an early misperception that has determined the course of Faulkner criticism. ?Interpretations of Faulkner from both social realist and New Critical perspectives,? he argues, ?reached the same conclusion: Faulkner?s fiction was disengaged from the issues and concerns of the politically inflected literature in the thirties? (p. 3). Because of this precedent, according to Atkinson, critics have not noticed the connections between Faulkner?s novels and the circumstances of the time and place of their composition. The period of Faulkner?s greatest literary production coincides with the Great Depression, 1929-41, and Atkinson contends that Faulkner?s novels are politically and socially engaged with the instability and poverty of the time. He writes that ?Faulkner offers us remarkable insight into Depression history and culture on the basis of his expansive social vision as well as his forays into both ?highbrow? literary style and the popular culture industry? (p. 8). While he does not brand Faulkner as a Popular Front ideologue, he claims that Faulkner?s representations of social ideology inform the aesthetic qualities of his most popular works. The key reason why critics have overlooked the ideological aspects of Faulkner?s novels, Atkinson explains, is that his positions were fairly mainstream. During the Depression, when the idea of liberalism evolved into a form of social radicalism, Faulkner remained moderate. Economic collapse, rampant unemployment, and widespread poverty led to a shift in American political discourse that included the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the passage of New Deal social development programs. According to Terry Eagleton?s theory of the ideology of the aesthetic, Atkinson notes, works of literature are ?inseparable from the construction of the dominant ideological forms of modern class-society? (p. 43). At the beginning of the Depression, Faulkner identified more closely with the middle class than with the working class: his books were modestly selling, he got married, and he bought a home. He did not oppose economic development as the Southern Agrarians did, but he did not entirely support the New Deal either. Faulkner, Atkinson explains, was a conservative-leaning Democrat in an era when the Democratic Party veered toward socialism. The Depression divided many writers into a literary class war, pitting formalists against social realists. Critics have usually grouped Faulkner with the formalists because of his experimental technique, but Atkinson sees important aspects of social realism in Faulkner?s novels. In Mosquitoes (1927), for example, Faulkner critiques the 1920s decadence that spilled into the Depression through his portrayal the self-absorbed idleness of effete artists. Although much criticism of The Sound and the Fury (1929) has concerned the novel?s form, Faulkner addresses an appropriately worldly topic in the book. Atkinson makes a compelling argument that the novel is an assessment of modern capitalism that portrays Benjy as dispossessed, Quentin as obsessed with his sister as an exchange commodity, and Jason as money-hungry and morally bankrupt. The novel?s content, thus, is realistic even though the structure is experimental, so Faulkner?s novels play both sides of the literary class war. The deepening worldwide Depression that led to increased liberalism in America led to the rise of fascism in some European nations, and the growing specter of fascism became of topic of concern for many southern writers, as Bob Brinkmeyer has recently explained in The Fourth Ghost: White Southern Writers and European Fascism, 1930-1950 (2009). Brinkmeyer has already discussed Faulkner?s engagement with fascism in an essay in the Faulkner and Yoknapatawpha series, and Atkinson, who reviewed The Fourth Ghost on H-Net, picks up the conversation from Brinkmeyer?s earlier essay by examining the fascist overtones in Sanctuary (1931), Light in August (1932), and Absalom, Absalom! (1937).[2] The consistent theme in Atkinson?s analysis is that Faulkner muted his social engagement, yet he sees in Faulkner?s representation of gangster culture in Sanctuary the same will to power that propelled fascist ideology. He compares the portrayal of gangsters in the novel to the popular films The Public Enemy (1931), Little Caesar (1931), and Scarface (1932) that glamorized the violent gangster lifestyle. Popeye, in Atkinson?s analysis, is consistent with the cinematic antihero. The popularity of this character indicates that, even though most people feared being subject to unchecked power, they admired the ruthless acquisition of power in others, at least in fictional characters. Atkinson could have taken his analysis a bit father on this point to discuss the cult of personality that made actual gangsters and criminals, such as Al Capone and John Dillinger, celebrities in Depression-era America. Faulkner modeled Popeye after an actual Memphis gangster, Popeye Kearns, who was both violent and impotent, and we might speculate that the public?s fascination with real gangsters likewise represents a powerless rage at enormous economic forces. Atkinson?s discussion of Light in August focuses on mob rule and Percy Grimm, the proverbial face in the crowd. Members of the Popular Front insisted that racism and fascism were virtually synonymous, and the prevalence of lynching in the South seems to bear out this line of thinking. Like fascism, the ideology that promoted lynching was based on fear and power, and Percy Grimm appears to embody the racist/fascist mindset. His paramilitary outfit, his lack of respect for decorum, and his discomforting charisma all qualify him as a fascist stormtrooper. Faulkner even commented that, although he had never heard of Nazis when he wrote the book, that Grimm was one (p. 155). Atkinson takes this comment and considers it in context with Faulkner?s other portrayals of mob violence, specifically ?Dry September,? to suggest that Faulkner regarded lynching as a social pathology. Reading Sanctuary and Light in August in conjunction with Absalom, Absalom! suggests that Faulkner was uncomfortable with the personal accumulation of power. Looking beyond the book?s complicated narrative structure, Atkinson explains that Sutpen plays the role of a ?great dictator? whose ascent to power proves to be fatal for himself and others, a prophetic pattern that will eventually be copied by Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and Charles Foster Kane in Citizen Kane (1941). By the time he wrote Absalom, Absalom!, Faulkner had become as openly political as he would ever become. He even offered to donate the manuscript of Absalom, Absalom! to raise funds to supports Spanish Loyalists, and he publicly denounced Franco and fascism. Faulkner, however, was more reluctant to directly engage domestic political issues. As the Depression began, the Southern Agrarians rhetorically opposed the emergence of industrialization in the southern economy. Faulkner never took a stand publicly, but Atkinson describes him as an ?ambivalent agrarian? because he expresses ?noticeable sympathy for the dispossessed and disenfranchised small farmers and sharecroppers? (p. 175). Although many readers see his portrayal of the Bundren family in As I Lay Dying (1930) as insulting to poor whites, his portrayal is significantly less unsettling than Erskine Caldwell?s portrayal of the Jeeters in Tobacco Road (1932). Faulkner?s depictions of barn burning both in the novel and in the short story ?Barn Burning? appear to make a case for redistributive justice. Atkinson explains that Darl?s arson in As I Lay Dying transforms him ?from an alienated misfit into a disturbing symbol of social upheaval? (p. 191) and Ab Snopes in ?Barn Burning? ?emerges as a representative of the dispossessed? (p. 196). By the end of the Depression, Faulkner?s advocacy for the downtrodden appears to have waned. Atkinson points out that Faulkner adopts a tone more consistent with Southwestern humor to describe acts of redistributive justice as petty vandalism. And in ?The Tall Men? Faulkner implies that the New Deal is a threat to small farmers, which suggests that his attitudes toward liberalism have come full circle. The final chapter of Atkinson?s study examines The Unvanquished (1938) as part of a larger wave of Civil War remembrance in American popular culture of the 1930s and 1940s that involved dozens of books and movies, including Gone with the Wind (1936). Many artists and intellectuals saw in the Civil War a precedent for recovery from national crisis. Faulkner?s version of the war picks up the theme of dispossession, a prevalent concern during the Depression, and he portrays Granny Rosa Millard as a model of ?acquisitive individualism? (p. 231). Her scheme to steal horses from the Union Army and then sell them back using her reputation as a southern matriarch as a cover for the operation makes a case for personal agency and ethical expediency in the face of overwhelming economic forces, the ideal Depression-era heroine. Faulkner, like Eudora Welty, did not feel a need to crusade in his writing, and, according to Atkinson, he felt relatively ambivalent about many important social issues of his time, but that does not mean that the circumstances of his time and place did not influence his writing. ?Foregrounding this dimension of Faulkner,? Atkinson explains, ?shows how his literary production reads as both timely and timeless--immediately responsive to forces unleashed by a period of national crisis, but far-ranging enough to endure and prevail in the annals of literary history? (p. 236). The tent of Faulkner criticism is big enough, hopefully, to accommodate both theoretical, linguistic criticism and social, historical criticism--plus every approach in between. I entirely agree with Atkinson on this point. In fact, I taught a course on literary criticism last semester that used Absalom, Absalom! as a test case for every established critical method from New Criticism to New Historicism. By establishing the discourse between Faulkner and the Great Depression, Atkinson has made an important contribution to New Historicist criticism that complements Charles Hannon?s Faulkner and the Discourses of Culture (2005). In Faulkner and the Great Depression Atkinson focuses sustained attention on the direct relationship between the author and the social circumstances to reveal nuances in the writing that might have otherwise been overlooked. Notes [1.] Lawrence Schwartz, Creating Faulkner?s Reputation: The Politics of Modern Literary Criticism (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1988). [2]. Robert Brinkmeyer, ?Faulkner and Democratic Crisis,? in Faulkner and Ideology: Faulkner and Yoknapatawpha, 1992, ed. Donald M. Kartiganer and Ann J. Abadie (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1995), 70-94. If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the list discussion logs at: http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl. Citation: David A. Davis. Review of Atkinson, Ted, Faulkner and the Great Depression: Aesthetics, Ideology, and Cultural Politics. H-Southern-Lit, H-Net Reviews. July, 2009. URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=25044 From tcod at hotmail.com Tue Aug 4 18:43:55 2009 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 00:43:55 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: <951D125131C34B3B9DCACD10AEDD624F@dmsthinkpad> References: <951D125131C34B3B9DCACD10AEDD624F@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: I'm not sure that's true and I've always been troubled by this "Monday morning quarterback" left sectarian outlook because it focuses so much on the Stalinists and the Left, thereby unwittingly shifting the onus away from the fascists. Look, say someone negligently leaves their door unlocked resulting in their whole family being murdered by thugs. Do we incessantly harp at one of the victim's negligence with only a glib passing reference to the deeds of the actual perpetrators? Thus this also sets up folks-and I'm definitely not talking about anyone involved in this discussion who I know are good people-for the accusation by "Stalinists" that their critics are neo-con cavalier philistines acting in bad faith in the manner of the original neo-cons like Burnam, Kristol the Elder and Sidney Hook who quickly went from ostensible trots to cold warriors with the same script of anti-Stalinist mongering. I remember this whole script playing out around Chile with the sectarian left focusing on bashing Allende, who certainly had his faults, but this attitude unwittingly aided Pinochet by strongly implying that he and his followers were pathetic chumps that got what chumps get on the street. . . . fascism would never have come to power in Germany without > the policies of the Stalin dominated Comintern. > _________________________________________________________________ Get free photo software from Windows Live http://www.windowslive.com/online/photos?ocid=PID23393::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_PH_software:082009 From markalause at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 18:54:19 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 20:54:19 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: References: <951D125131C34B3B9DCACD10AEDD624F@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: To stick to the point Dogan chose to make--how the Soviets treated the Germans--the notion that the Soviets were anything other than a Great Power at war--waging a "Great Patriotic War" is pure fantasy. As to the mass rape of German women by the Red Army (estimates are as high as two million), you can pretend that they're the secret inventions of the western powers, though, at the time, the Soviets among the Allies, which did NOT publicize atrocities committed by each other. In fact, I've never heard anyone claim that this didn't take place, though I believe the Russians later said something like it was consensual sex... A more recent discussion of this on NPR is at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106687768 There's been decades of work to document this and you can do your own homework and draw your own conclusions. Personally, I give greater credence to what the victims, witnesses and participants said rather than governments--any governments, regardless of what label they decide to wave... Dismissing the facts in this case for political comfort seems to me not very different than denying the holocaust or Obama's birth in the US.... ML From tcod at hotmail.com Tue Aug 4 18:55:34 2009 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 00:55:34 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Post In-Reply-To: <040CCF7C13654B56A1918D1EBC208FAF@dmsthinkpad> References: <040CCF7C13654B56A1918D1EBC208FAF@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: Again, I think that's overstated. I think shifting global conditions were the cause of the revolutionary upsurge ebbing, particularly the end of the "Great War" which I don't think any correct-grandiose or not-program or personalities of generalship would have overcome. Obviously the Comintern wasn't perfect, however, and its pact with Hitler in '39 was despicable. . . . and the defeat > of the international revolution, which defeat the 3rd Intl, in its majority > rule and democracy, helped secure. > _________________________________________________________________ Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail?. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/LearnMore/personalize.aspx?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_express:082009 From tcod at hotmail.com Tue Aug 4 19:08:17 2009 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 01:08:17 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: References: <951D125131C34B3B9DCACD10AEDD624F@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: Yeah, I wouldn't buy into the fairy tale your interlocutor put out about how charitable the Soviets were in their intentions for Germany. A little naive. "The Tin Drum" I think pretty much describes the tenor of those times. Nonetheless, as I've always thought since childhood, the cause of the Allies and the Soviets was a just one, notwithstanding whatever war crimes they committed. Now, people can be called deniers of anything but I think they are right in demanding to see evidence for certain claims, particularly when they are used a certain political purpose. While we're at it: how many women were raped by US soldiers in WW2? more than a few. does that mean it was an official policy of the US government that that take place or was it the indicispline of frustrated soldiers in the field, sadly a common corrollary of warfare. Quite frankly, civilians, particularly, in certain parts of Italy were more afraid of American soldiers than German ones as they tended to be less diciplined and less sober. One story is about how they or "we" broke into the wine cellars in a certain town that the German troops would never been "permitted" to do etc etc. with the women fleeing into the hills. So, that two million women were raped by Soviet troops AS A FUNCTION OF OFFICIAL SOVIET GOVERNMENT POLICY, that is an assertion that seems highly questionable and one, like WMDs in Iraq, should be viewed with skepticism. > Dismissing the facts in this case for political comfort seems to me > not very different than denying the holocaust or Obama's birth in the > US.... > > ML > _________________________________________________________________ Get your vacation photos on your phone! http://windowsliveformobile.com/en-us/photos/default.aspx?&OCID=0809TL-HM From tcod at hotmail.com Tue Aug 4 19:13:34 2009 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 01:13:34 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: References: <951D125131C34B3B9DCACD10AEDD624F@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: oh and for what its worth, the tempest about Obama's birthplace is really moot as "natural born citizen" is most properly viewed as someone who is a citizen by birth (i.e. not naturalized). so even if Obama had actually been born in Kenya of an American parent he would still be a citizen by birth. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=PID23384::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:NF_BR_sync:082009 From stuartmunckton at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 19:37:42 2009 From: stuartmunckton at gmail.com (Stuart Munckton) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 18:37:42 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] Haiti: minimum wage protests escalate Message-ID: <2c6145850908041837r6205f86ax2602540d42132de@mail.gmail.com> http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/haiti-minimum-wage-protests-escalate-20090805-e9aj.html Haiti minimum wage protests escalate August 5, 2009 - 11:29AM Haitian police have fired tear gas at protesters who massed outside Parliament to demand an increase in the minimum wage, saying they are unable to feed and shelter their families on less than $2 a day. As legislators prepared to vote on the issue on Tuesday, some of the 2,000 protesters threw rocks at police and began ripping down flags of UN member countries near the building. Most of the crowd dispersed hours before the Parliament session began, with no arrests and only two reported injuries. This included a cameraman was hit in the head with a rock. But the issue remains inflammatory and members of the parliament debated the question into the night. In May, the parliament approved a proposal to nearly triple the minimum wage but President Rene Preval refused to publish it into law. He said the increase should omit workers at factories producing garments for export. Preval said those workers should receive an increase to about $3. The debate has fuelled unrest across the impoverished Caribbean nation. Some critics argue that an increase would hurt plans to fight widespread unemployment by creating jobs in factories that produce clothing for export to the United States. Many of the protesters were minimum-wage factory workers, such as Banel Jeune, a 29-year-old father who sews sleeves on shirts. "Seventy gourdes, that doesn't do anything for me," he said, referring to his current minimum-wage salary. "I can't feed my kids and I can't send them to school." MPs have pledged to resubmit the proposal without any changes, raising the minimum wage to about $5 a day. Lesly Antoine, a 32-year-old who lost his job with the state-run telephone company, said Preval's "compromise offer is no compromise at all." Former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was overthrown in 2004. This was in part after business owners angered by his approval of an increased minimum wage organised opposition against him. Despite the heated debate, few people would be affected by the wage increase or anticipated job losses. Most of Haiti's 9 million people who are employed work on small farms or sell basic goods on the street. Only about 250,000 people have jobs covered by the minimum salary law, said lawmaker Steven Benoit, who sponsored the bill. Many in the international community who view garment factories as the way to boost Haiti's economic development oppose the wage increase. With new trade advantages that allow for duty-free exports of clothing to the US, such factories could provide "several hundred thousand jobs to Haitians ... over a period of just a few years," according to a report submitted to the UN in January. But it said that plan requires that costs be kept down. The report had been requested by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and prepared by Oxford University professor Paul Collier. It is now being promoted by former US President Bill Clinton, the new UN envoy for Haiti. -- "The free market is perfectly natural... do you think I am some kind of dummy?" ? Jarvis Cocker "The basis of optimism is sheer terror" ? Oscar Wilde From markalause at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 19:56:27 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 21:56:27 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: References: <951D125131C34B3B9DCACD10AEDD624F@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: Tom Cod astonishes me by confusing what governments say (the WMD crap) and what their victims of governments say. He suggests that we extend skepticism about the former into a blanket denial of the latter unless it's proven. When I make the comparison with holocaust deniers and Obama birthers, I'm obviously not talking about the specific myth but the method of self-delusion. In these cases, people are weighing what comforts their political assumptions against the evidence...and arbitrarily ignoring the evidence and asserting that it doesn't exist. Brother Cod also does this when he engages in the sophistry of equating rapes were committed by other soldiers in other armies with what the Red Army did in Germany also equates governments and institutions with individuals. U.S. soldiers committing such atrocities in either Germany or Vietnam or Iraq may get away with it, if their superiors decided to look the other way. Or they might well have faced--or face--arrest and prosecution. Delving into history a bit, that sort of thing rarely happened, btw, when dealing with U.S. soldiers raped American Indians or, in some situations, African American women. This was because virtually the entire hierarchy tended to look the other way. I suppose you can assert that it was not an official policy in practice--and pretend that there's no evidence--because you can't find a document by Jefferson Davis saying it's okay. But the practice defines it. Indeed, this was the situation when the Germans went into Russia. Did the Nazis ever issue orders authorizing their soldiers to rape Russians? I don't think they needed to. The hierarchy just looked the other way. With or without that published order, the practice defined what was official policy. So, too, when the Soviets came into Germany. But, for some of us, anything to do with the Soviets takes us beyond the kind of material world we're discussing in other cases and moving into Fantasyland. In a sense, the demise of the USSR has actually made this even easier.... ML From lycophidion at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 20:16:08 2009 From: lycophidion at gmail.com (Michael Friedman) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:16:08 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" Message-ID: <709f342d0908041916m5df4c5fey7b9a3a45fdd04c2b@mail.gmail.com> It seems a bit ingenuous to deny a policy role for the Soviet government in the war-time rape of up to two million women. Two million women? On that scale? Rape has LONG been an official or quasi-official weapon of war, at least since the Roman occupation of Britain and the English occupation of Scotland. It sows fear and demoralization, on the one hand, and baby potential citizens, on the other. If Stalin was able to use fear and demoralization on his OWN population, why not on an aggressive enemies' population? > AS A FUNCTION OF OFFICIAL SOVIET GOVERNMENT POLICY, that is an assertion that seems highly questionable and one, like WMDs in Iraq, should be viewed with skepticism. > > >> Dismissing the facts in this case for political comfort seems to me >> not very different than denying the holocaust or Obama's birth in the >> US.... >> >> ML From nmgoro at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 20:41:09 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 23:41:09 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: References: <951D125131C34B3B9DCACD10AEDD624F@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: <4A78F145.6090106@gmail.com> It should be remarked that Napoleon forbid the Marseillaise until his great defeat in Russia. Then, he allowed the French soldiers to sing the march, in an attempt to breathe new life into the rotten corpse of French popular and revolutionary patriotism. It was too late. Any similitude is, perhaps, anything but a matter of chance. Mark Lause escribi?: > To stick to the point Dogan chose to make--how the Soviets treated the > Germans--the notion that the Soviets were anything other than a Great > Power at war--waging a "Great Patriotic War" is pure fantasy. > > As to the mass rape of German women by the Red Army (estim From shmage at pipeline.com Tue Aug 4 20:51:34 2009 From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:51:34 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] On "progressive evolution": Was: End of short unhappy life of"engagement"withIranRe:FredFeldman In-Reply-To: <709f342d0908041710i31d8c4d5m9bd2a6eea27f49a6@mail.gmail.com> References: <709f342d0908041710i31d8c4d5m9bd2a6eea27f49a6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9F16CE95-3EB3-4471-963C-D5B15F96B1BB@pipeline.com> On Aug 4, 2009, at 8:10 PM, Michael Friedman wrote: > Nope. On this, Sartesian is absolutely on the money. Evolution does > not in any way entail progress, except in those caricatures and > shaving cream advertisements. The common ancestor of chimps and humans > was just as well adapted to its environment as its descendants are to > theirs. Homo sapiens' intelligence is just one more adaptation, just > like white fur, four legs and a brightly-colored ass... Once you deny any immanent teleology to nature, then no natural phenomenon, including organic evolution, can be "progressive" because there is no telos for it to be progressing toward. However, if one accepts the Hegel/Marx concept of objective spirit made manifest in human history as the emergence of a collective planetary consciousness--thus recognizing an objective telos to the evolutionary historical process--then it becomes possible and more than necessary to see the historical crisis of civilized society as comporting sharply opposed progressive and reactionary, evolutionary and devolutionary, alternatives confronting our planet in the present anthropocentered phase of its organic evolution. Shane Mage > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it > always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, > kindling in measures and going out in measures." > > Herakleitos of Ephesos From sartesian at earthlink.net Tue Aug 4 21:25:27 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 23:25:27 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" References: <951D125131C34B3B9DCACD10AEDD624F@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: I understand that you think such assessments are overstated. It's one thing to say that. It's another to show it. This is not at all comparable to somebody leaving the door unlocked. This is not some piece of "forgetfulness" that allows a nightcrawler to sneak into the house. The role played by the KPD as developed and approved by the Soviet dominated 3rd International, oscillating from its crackpot ultraleft position that "Social Democracy and fascism are not antipodes but twins," to its too little too late embrace of a "united front" without articulation of an independent program to convert the defensive struggle into a struggle for power is the role, is not the role of a forgetful gatekeeper, but rather a pathologically destructive insider. And since some feel comfortable enough to bring up the glory that is/was Stalin on a list where we are supposed to avoid exactly that debate, I will partake of that opportunity to quote Trotsky on the KPD's and the Comintern's stupidity regarding their version of a "united front." I might serve our friend from Scotland, J, well to consider the words of Trotsky, who certainly knew more than anybody about united fronts, how to form them, how to advance them, how to convert them into organizations of class power-- after all a soviet is nothing but the highest form of united front. Says Leon of our glorious ECCI and its glorious great leader: "The Stalinists take into consideration and accept the hypo-critical demands of the reformists for so-called mutual nonaggression. Breaking with all the traditions of Marxism and Bolshevism, they recommend to the Communist Parties, in case a united front is realized that they 'abandon all attacks against the Social Democratic organizatons during the joint action.' That's just what it says. 'To abandon all attacks [!] upon the Social Democracy' (what a shameful formula!) means to abandon the freedom of political criticism, that is, a basic function of the revolutionary party." Did you get that?-- even in the face of fascist attack and within a united front, a revolutionary party does not forego, abjure, the task of political criticism. Amazing, the audacity of the man. Who the f..k was he to criticize? Why, he's acting as if he were president of a soviet or something, had organized a red army to wage civil war, had actual experience in making a revolution, expropriating the bourgeoisie. WTFWH to criticize the great and glorious ECCI? Indeed. And he goes on, the arrogant bastard: "The demand for 'nonaggression' is blackmail, that is, the attempt of the reformist leaders to extort an auxillary advantage... Criticism in general, all the more so under conditions of a united front, should of course correspond to the real relations and observe the necessary proportions. The absurdities about 'social fascism' must be refuted. That is a concession not to Social Democracy, but to Marxism. It is not for the treachery of 1918 but for its evil works of 1933 that the ally must be criticized. But criticism, like political life itself....cannot be halted for an hour. If the Communists' disclosures correspond to reality, they serve the purposes of the united front, pushing forward the temporary ally, and, what is more important, giving a revolutionary education to the whole proletariat. To abandon this fundamental duty is the first stage in that shameful and criminal policy which Stalin foisted upon the Chinese Communists with regard to the Kuomintang." So I guess you can just dismiss all of this by saying Trotsky was a fascist, but then we might ask those currently asking for documentation, to review the documentation for such a charge. You want to assign the USSR's leadership and supreme leader the credit for defeating Nazi Germany? Well you don't get credit without taking the responsibility for the policies, criminal and shameful indeed, that allowed fascism to take power in the first place; for the policies that decapitated revolution in more places that just Germany. What was it Bordiga called Stalin, and too his face? "Gravedigger of the revolution"? Always liked that guy Bordiga more than I ever liked Gramsci. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Cod" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:43 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" > > I'm not sure that's true and I've always been troubled by this "Monday > morning quarterback" left sectarian outlook because it focuses so much on > the Stalinists and the Left, thereby unwittingly shifting the onus away > from the fascists. Look, say someone negligently leaves their door > unlocked resulting in their whole family being murdered by thugs. Do we > incessantly harp at one of the victim's negligence with only a glib > passing reference to the deeds of the actual perpetrators? From sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com Tue Aug 4 21:41:25 2009 From: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com (sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 23:41:25 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape Message-ID: <20090805034125.90F6EB004E@smtp.hushmail.com> Mark wrote: >Anybody who cares to examine the facts >knows that Stalin's "Great Patriotic War" >was not waged with internationalist >principles and the official policy of the >USSR unleashed a war against German >civilians. The terror was imposed >with the institutionally sanctioned >mass rape of German females of all ages. > I get it now. You really hate the Stalin and the USSR and these two terms are essentially the same thing. I keep forgetting that totalitarian regimes are the malignant extension of a totalitarian dictator whose cynicism and brutality animates every aspect of life as well as public policy. I am still unclear as to "the facts" behind your analysis. Where do they reside? With the avalanche of documents available from former Soviet archives it should be easy to demonstrate that the Soviets planned and executed the mass rape of millions of German females of all ages. If you have done research on this I would be most interested in your findings and in particular which agency did the operational planning, how was this atrocity organized and for how long a period of time. If, on the other hand your polemical zeal is in advance of your research may I suggest you read some literature on the subject starting with "Red Storm on the Reich' by the British military historian Christopher Duffy. In this work Duffy pays a great deal attention to the breakdown in the order and discipline of the Soviet Army once it crossed into German territory. According to Duffy this breakdown alarmed Soviet officers because it degraded the military capacity of their units. For example, tanks were so full of looted goods that they could not carry their full load of ammunition. The archival documents I am aware of do talk about rape and these reports from the security services were also alarmed and highly critical of this activity. I believe there was a wide spread breakdown of discipline in Soviet forces as they drove to Berlin an this is readily seen in early works such as "The Last Battle" by Cornelius Ryan. In that book Ryan depicts a range of actions by Soviet units with some maintaining their discipline and others not. All the accounts of the fall of Berlin I have read describe a frenzy of looting and rape for around two days after the final defeat of the Nazis followed by the Red Army bringing order to the city and dispensing food to civilians. From Jscotlive at aol.com Tue Aug 4 22:10:19 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 00:10:19 EDT Subject: [Marxism] On "progressive evolution": Was: End of short unhappy life of"engagement"withIra Message-ID: Shane: Once you deny any immanent teleology to nature, then no natural phenomenon, including organic evolution, can be "progressive" Reply: Not teleology, teleonomy: the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms that derive from their evolutionary history and adaptation for reproductive success. From Jscotlive at aol.com Tue Aug 4 22:17:44 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 00:17:44 EDT Subject: [Marxism] On "progressive evolution": Was: End of short unhappy life of"engagement"withIra Message-ID: Michael: Nope. On this, Sartesian is absolutely on the money. Evolution does not in any way entail progress, Reply: Sartesian's on nothing but crack. And your attempt to distort what I've said does you no favours either. There is NO such thing as 'progressive evolution' as you, not I, have termed it. But the PROCESS of evolution, without being conscious of itself - how could it be, unless conforming to some big idea? - immanently constitutes progress in terms of the natural selection which lies at its root. Adaptability? Survival of the fittest? Wouldn't you say that any species or life form which survives changes in its environment or habitat has progressed in terms of its ability to survive, while those which have and do not have not? I would. What is more, I do. From jayclinton88 at yahoo.ie Tue Aug 4 22:25:19 2009 From: jayclinton88 at yahoo.ie (Jay Clinton) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 04:25:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Marxism] On "progressive evolution": Was: End of short unhappy life of"engagement"withIra In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <230695.96309.qm@web24712.mail.ird.yahoo.com> "Apparent" is the key word here in describing "purposefulness" - I often hear the mistake, even by the science-minded, of explaining evolution by saying things like "the giraffe developed a long neck so it can eat the leaves up high," whereas it should be understood that "the giraffe developed a long neck and therefore it can eat the leaves up high, " helping it to survive and reproduce in its environs. --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Jscotlive at aol.com wrote: From: Jscotlive at aol.com Subject: [Marxism] On "progressive evolution": Was: End of short unhappy life of"engagement"withIra To: "jc" Date: Wednesday, 5 August, 2009, 4:10 AM Shane: Once you deny any immanent teleology to nature, then no natural? phenomenon, including organic evolution, can be "progressive" Reply: Not teleology, teleonomy: the quality of apparent purposefulness and of? goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms that derive? from their evolutionary history and adaptation for reproductive? success. ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/jayclinton88%40yahoo.ie Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From eindeoc at freenet.de Tue Aug 4 22:33:55 2009 From: eindeoc at freenet.de (Einde O'Callaghan) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 06:33:55 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: References: <951D125131C34B3B9DCACD10AEDD624F@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: <4A790BB3.30600@freenet.de> Tom Cod wrote: > > So, that two million women were raped by Soviet troops > Whatever about the rapes the official attitude of the SU towards teh Germans was not all sweetness and light - and certainly not guided by fraternal internationalism. The essay "Kill!" by Ilya ehrenburg was officially pushed by the leadership. Here's a taste: "The Germans are not human beings. Henceforth the word German means to us the most terrible curse. From now on the word German will trigger your rifle. We shall not speak any more. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day. If you think that that instead of you, the man next to you will kill him, you have not understood the threat. If you do not kill the German, he will kill you. If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German before combat. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another - there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days; do not count miles. Count only the number of Germans you have killed. Kill the German - this is your old mother's prayer. Kill the German - this is what your children beseech you to do. Kill the German - this is the cry of your Russian earth. Do not waver. Do not let up. Kill." With such officially pushed attitudes I wouldn't be at all surprised towards all Germans I wouldn't be at all surprised that rape was endemic. It is one contributory factor to the equivocal attitude of many people in former East Germany, where I live, towards the Russians to this day. Einde O'Callaghan From sartesian at earthlink.net Tue Aug 4 22:48:27 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 00:48:27 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] On "progressive evolution": Was: End of short unhappylife of"engagement"withIra References: Message-ID: <8B6F78B49C4C4B6EA4CE164A97A1E0FB@dmsthinkpad> Crack? Crack, you say? If I had feelings, they would be hurt. If I had a heart, it would be broken. Hey, I come by every bit of this naturally, without the use of mind-altering chemicals. I'll have you know, you puffed up piece of rancid rat-fat, that having occupied what is called a "safety-sensitive position" for years, being subject to random and mandatory drug and alcohol testing, I never used drugs. I never even drank alcohol unless I was on vacation AND out of the country. I am shocked and appalled that you would stoop to such gutter sniping. Oh dear oh dear, what a world. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 12:17 AM Subject: [Marxism] On "progressive evolution": Was: End of short unhappylife of"engagement"withIra From Waistline2 at aol.com Tue Aug 4 22:48:40 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 00:48:40 EDT Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" Message-ID: Anybody who cares to examine the facts >knows that Stalin's "Great Patriotic War" >was not waged with internationalist >principles and the official policy of the >USSR unleashed a war against German >civilians. The terror was imposed >with the institutionally sanctioned >mass rape of German females of all ages. Comment There is no such thing as internationalist principles to war. War has an objective and is governed by laws. Period. As to rape comitted by Soviet troops, there is no reason to doubt rape occured. What is the point? Let me guess; by raping German women some Soviet troops surrendered "internationalist principles?" The idea that war can occur - on this scale, without rape is a real misunderstanding of property/war and defensive wars and the flesh. And of course all of this is Stalin's fault. As to SA comments, pure Trotskyites nonsense. Some things canot be understand based on ideas. Organizations and their mutal interactions are very complex. What is your expewrince to buttressed the presented notions concenring the workings of a United Front? If there is no experience, your argument cannot have an ounce of credibility. Really. The reason is because Trotsky is obviously wrong and bordering on insanity in basically all of his writings. Here is a man that believes reality operates on the basis on ones conception of it. The Soviets, Stalin or the Comintern did not create, give rise to or cause the evolution of German led European fascism or the German fascist state. Quoting Trotsky proves nothing other than his - L.T., foolishness and stupidity. That is why he and his followers were run out of the party. Enough of this silliness. WL. **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd =JulystepsfooterNO115) From markalause at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 22:57:47 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 00:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape In-Reply-To: <20090805034125.90F6EB004E@smtp.hushmail.com> References: <20090805034125.90F6EB004E@smtp.hushmail.com> Message-ID: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com> wrote of me "I get it now. You really hate the Stalin and the USSR and these two terms are essentially the same thing." You don't like the message, so you tell yourself fairy tales about the messenger. Amazing. ML From Jscotlive at aol.com Tue Aug 4 22:59:51 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 00:59:51 EDT Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" Message-ID: Waistline: The Soviets, Stalin or the Comintern did not create, give rise to or cause the evolution of German led European fascism or the German fascist state. Quoting Trotsky proves nothing other than his - L.T., foolishness and stupidity. That is why he and his followers were run out of the party. Enough of this silliness. Reply: Agreed. Having just plowed my way through a re-read of Deutscher's trilogy on Trotsky, having read a compendium of his own writings beforehand, rather than gain a new appreciation of the man, on the contrary I'm prone to agree with the criticism of him as an adventurer, and a reckless one at that. From markalause at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 23:01:22 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 01:01:22 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Waistline2 at aol.com wrote: > > War has an objective and is governed by laws. Period. As to rape comitted > by Soviet troops, there is no reason to doubt rape occured. What is the > point? ?Let me guess; by raping German women some Soviet troops surrendered > "internationalist principles?" ?The idea that war can occur - on this ?scale, > without rape is a real misunderstanding of property/war and defensive ?wars > and the flesh. > > And of course all of this is Stalin's fault. > The fairy tales about Stalin, Trotsky or anyone else isn't the point. What happened is. None of Wastline's comment address the points I made on this. As I said, denial is always an option. But it's rather like listening to birthers and holocaust deniers ML From sartesian at earthlink.net Tue Aug 4 23:04:08 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 01:04:08 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" References: Message-ID: I think Waisline's incoherent mumblings are exactly the reason the moderator has stipulated such discussion not take place on the list. No one, not Trotsky not I, no one claimed that the Comintern created or caused Nazi-ism. The argument is that the policy of the KPD was so disorienting to the working class, so antithetical to class defense, that it effectively disabled the proletariat's resistance and prospects for power. The stupidity is in not being able to distinguish the actual events, the actual historical outcome, what is actually being argued from what one's devotion to an ideology requires one to believe. Trotsky is obviously wrong? Does that mean that social democracy and fascism really are twins? I mean on day 1; but on day 101 they aren't twins, and besides ixnay on the iticismcra? Right, Trotsky was bordering on insanity in basically all his writings. Let me ask you, oh paragon of reason, what writings of Trotsky's have you actually read? ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 12:48 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" From Jscotlive at aol.com Tue Aug 4 23:07:03 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 01:07:03 EDT Subject: [Marxism] On "progressive evolution": Was: End of short unhappylife of"engagement"withIra Message-ID: Sartesian: I'll have you know, you puffed up piece of rancid rat-fat, that having occupied what is called a "safety-sensitive position" for years, Reply: 'Safety-sensitive' position? Sounds like intercourse without the penetration. If so it would explain a lot. From sartesian at earthlink.net Tue Aug 4 23:11:17 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 01:11:17 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] On "progressive evolution": Was: End of short unhappylifeof"engagement"withIra References: Message-ID: Determined by the US Federal Railroad Administration as a position responsible for the oversight, direction, execution of safe train operations. And it does explain a lot.... ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 1:07 AM Subject: [Marxism] On "progressive evolution": Was: End of short unhappylifeof"engagement"withIra From markalause at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 23:57:37 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 01:57:37 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I couldn't be less concerned about Trotsky or Stalin or even Lenin or Marx. What bothers me is us...how WE in the hear and now come to understand the realities we face. By "we," I don't mean just us on the list, but the class generally and, indeed, the entire civilization. If we can't do that, we're in deep trouble without a means to extricate ourselves. ML From edwardgeoffrey at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 00:16:45 2009 From: edwardgeoffrey at gmail.com (Geoffrey Wildanger) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 23:16:45 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If you want to know how we come to make sense of the world around us-- or, rather, how that world around us works around and in us--it seems it might be important to care about the things that Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and others said about it. I mean, Lenin and Trotsky spent their entire lives trying to answer the question of society can be emancipated from determinate historical forms. Even if you think they were wrong and are still wrong, is it not productive to inquire in what way they were wrong? Am Aug 4, 2009 um 10:57 PM schrieb Mark Lause: > I couldn't be less concerned about Trotsky or Stalin or even Lenin > or Marx. > > What bothers me is us...how WE in the hear and now come to understand > the realities we face. By "we," I don't mean just us on the list, but > the class generally and, indeed, the entire civilization. If we can't > do that, we're in deep trouble without a means to extricate ourselves. > > ML > > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/ > marxism/edwardgeoffrey%40gmail.com Geoffrey Wildanger edwardgeoffrey at gmail.com From Waistline2 at aol.com Wed Aug 5 00:56:01 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 02:56:01 EDT Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" Message-ID: I think Waisline's incoherent mumblings are exactly the reason the moderator has stipulated such discussion not take place on the list. No one, not Trotsky not I, no one claimed that the Comintern created or caused Nazi-ism. The argument is that the policy of the KPD was so disorienting to the working class, so antithetical to class defense, that it effectively disabled the proletariat's resistance and prospects for power. Comment Well, to each his own. I am of course glad to know I am the reason - my mumblings, the moderator has stipulated such discussion not take place on the list. I replied late in this thread. Why do you single me out as the reason the moderator has stipulated such discussion not take place on the list? I responded to issues raised by others and initated nothing. In fact it was you who "upped" the ante. You are missing the obvious. A theoretical proposition cannot answer a concrete question. All of the history of the proletarian movement is not defined on the basis of its defeat. The proletariats birth expressing a property form is the problem. Your sentence above is merely a clever way of saying that in fact the polices of the Comintern and the Soviet state were such as to lead to the victory of German fascism. My interpetation OF WHAT YOU WROTE IS MINE AND NOT YOURS. You are not suggesting that some how I am compeled to accept your political logic. I cannot because it is not political but a theory construct. >> The stupidity is in not being able to distinguish the actual events, the actual historical outcome, what is actually being argued from what one's devotion to an ideology requires one to believe. Trotsky is obviously wrong? Does that mean that social democracy and fascism really are twins? I mean on day 1; but on day 101 they aren't twins, and besides ixnay on the iticismcra?<< Comment Well, yes. Trotsky was a fool, the most simpleminded of chpas. I am not going to repeat the issue of "Social Fascism." Anyone interested can simply consult Chapter XI "The German Situation and the Question of Social-Fascism" in MJ Olgin's "Trotskyism Counterrevolution in Disquise." You argue as if the German communists could have won. In this your aversion to the no win fight is revealed. We fight because it is right and we are going to die anyway. You are arguing over how you understand the United Front strategy of 70 years ago. And argue as if this is a current issue. Much of this is silly. >>Right, Trotsky was bordering on insanity in basically all his writings. Let me ask you, oh paragon of reason, what writings of Trotsky's have you actually read?<< Comment Enough to understand his mindless stupidity. I feel no compulsion to present a list to you of my readings. No, I have not read Hegel either and have no desire to because I read him several times and consider him insane. That is the contradcition. I read him and he makes no sense. But I stated publicly years ago I believe all philosophy is a form of insanity. By definition. This insanity arises from the metabolic breach in man himself. Philosophy is a form insanity. The man - Trotsky, was a fool and idiot. Anyone that reads any of his countless writings will pick this up immediately. This is not to say he did not play a role in the Russian Revolution. Nor is this to suggest Stalin was a great theoretician. He was not. Stalin was a pretty good organizer and administrator and that is why he won the inner party struggle. One ought to understand this. There is more involved than Trotsky's theory stupidity and petty bickering. Trotsky was a typical politician whose arrogance and exaggerated sense of his oneness got him in trouble. Parties and groups have rules. If one dsires to be a player in the game one follows the rules. Every proletarian understand this. Here is the situation as I see it. The question of the Soviet Union and its production relations cannot be resolved intellectually because the issue is polarized by ideology and elementary questions of the property relations and the logic of its reproduction are avoided. The question of the Soviet Union and the Stalin Regime is not resolvable. I understand that. Some are rabid haters of Stalin, the Stalin regime and Soviet power - yourself, and others are not - myself. Then, again it seems you feel the same way about American history. Fine. The question of the Chinese revolution and the victory of their national-liberation movement is a fact of history. The victory of Soviet Power over German fascism is a fact of history. What one should or should not have done - as a policy matter, is for pinpricks, when the big picture is left out. Wrong policy by the Soviets or the Comintern did not lead to the victory of German fascism. I realize there are those who deeply feel that if another policy was applied in German all would be milk and honey. The weakness was in the German proletariat itself, just as the weakness of the proletarian movement in America is in our proletariat rather than its intellectual detachment, although the intellectual detachment remains more than less outside of any field of action, remotely fuse with the forward moving section of the most destitute of the workers. Let me guess the weakness of our proletariat is the fault of the CPUSA . .. ., no . . . the Comintern and Stalin or the old Soviet State. Blaming others for our circumstances is childish. Blaming the path of the Chinese Revolution on bad policy by the Comintern or the Stalin government is insanity, when in fact the Chinese communist accomplished what they set out to do. Once you figure out why it is called the Peoples Republic rather than the Soviet republic of China things are going to make sense. Simply because one believes the Chinese Communist should have desired what is in your head in 2009, or in 1970, is not a convincing argument. Want to help push the revolutionary process in China in real time? Advocate for expansion of the state sector and doubling of wages of all the workers in this sector as an immediate practical solution. Such a demand from around the world - by communists, would have a very real impact. There are times when it seems you condemn everyone and everything because the world does not conform to what is in your head. Let's assume you are correct. What difference does it make if you cannot win the political struggle and no one knows what you are talking about? Everyone cannot be wrong brother. Your hate of everything Soviet and Chinese is so apparent, although you probably don't see it that way. That is the problem. Calm down. WL. From markalause at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 01:25:37 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 03:25:37 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Geoffrey Wildanger wrote: > > If you want to know how we come to make sense of the world around us-- > or, rather, how that world around us works around and in us--it seems > it might be important to care about the things that Marx, Lenin, > Trotsky and others said about it. > Aside from this being a fundamentally religious argument, you are implying that if we care about those things, we should close our eyes really, really tight when we face discomforting realities and wish really, really hard. Maybe click the heels of our ruby red slippers together... The starting point for historical materialism are the material realities we face, not abstract wishes. In fact, the difference between these approaches formed the fulcrum on which Marx and Engels, in later days, distinguished their arguments from those earlier, utopian socialists (not entirely accurately, though...but that's a different story). Indeed, it could be argued that projecting everything on how things worked or should work or will work eventually in the USSR was no more realistic than doing the same about New Harmony. The starting point might well be a decent, ethical preference for socialism over capitalism, but neither gets you far in and of itself. Moreover, in the case of the Soviet Union (or China), you're dealing with a modern State that does the same sort of unsavory things modern States do. ML From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 01:35:59 2009 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:35:59 +1000 Subject: [Marxism] Everyone's watching us In-Reply-To: <4A786EEB.6040405@panix.com> References: <4A786EEB.6040405@panix.com> Message-ID: So are we about to get a break from conspicuous consumption by the banksters? Somehow I doubt it. Conspicuous consumption is built into the credit system and their life styles. regards Gary From eindeoc at freenet.de Wed Aug 5 01:40:12 2009 From: eindeoc at freenet.de (Einde O'Callaghan) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:40:12 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A79375C.9030909@freenet.de> Waistline2 at aol.com wrote: > No, I have not read Hegel either and have > no desire to because I read him several times and consider him insane. This statement seems to be contradictory - and not in the Hegelian sense. > That > is the contradcition. I read him and he makes no sense. But I stated > publicly years ago I believe all philosophy is a form of insanity. By definition. > This insanity arises from the metabolic breach in man himself. Philosophy > is a form insanity. > It is difficult to see what this attitude has to do with Marxism in any sense of the word. IIll refrain from commenting on any of the rest of this posting. Einde O'Callaghan From edwardgeoffrey at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 01:51:04 2009 From: edwardgeoffrey at gmail.com (Geoffrey Wildanger) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 00:51:04 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5979961A-7F5C-43AA-9823-902067813AA0@gmail.com> My statement was not meant in a religious sense, though I understand how it was interpreted as such. I am merely saying that the cultural and economic structures seem to have an effect on reigning doxa. My question is how you come to make sense of the world without using a sort of theoretical method. You seem to imply a belief that there are just facts out there, directly accessible, which are the basis of historical materialism. But Marx points out in the Grundrisse that these facts, while being the determinate conditions of abstraction, require the abstraction to make sense of them. If the USSR did not escape the "sins" of modernity--a statement that seems accurate--an understanding of its failure to escape the logic of commodity production and extraction of surplus value, would seem to require a theoretical understanding. Merely stating these facts doesn't enlighten anyone as to why this course of events occured. Factional infighting, and other contingent processes, seem to also be excuses rather than explanations. Am Aug 5, 2009 um 12:25 AM schrieb Mark Lause: > Geoffrey Wildanger wrote: >> >> If you want to know how we come to make sense of the world around >> us-- >> or, rather, how that world around us works around and in us--it seems >> it might be important to care about the things that Marx, Lenin, >> Trotsky and others said about it. >> > > Aside from this being a fundamentally religious argument, you are > implying that if we care about those things, we should close our eyes > really, really tight when we face discomforting realities and wish > really, really hard. > > Maybe click the heels of our ruby red slippers together... > > The starting point for historical materialism are the material > realities we face, not abstract wishes. In fact, the difference > between these approaches formed the fulcrum on which Marx and Engels, > in later days, distinguished their arguments from those earlier, > utopian socialists (not entirely accurately, though...but that's a > different story). > > Indeed, it could be argued that projecting everything on how things > worked or should work or will work eventually in the USSR was no more > realistic than doing the same about New Harmony. The starting point > might well be a decent, ethical preference for socialism over > capitalism, but neither gets you far in and of itself. Moreover, in > the case of the Soviet Union (or China), you're dealing with a modern > State that does the same sort of unsavory things modern States do. > > ML > > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/ > marxism/edwardgeoffrey%40gmail.com Geoffrey Wildanger edwardgeoffrey at gmail.com From terrence.finnerty at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 01:57:02 2009 From: terrence.finnerty at gmail.com (Terry Burke) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 01:57:02 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] The US Is making war against Democracy - NOT Drugs. Message-ID: Estimated cocaine imports to United States: 260 tons per year -- http://www.ppionline.org "United States: world's largest consumer of cocaine (shipped from Colombia through Mexico and the Caribbean)..." -- https://www.cia.gov ==================================== Here in Latin America, the recent announcement by President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia that his government has invited the United States military to install itself in at least 7 Air, Naval and Land bases from coast to coast inside Colombia, with at least 1300 US soldiers and hundreds more "military contractors," is being treated from Argentina to Mexico as a dangerous threat and major escalation in an undeclared but all-too-real war that threatens the sovereignty and peace of all Latin American nations and the lives of its peoples. President Uribe is on a whirlwind tour this week of the capitals of South America in a diplomatic effort to "explain" his policy to the Presidents of Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Brasil. But his mission is not going over well. Most of these Presidents have expressed grave concerns, and some opposition to, Uribe's intention to allow the US to "invade Colombia" with his permission. The US-Uribe rationale is widely viewed as a falsehood which is being used to disguise the intensification of efforts to obtain the actual objective of US policy in Latin America. The historic modus operandi of the US in Latin America leads many to believe that the actual US objective is to install client-states that facilitate forced foreign investment on usurious terms and guarantee by any means necessary the continuation of foreign appropriation of the nations' wealth. It seems obvious that the escalation of US-Colombian military preparation happening exactly now is not because of any strategic opportunity to finally "win the war on drugs" with a new "surge." Instead, the cause is the emergence of new democratically elected socialist governments in the early stages of replacing their nation's capitalist systems with socialist institutions, customs, practices and relationships. The US-Colombian buildup is happening because in the interests of capitalism, these governments must be removed. The military buildup is necessary because these socialist governments must be replaced by force precisely because they are popular and democratic. They and the majorities of people they represent are not any longer willing to fulfill the wills or favor the desires of the capitalists over their own collective majoritarian social interests. It is a plain matter of dollars and cents to the foreign would-be owners of Latin America, the US's "backyard" for nearly two centuries since the Monroe doctrine. The rationale of The "War on Drugs" being put forward by ?lvaro Uribe for this aggressive new level of militarization is the same as has been used for decades to justify US military intervention in many Latin American countries. The Colombian role in this war was intensified during the administration of Bill Clinton as the Plan Colombia. Since 2000 in Colombia alone, the US has spent over 5 BILLION dollars in the War on Drugs. But most of this money has been spent on a different war - "the Counterinsurgency." In this much larger but less publicized war, many millions more have been spent with less transparency in contracts given to private military companies which train, direct and supervise unaccountable military/intelligence activities in an environment of civil war and clandestine paramilitaries drawing manpower and weaponry from their positions within the official military and the State. Death squad members are trained by US funded mercenaries and get their weapons from the US military. Their military superiors are graduates of the US School of the Americas (WINSEC) where they have made life-long personal interconnections with CIA, US military and government personel. Their future careers and fortunes are maintained through their allegiance to these relationships. Figures vary from year to year, but Colombia has ranked the third highest recipient of US foriegn aid, behind Israel and Egypt. There are billions and billions of dollars at stake, just in the officiial money. The drug trade adds billions more. Their enemy is any social movement that threatens to remove them from power. The drug business does not fit that definition. These are the warriors of the "Counterinsurgency." "Colombia has been one of the largest recipients of US military aid for well over a decade and the largest in the western hemisphere. Since 1994, AIUSA has called for a complete cut off of all US military aid until human rights conditions improve and impunity is tackled. Yet torture, massacres, "disappearances" and killings of non-combatants are widespread and collusion between the armed forces and paramilitary groups continues to this day. In 2006, US assistance to Colombia amounted to an estimated $728 million, approximately 80% of which was military and police assistance. "Plan Colombia" ? the name for the US aid package since 2000, was created as a strategy to combat drugs and contribute to peace, mainly through military means. The US government began granting large amounts of aid to Colombia in 2000 under the Clinton administration. Since the beginning of Plan Colombia, the US has given Colombia over $5 billion with the vast majority going to Colombia's military and police. These amounts are significantly higher than what is being given in economic and social assistance." -- http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/colombia/us-military-aid-to-colombia/page.do?id=1101863 The result of the United States' efforts? Colombia has the second-highest internal refugee population in the world, behind the Sudan. Over 4 million Colombians have been displaced by the savagery of this violence over the last 35 years without end. "But unlike other countries enduring armed conflicts that create significant displaced populations, Colombia has so far refused to address the humanitarian crisis by establishing refugee camps to ensure that the basic needs of the displaced are met. In fact, the Uribe government continues to deny that an armed conflict exists in Colombia, despite that the fact that the number of people forcibly displaced by violence in 2008 increased by 24 percent over the previous year and some 56,000 displaced people arrived in Bogot?." -- http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/JBRN-7UKGT7?OpenDocument&RSS20=18 Five billion dollars, and not one refugee camp. Because apparently to the US's ally and friend President Uribe there is no armed conflict in his country and he agrees with the Southern Command, the Pentagon and the CIA that there is a greater need to continue escalating their so-called War on Drugs. But then.. why this? If Colombia's problem is cocaine then why isn't the military focusing on the drug problem? Billions of dollars of which only 20% went to fight drugs and improve social conditions, and now the US Congress has decided that there should be even lees than that amount spent on "fighting drugs." "The Obama administration?s proposed 2010 aid package for Colombia appears to be sailing through the Democrat-controlled Congress with little opposition and few amendments. As a result, the administration is poised to achieve a shift in U.S. policy in Colombia that will see an even greater portion of the aid under the counternarcotics initiative known as Plan Colombia used for counterinsurgency operations. The Obama administration?s aid package indicates that the new government in Washington is not only continuing the militaristic policies of the Bush administration in Colombia, but actually intensifying them by developing even closer ties to the worst human rights-abusing military in the Western Hemisphere." -- http://colombiajournal.org/colombia313.htm All other social problems such as poverty, homelessness, health, education, security and dealing with the trauma of war and terror must take a back seat while the military does its job, which is to say, until the people who continue to suffer stop resisting and attempting to interfere with the rights of others to dictate to them how they shall live and how they wish to organize their societies. And so... the trade in cocaine continues to thrive, fed by the demand of millions of US cocaine abusers whose money fuels a worldwide market worth more than 70 BILLION dollars and the repression and terrorizing of millions. The United States is escalating a war in South America, and it is lying about the reason why. United Statesians once again must decide if they will ignore this and let war rage on the basis of lies of as it has so many times before. Just incredible as it is to assert that the reason the US invaded Iraq was to take away its WMD, it is equally incredible to assert that all of this US military movement, planning, and allocation of resources does anything to eliminate drug addiction and its concomitant crimes and atrocities. Far from it. Cocaine serves the architects of US policy as a mediaeval ram which drives the war of empire into the heart of am?rica. "A widely-cited Rand corporation study funded by the U.S. Army and Office of National Drug Control Policy found that funds spent on domestic drug treatment were 23 times as effective as ?source country control? (Clinton?s Colombia Plan), 11 times as effective as interdiction, and 7 times as effective as domestic law enforcement." -- http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200006--.htm According to the above, if in fact the US was serious about combatting drugs, the "war" would be fought as a social rehabilitation project inside the USA, not as the pretext for the military invasion of an entire continent with ulterior motives. The real War on Drugs could then be envisioned as a mass democratic movement at the grass roots of United States society, organization dedicated to achieving real social results, not massive social neglect. But that is exactly what US policy is designed to destroy in am?rica. The US and Colombia make war and prepare for much more real, bloody, dirty war. In spite of using all the means of mass propaganda at their disposal, they stand revealed. The subject is not drugs. It is rights vs. privilige. *US Navy re-establishes fleet for Caribbean, Latin America* (AFP) ? Apr 24, 2008 WASHINGTON (AFP) ? The US Navy said Thursday it has re-established the US Fourth Fleet to direct an increasing American naval presence in the Caribbean and Latin America. The move comes as popularly elected leftist regimes, including that of Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, pose a growing challenge to US influence in Latin America. -- http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h_JBgvVKHyAqwABeqWcoA54ZVz1Q From markalause at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 01:59:01 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 03:59:01 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: <5979961A-7F5C-43AA-9823-902067813AA0@gmail.com> References: <5979961A-7F5C-43AA-9823-902067813AA0@gmail.com> Message-ID: I don't think your point from the Grundsrisse has nothing to do with what was under discussion. Nor do I think that the Soviet treatment of the Germans can be simply dismissed as the imprisonment of the USSR by modernism. I believe that the past needs to be explained rather than excused, though I would have far preferred hearing an excuse for these things rather than simply denying that they happened. That's the main point here. Before you can excuse or explain something, you have to acknowledge that it's there to be excused or explained. ML From pt_costello at yahoo.com Wed Aug 5 04:45:52 2009 From: pt_costello at yahoo.com (Pat Costello) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 03:45:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Marxism] Third Bush administration plows ahead Message-ID: <312385.92014.qm@web63106.mail.re1.yahoo.com> 98% of Scientists' Clean Energy Research Proposals Rejected by Obama Admin by Brian Merchant, Brooklyn, New York on 08. 4.09 Business & Politics New York Times climate writer Andrew Revkin was recently forwarded a rejection letter from a "discouraged scientist" who had his clean energy research proposal declined for funding by the US Department of Energy. Obama's stimulus provides around $150 million for R&D in the renewable energy sector--money he hopes will spark a clean energy revolution. But the rejection letter notes that only 2% of the 3,500 proposals can be accepted--an amount that may be too small to instigate the breakthroughs in renewable energy technology Obama is hoping for. Revkin hints that such meager funding is inadequate to achieve the clean energy 'moon shot' that the Obama administration is hoping will catapault the US into a position as a world leader in clean energy technology. full: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/scientists-research-clean-energy-obama-rejected.php From arbetarpolitik at yahoo.com Wed Aug 5 05:11:55 2009 From: arbetarpolitik at yahoo.com (Adam Berg) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 04:11:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Marxism] Leftist comments on new "media law" in Venezuela? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <967734.38040.qm@web65709.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> So, basically, international bourgeois media - plus institutions like Human Rights Watch - were LYING massively? ? Would that be you?re conclusion, cde Fred? ? The law that all the larger media outlets mentioned or commented was called "Ley Especial Contra Delitos Medi?ticos". http://media.eluniversal.com/2009/07/29/ProyectoLeyEspecialDelitosMediaticos.pdf ? Article six mentions "social peace", "crimes against national security" etc. It was only?a suggestion and not an actual law? ? What was the origin of the "17 articles"/"Ley Especial?Contra Delitos Medi?ticos"? ? Hoax? ? Please elaborate, Fred.. ? /Adam? --- On Tue, 8/4/09, Fred Fuentes wrote: From: Fred Fuentes Subject: Re: [Marxism] Leftist comments on new "media law" in Venezuela? To: "Adam Berg" Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009, 1:14 PM On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Adam Berg wrote: > Thank you Fred! > > I read cde Kiraz' article. It was interesting. > > However, I find it a bit difficult to fully understand this issue without an available copy of the actual law - the Telecommunications Law. You can get more info (in spanish) about the actual law passed back in 2003 here http://www.conatel.gob.ve/responsabilidad_social.asp (sorry cant find any english translation of the law > > According to Human Rights Watch it is a crime to disseminate news that "harms the interest of the state": > http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/31/venezuela-repeal-measures-aimed-critics > > True or not true? I do not automatically trust info from?HRW, so I would like to see for myself. > Untrue, this was a proposal raised as part of a discussion about new law, which does not exist even in draft form as yet. and it was not so much harm the interest of the state as of people. But it was just one position expressed as part of this debate. The article at ABN available here http://www.abn.info.ve/noticia.php?articulo=193464&lee=1 makes clear that as off yet there is NO draft Law of media crimes and that this discussion will be taken to the rest of society before returning to the National Assembly were a law will be proposed. Hope that helps Fred ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/arbetarpolitik%40yahoo.com From farmelantj at juno.com Wed Aug 5 05:43:10 2009 From: farmelantj at juno.com (farmelantj at juno.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:43:10 GMT Subject: [Marxism] On "progressive evolution": Was: End of short unhappy li fe of"engagement"withIra Message-ID: <20090805.074310.15707.0@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> I think that Marx hit the nail on the head when he wrote in a letter to Ferdinand Lassalle: "Darwin?s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle. ... Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, ?teleology? in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained." As Marx recognized right away, Darwin's work struck a fatal blow against the use of teleological explanations in the natural sciences. In that sense, Darwin's work completed the revolution in the life sciences that had been initiated by Descartes in the 17th century. However, Jscot is right that Darwinism leaves untouched the teleomonic character of living organisms, and indeed it provides an explanation of why living organisms should have the appearance of being purposive and goal-directed. All this is explained quite lucidly in Richard Dawkins's book, *The Blind Watchmaker*, which takes note the fact that Darwin, as a divinity student at Cambridge, had studied quite intensively the works of the British theologian and natural historian, William Paley, whose writings placed great emphasis on the appearance of purposiveness in organic nature as evidence for the existence of a divine creator. Darwin's own work showed that this apparent purposiveness could be explained naturalistically in causal terms without the positing of a divine or supernatural intelligence. Having said that, evolutionary biologists do debate such things as whether evolution, viewed on a broad scale, has any inherent trends or tendencies over time. Stephen Jay Gould was rather skeptical about that, arguing that if we could somehow rerun the "rewind the tape" of evolutionary history we would get quite different results each time. Other people, such as Dawkins, do argue that there are certain longterm trends inherent in evolution. Thus, Dawkins, as I understand him, argues that there is a longterm tendency for intelligence to develop over time. This and other related trends are seen as being driven by the existence of predator-prey relationship which leads to "arms races" as organisms evolve to become either more effective predators or better protected prey. Likewise, one could argue that human history, while lacking an inherent purpose is not necessarily lacking a certain directionality. There does seem to be a longterm tendency for the forces of production to become more and more developed, a trend that seems to be driven by competition between human societies, with those societies with the better developed forces of production, everything else being equal, being more likely to prevail in political/economic/ military competition with rival societies. This tendency for the forces of production to develop, in turn tends to drive the evolution of modes of production as various regimes of production rise and fall on the basis of their acting to either facilitate the development of the productive forces or their acting as fetters on such development. A given mode of production may act to promote the development of the productive forces during one period of time, while acting as fetters at a later time. When that happens, further development is not likely to occur until that mode of production has been replaced by a new one that is better suited to promote further development. Jim F. ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Jscotlive at aol.com To: farmelantj at juno.com Subject: [Marxism] On "progressive evolution": Was: End of short unhappy life of"engagement"withIra Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 00:10:19 EDT Shane: Once you deny any immanent teleology to nature, then no natural phenomenon, including organic evolution, can be "progressive" Reply: Not teleology, teleonomy: the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms that derive from their evolutionary history and adaptation for reproductive success. ________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Free information on the latest patio furniture trends. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTK9v4SOTXDBwdUCrt4vbIkMf84q8b6bc1kqgWDo1nEBS8gYrT2B9W/ From holmoff10 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 5 03:09:30 2009 From: holmoff10 at hotmail.com (Leonardo Kosloff) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 09:09:30 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy lifeof"engagement"withIranRe:FredFeldman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In his latest emasculation of Marx?s ideas, Jscotlive (J) after running the usual script on the dialectic, which as far as it goes might have been written by the old Jozef himself, throws this little beauty in for good measure: ?And here we return to the objective behind Sartesian's mish-mash of a theory - an attempt to erect an argument in support of his desire to withhold solidarity from oppressed peoples and nations lying in the crosshairs of our respective ruling classes in the West. Why? As far as I can see, because in his estimation they fail to pass his checklist of approval - namely, the fact they do not subscribe to his notion of a pure, secular, socialist, and clean resistance. Another name for this condition is 'buckling under the pressure of our own bourgeoisie'. Yes, Sartesian, I feel your pain. It's hard to argue support for those recalcitrant Palestinians of Gaza with our liberal friends and work colleagues. Poor us. Poor, poor us.? I would, if I had time to indulge in rewriting the many ways in which Marx explains how abstraction is in a double sense the real ?ground? and mental result of the ideological distortion which a consciousness must impose on itself under the fetishism of commodities, elaborate a critique of each falsely conscious epithet J instantiates with his modicum out-of-context idealizations. Let me make one point as an example. J posits the existence of a ?positive? and a ?negative?, ?Sartesian: The central issue for me in the previous round of discussions is those notions that: somehow "dialectic" means that there is "positive" and "negative" in everything; Reply: Correct. Well done. Finally you get it.? If there is positive there MUST be negative, so that reality is determined by a logic, and not the other way around, viz. not the way in which the working up of concepts is an ideal reproduction of the object following the object?s own necessity, as Marx, Engels and also Lenin took pains to demonstrate; this is where the dialectical method supersedes the limitations of formal logic and not as some yin-yang mirage. Marx, in his ?critique of Hegel?s philosophy as a whole? in the 1844 manuscripts is unequivocal: ?When, for instance, wealth, state-power, etc., are understood by Hegel as entities estranged from the human being, this only happens in their form as thoughts ... They are thought-entities, and therefore merely an estrangement of pure, i.e., abstract, philosophical thinking. The whole process therefore ends with absolute knowledge. It is precisely abstract thought from which these objects are estranged and which they confront with their presumption of reality. The philosopher ? who is himself an abstract form of estranged man ? takes himself as the criterion of the estranged world. The whole history of the alienation process [Ent?u?erungsgeschichte] and the whole process of the retraction of the alienation is therefore nothing but the history of the production of abstract (i.e., absolute) thought ? of LOGICAL, speculative thought.? And again in ?the method of political economy? he explains: "Therefore, to the kind of consciousness ? and this is characteristic of the philosophical consciousness ? for which conceptual thinking is the real human being, and for which the conceptual world as such is thus the only reality, the movement of the categories appears as the real act of production ? which only, unfortunately, receives a jolt from the outside ? whose product is the world; and ? but this is again a tautology [SIC] ? this is correct in so far as the concrete totality is a totality of thoughts, concrete in thought, in fact a product of thinking and comprehending; but not in any way a product of the concept which thinks and generates itself outside or above observation and conception; a product, rather, of the working-up of observation and conception into concepts. The totality as it appears in the head, as a totality of thoughts, is a product of a thinking head, which appropriates the world in the only way it can, a way different from the artistic, religious, practical and mental appropriation of this world. The real subject retains its autonomous existence outside the head just as before; namely as long as the head?s conduct is merely speculative, merely theoretical. Hence, in the theoretical method, too, the subject, society, must always be kept in mind as the presupposition." At the root of J?s politics we can then find the (hypostasized) LOGIC of imperialism: we must either resist or succumb to our own imperialist bourgeoisie, because you see the ?underdeveloped? capitalism of countries under the threat of imperialist attack (they are not underdeveloped; in Argentina, where I come from, capitalist relations are fully developed, what one has is a smaller concentration and centralization of capital) somehow is not so dependent on exploitation. Leaving aside the problems that I find with Lenin?s Imperialism and monopoly capitalism, J?s whole argument, which I?ve been following in the thread ?Iran: whose side are you on??, deforms into an apologetic seeking to supplant reasoned analysis with prostituted nationalist 3rd worldism, leading to the worst possible illusions. In this fantasy world, if we wanted to build a movement against the occupation of Iraq we would have to write a blank check to the eastern oppressed nation of China, which is to say, the CCP party bureaucracy which oppresses the Chinese working class, and forget that it is the main financier of the whole operation. In short, it isn?t social being which determines consciousness but the Nation?s consciousness which determines social being. But even worse than this is this last ad hominem chicanery that J wants to pull out on S. Artesian?s position to make him/her look as some kind of social chauvinist. Perhaps J could use a little Communist Manifesto himself: ?Workers OF THE WORLD Unite!? _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=PID23384::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:NF_BR_sync:082009 From lnp3 at panix.com Wed Aug 5 06:57:28 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:57:28 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] South Africa protests Message-ID: <4A7981B8.6000207@panix.com> From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives URL: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/22221 The elite and community protests in South Africa August 05, 2009 By Shawn Hattingh Over the last few weeks in South Africa, community protests and land occupations have once again erupted. People are simply infuriated at continuously being ignored and treated as subhuman by the state and the elite, and for this reason they have been taking to the streets. While barricades have literally been spreading from township to township, politicians of every sway - from the DA to the ANC - have been condemning these protests. Along with thinly veiled threats, politicians have also branded the people involved as criminals. Not to be outdone, a number of business and conservative church leaders have formed a 25 person council to work with the government to end the protests through embarking on a ?moral regeneration' campaign. The fact that the elite have branded the protestors as evil and in need of moral regeneration should come as no surprise. This is because the elite have a deep-seated contempt for the vast majority of people. In fact, they have been waging an ideological, economic and physical war on the majority of people for years through neo-liberalism. Indeed, the only reason why the elite are now so upset by the community protests and land occupations is because they have realised that they are now beginning to reap the whirlwind of this war. Scorn and the war on the poor It is not surprising that people in South Africa are so angry. They have been the target of the elites' war for years. In fact, the elite in South Africa have truly relished the war that they have waged on the poor. Freed from the status of apartheid pariahs, they have arrogantly attacked workers and the poor with a new found swagger. As part of this, the elite have systematically driven workers' wages down. Behind the veil of their well manicured suits, most of the corporate elite still also view workers through extremely racist and patriarchal lenses. From their point of view, most workers are insignificant ?others'. The onslaught on workers has also seen millions of people being retrenched. Bosses want fewer and fewer workers so that they can make more and more money. Thus, workers are also coldly viewed as costly inputs that need to be reduced. The consequences: 40% of South Africans are unemployed. To make matters worse, under the current system, it is likely that most of these unemployed people will never be formally employed again in their lifetimes. The elite have not been content with just waging a war on workers and forcing people into unemployment, but have literally attacked all township residents by snatching up the few commons that exist. As part of this, vast sections of the public service sector has been privatised and handed over to the local and global elite to profiteer from. This has seen the elite selling basic services, such as water and healthcare, in order to make a fortune. Even when public services are not fully privatised, they have been commercialised by the state. This means that the state runs the remaining ?publicly' owned services to maximise profits. The poor and unemployed who can't afford what corporations or the state now charge for these services are viewed as bad apples and simply cut-off. In fact, over 10 million people have had their water or electricity cut in South Africa since 1996. Even when services are actually provided to townships, these are of an appalling standard. This is due to the reality that the elite view township residents as being little better than animals. Indeed, ANC officials have even admitted that they view providing services to the poor as a burden. It is partially for this reason that the ANC government dramatically reduced funding for public services in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Consequently, most townships are still defined by raw sewerage running down the streets and uncollected rubbish blowing in the wind. Certainly, the maintenance of infrastructure or providing refuse removal in the townships is not viewed as a priority by the elite. In these conditions, diseases such tuberculosis have become rife and cholera outbreaks have occurred at regular intervals. A similar story of ruthless exploitation and disdain is also evident in how the elite have come to view housing provision. Since the early 1980s there has been a growing commercialisation of township housing. Banks have been given free reign in the township housing market and they have made a fortune out of it. When people have defaulted on their loans, these banks have evicted them without mercy. Similarly, corporations have also been contracted to build the associated housing projects. In order to maximise profits, these companies have literally taken short-cuts. Most of the houses that have been built consist of only one or two rooms. Added to this, the walls in these houses often crack because they lack proper foundations. When people have used the state's formal channels to lodge complaints about this, they have usually been dismissed with contempt. As part of the economic war on the poor, South Africa's inner cities have also undergone a process of gentrification. This has seen hundreds of thousands of people being evicted from buildings and shacks in or near city centres, and then dumped kilometres away in the veld. Indeed, the people involved are often evicted violently by private security forces known as the ?red ants'. On being dumped, the evicted people are usually only given a few sheets of steel to build a shack. This is what, in the lexicon of the South African law system, passes itself off as adequate alternative accommodation. In most instances the land that people have been evicted from is sold off to developers. These developers then build trendy loft apartments or town houses for the latest wave of yuppies wanting to experience inner-city life. The countryside too has not been exempt from the war. Over 80% of the land in South Africa is still owned by the white elite - meaning that little has change since the supposed end of apartheid. Many white farmers have also unleashed a savage onslaught on farm workers. In fact, since 1994 over 1 million farm workers have been fired and evicted from the farms that they used to work on. In addition, racist attacks by farmers on farm workers have also continued. In the most extreme cases workers have even been dragged to death behind farmers' cars. It is due to the elite's ideological and economic war on the poor that South Africa is now the most unequal society in the world. The white population still holds the vast majority of wealth. As part of this, the traditional swish white suburbs still receive outstanding public services, while the traditionally under-resourced dilapidated black townships receive an appalling standard of service. Likewise, CEOs reward themselves handsomely at the expense of workers. This has seen the average wage gap between CEOs and workers in South Africa grow to the region of 700:1. When the poor complain about such issues, they are told by the local political elite to be patient, and in practice ignored. Under such circumstances, most people are still forced to live in abject poverty, they have their few rights trampled everyday, and they are subjected to subtle and overt forms of racial abuse on an almost daily basis. It is, therefore, little wonder that people are furious and embarking on protests The states' war on protests The recent protests, however, are not a new development. From the earliest days of neo-liberalism in South Africa people have resisted. Indeed, from as far back as the mid-1990s community protests against poor housing, unemployment, and water and electricity cut-offs have occurred. Similarly, landless people have claimed land through direct action, and people have also resisted evictions. The response of the state has also been consistent over this period. The state elite have simply dismissed the protestors' demands and/or dealt with the protestors harshly. The state elite have even regularly unleashed the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) to quell these protests or to seek out mysterious ?third forces'. Likewise, whenever a community protest has occurred the police have responded immediately. Their favourite weapons for putting down protests have been tear gas, rubber bullets and even live ammunition. Underpinning this state repression has been the fact that the government has also continued to make use of apartheid era laws when dealing with demonstrations. Under these laws, any type of protest involving more than 15 people has to go through a lengthy application process otherwise it is deemed illegal. It has been this piece of law that the state has used in suppressing community protests and land occupations. In fact, thousands of people have been arrested under this law in the post-apartheid period. With the recent protests, we have once again witnessed the state elite using such mechanisms in an attempt to crush the communities involved. In fact, the state and the elite are fighting a physical war on the poor. The events that occurred during the recent protests in the Gauteng township of Thembisa highlight these repressive tactics that are used by the state. The people of Thembisa organised themselves last year to demand decent housing, water, electricity and work. In November, the community took these demands to the local councillor. As happens in most South African townships, the local councillor arrogantly dismissed their demands. In July this year, the community then mobilised and organised a peaceful march to the mayor's office where they put the same demands forward and also called for the local councillor to be removed from office. Weeks later, they had still not received any response from the mayor. Clearly, the mayor had simply ignored them. On the 18th of July, the community then got wind that the local councillor was at a nearby school spending public money on a party to celebrate Nelson Mandela's birthday. The community decided to go to the event and demand the councillor's resignation and effective service delivery. The police, however, stopped the protestors confronting the councillor and a clash between them and the community ensued. With this, the police opened fire with live ammunition and two of the protestors were killed. The police then followed this up by unleashing an operation in the township to find the ?ringleaders'. Two people were eventually arrested and charged with public violence. Clearly, the two people arrested were being used as examples in order to intimidate the community. The actions of the police during the recent protests, such as those that occurred in Thembisa, have been sanctioned at the highest levels of the state. Various Ministers and politicians have called on the police to crush the protests without mercy. Indeed, the President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, called for even more arrests and said the ?instigators' of community protests must be dealt with harshly. Added to this, the NIA has once again been unleashed and a special task team has been established to investigate the causes of the protests. Clearly, a new round of arrests and repression is in the offing. The protests and the left Many of the people involved with the authoritarian left, like the elite, have also taken a very dim view of community protests. In the past, the South African Communist Party (SACP) has repeatedly condemned community protests. For example, the SACP's General-Secretary has often labelled the actions of community based organisations - such as the Anti-Privatisation Forum (APF), Abahlali baseMjondolo (ABM), and the Anti-Eviction Campaign (AEC) - as "irresponsible" and "infantile". Similarly, in the past, the COSATU leadership have also actively prevented and deterred workers from linking up with community struggles and protests. A similar story has unfolded during the current protests. Notably, the largest union in COSATU, the NUM, condemned the destruction of private and public property that accompanied the current protests. They also said that instead of protesting, people should use the proper channels to have their grievances heard, such as phoning the government's call centre - the ?Presidential Hotline'. Clearly, the union bureaucrats don't seem to realise that the official channels don't listen and don't care. In addition, the ?Presidential Hotline' that the NUM are encouraging people to call is not even up and running yet. Clearly the union bureaucracy has lost touch with reality. Over and above this, the real reason why elements amongst the SACP and COSATU condemn community protests is because they see them as a threat. This is due to the fact that they are not in control of them, and can't impose their will on them. In the past other elements of the authoritarian left, however, have tried to tap into the sentiments that have driven community protests. Under this, these elements have tried to create their own organisations, which have taken up some of the issues raised by protests such as unemployment. In fact, they do this instead of offering genuine support to community movements. This authoritarian left has then controlled the organisations they created tightly. The end result, naturally, was that these became highly authoritarian and undemocratic organisations. The result has been that most of these organisations collapsed, and many of the activists involved - who were treated as mere foot soldiers - have become as disillusioned with the left, as they are disillusioned with the elite. Over the last decade, however, some of the protests that have occurred have led to a number of genuine community organisations forming. As such, past protests have been sights of self-organisation and self-education. For this reason alone past protests have been highly important. A similar story of self-organisation - outside the influence of any union, NGO or political party - is once again taking place in the current protests. Indeed, it is likely that one or two new organisations could emerge from the current protests. It is this self-organisation that carries great potential. Added to this, a process of self-education is also evident in the current protests. Many people involved in the current wave of protests have also explicitly stated that they have come to realise that direct action, like blockading roads, is the best way to get a response from the authorities. The people involved have also started to articulate their desire for a more participatory society, where their views and grievances are not squashed by the elite. Hopefully, this desire will also begin to extend towards creating self-managed, non-hierarchical and participatory organisations that are pre-figurative of a better society. It is in this context that anarchists and libertarian socialists, who are involved or linked to the protests, can also make a huge contribution. Unlike the authoritarian left - who wish to capture and dominate organisations emerging from protests - this contribution could revolve around sharing our visions and ideas around a free, non-hierarchical, and self-managed society: a society which is the antithesis of the oppressive one we are currently forced to live in. Indeed, libertarian socialists could also play a role in sharing ideas about how we could possibly get to such a society, and how the means and the ends should be compatible. In fact, the ideas associated with libertarian socialism and anarchism can make a massive contribution to the new struggles that are emerging in South Africa, as these ideas were themselves born in struggle. Conclusion The actions of the elite, defined by their attack on the poor, have created the environment in which the current wave of protests has occurred. Indeed, it has been the attack by the corporate and state elite on the poor that has led to peoples' anger. In fact, the elite have literally driven people deeper and deeper into poverty, and then condescendingly blamed the people for their poverty. It is also the elites' failure to even acknowledge peoples' demands, and to continuously treat people with utter disdain, that has driven the current protests. Nonetheless, despite the elites' violent repression, these protests will continue. Hopefully, these protests will strengthen existing community organisations and perhaps even lead to newer ones being formed. Certainly, anarchists and libertarian socialists involved or linked to the current protests could play an important role in this. Already, certain ideas associated with libertarian socialism have come to play key roles in the current protests, such as direct action. In this context, other ideas of libertarian socialism, such as community and worker self-management, could also come to play a vital function, as clearly the people involved in the protests want a more participatory society. It is this desire for a more participatory society that could also lead to organisations becoming pre-figurative. In this context, the vision of libertarian socialism could make a huge contribution towards challenging the current system, which is defined by neo-liberalism, state repression, extreme racism, extreme exploitation, patriarchy, and all manner of other hierarchies. Hopefully, the community protests that we have been witnessing are also the start of a road to a better world that is created by workers and the poor themselves. Such a world would hopefully be a world where there are no bosses; where hierarchies don't exist; where workers and communities manage themselves, and where the economy is collectively planned through assemblies for the benefit of everyone. From lnp3 at panix.com Wed Aug 5 07:05:28 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:05:28 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] =?windows-1252?q?=93Come_on=2C_let=92s_have_a_velvet_re?= =?windows-1252?q?volution=94?= Message-ID: <4A798398.3010907@panix.com> (Go to link below to see Youtube videos of "confessions" http://trueslant.com/marcherman/2009/08/05/mass-confession-to-treason-in-iran/ Mass Confession to Treason in Iran Sorta. A few days ago, an unknown group started collecting webcam-recorded confessions to efforts to undermine the government of Iran. They?re collected at a website, Watch Me Confess. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty sums up: The concept plays off recent high-profile confessions from some of Iran?s leading reformists, such as former Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi, now facing trial along with more than 100 other defendants. Abtahi reportedly testified that opposition leaders conspired in advance to misrepresent the June vote and prompt people to protest. Many believe Abtahi?s and others? public confessions were forced. The idea appears to have begun with an Iranian comedian, Ebrahim Nabavi, who posted a video of himself playing Abtahi, confessing to various crimes against the state: An English translation of the routine is here. It starts like this: I confess that during one of my trips to the holy city of Mecca a dreadful CIA agent contacted me. He introduced himself as Hassan Agha, his fictitious name. I guess his real name was Roger Waters or Michael Laden. [Ladeen?] ?Come on, let?s have a velvet revolution,? he told me, and as you can see (pointing to his green shawl and bracelet) he succeeded in deceiving me. Back then I was an assistant to the President so I asked this CIA guy, ?What?s in this for me?? ?If you lead the velvet revolution properly we will make you an assistant to the minister?, he replied. ?Are you nuts or what? I am the assistant to the President right now!? I said. But Hassan Agha or the CIA agent did not listen to me and went (slap, bang, ?. . ?Please stop hitting me? ? another bandage on his face, with some bruises). Yes, I definitely accepted his offer, I mean the velvet thing. From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Wed Aug 5 07:21:44 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 16:21:44 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape In-Reply-To: <20090805034125.90F6EB004E@smtp.hushmail.com> References: <20090805034125.90F6EB004E@smtp.hushmail.com> Message-ID: > > I get it now. You really hate the Stalin > and the USSR and these two terms are > essentially the same thing. I keep > forgetting that totalitarian regimes > are the malignant extension of a > totalitarian dictator whose cynicism > and brutality animates every aspect > of life as well as public policy. > I am still unclear as to "the facts" > behind your analysis. Where do they > reside? With the avalanche of documents > available from former Soviet archives > it should be easy to demonstrate that > the Soviets planned and executed the > mass rape of millions of German females > of all ages. If you have done research > on this I would be most interested in > your findings and in particular which > agency did the operational planning, > how was this atrocity organized and for > how long a period of time. > > If, on the other hand your polemical zeal > is in advance of your research may I > suggest you read some literature > on the subject starting with "Red Storm > on the Reich' by the British military > historian Christopher Duffy. In this > work Duffy pays a great deal attention > to the breakdown in the order and > discipline of the Soviet Army once > it crossed into German territory. > According to Duffy this breakdown > alarmed Soviet officers because it > degraded the military capacity of their > units. For example, tanks were so full > of looted goods that they could not carry > their full load of ammunition. > > The archival documents I am aware of > do talk about rape and these reports > from the security services were also > alarmed and highly critical of this > activity. I believe there was > a wide spread breakdown of discipline > in Soviet forces as they drove to > Berlin an this is readily seen in > early works such as "The Last Battle" > by Cornelius Ryan. In that book Ryan > depicts a range of actions by Soviet > units with some maintaining their > discipline and others not. All the > accounts of the fall of Berlin I > have read describe a frenzy of looting > and rape for around two days after the > final defeat of the Nazis followed by > the Red Army bringing order to > the city and dispensing food to > civilians. > I thank you very much for this insightful input. Mark tells everybody involved that they would tell fairy tails. In fact he is the one doing so. I have not seen one single evidence for his absurd claims. No one is naive to claim that there were not all those side effects of any war when the Red Army went into Germany. But this is not the point. His aim is to divert the attention from Western responsibility for the rise of fascism and separation of Germany. This is the point bourgeois forces always stick to to diminish the role of Soviet Union by the defeat of fascism. (During 2005 offivial ceremonies in Germany to commemorate the defeat of fascism the role of Soviet Union was not mentioned at all). By this he is hoping to divert the attention from overall questions. First, while Soviet Union tried to establish an alliance with Western countries against fascism they preferred to negotiate with Hitler (Munich Agreement). They were hoping that Hitler would attack Soviet Union first and by this they could get rid of socialism. This is admitted even by some ordinary documentaries on Churchill. Second, German capitalists were very keen to start a war in one way or another again as they wanted to take part in the distribution (re-distribution) of the world. To do this they needed a fascist regime. Third International is responsible for its faults as it equated social democrats with fascist. But they admitted that. Up today there is no one single self-criticism is made by German Social Democrats and other bourgeois forces that they failed to see the rise of fascism in Germany. Only left wing social democrats based outside Germany did propose to establish a united front as soon as possible. But the leadership of all bourgeois forces were saying that there is no danger of fascism in Germany Third, it were the Western countries, German capitalists and political bourgeois forces who separated Germany. Official policy of Soviet Union was to establish confederation. This policy remained the official policy of GDR. Fourth, the responsibility for erecting the Berlin wall lies by Western countries and bourgeois forces in West Germany as they organised provocations as they could not hinder the establishment of GDR. This is today admitted even by social democrat politicians like Egon Bahr. For more detailed information see: Wolfgang Abendroth, Introduction to the History of Labour Movement; Georg F?lberth et all, History of German Social Democracy; Fritz Krause and Robert Steigerwald, The Other History Book. --------- Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From wsredden at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 07:35:08 2009 From: wsredden at gmail.com (Shawn Redden) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 09:35:08 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Jean-Marie Bigard In-Reply-To: <4A798398.3010907@panix.com> References: <4A798398.3010907@panix.com> Message-ID: Since comedy is the order of the day, famous French actor and comedian Jean-Marie Bigard has gotten into hot water by posting a series of comedic videos (5 so far) highlighting oddities in the Ashcroft/Zelikow/Proyect line regarding the 11 September 2001 operation. http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/bigard Now I'll grant you, it's not as comical as an 'unknown group' posting an Israeli confession (Get it? Because Israel's army bulldozes Palestinian houses, the confessions are funnier. HA!) or German operatives with santa masks, but it's kinda funny nevertheless. Shawn From wsredden at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 07:41:02 2009 From: wsredden at gmail.com (Shawn Redden) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 09:41:02 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] another good report from Tegucigalpa Message-ID: Flashpoints, again, fearturing Andres Thomas Conteris, founder of DN! en Espanol. Detailing efforts by the coupsters to crush a teachers' protest and shut down the few remaining media hostile to the coup. http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/52949 From nmgoro at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 07:51:42 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:51:42 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape In-Reply-To: References: <20090805034125.90F6EB004E@smtp.hushmail.com> Message-ID: <4A798E6E.5020209@gmail.com> World War II was won by the Allies in Kursk and in Stalingrad, not in Normandy or Monte Cassino. This, to begin with. And no socialist would deny that. But what Lause points out is an entirely different thing. We are socialists, so that we should have a word on the way in which the Red Army got degraded when entering Germany. Yes, of course, loot and rape are "side effects" of military actions, and massive loot and rape are side effects of massive military actions. But if the Soviet Union had NOT waged the war as a "National", "Patriotic", war, every unit to the last soldier would have known that their duty once they crossed the border was to GAIN THE GERMAN PEOPLE, AND ITS WORKING CLASS, for socialism. Massive rape and loot, on our side, the side of socialists, cannot be understood on strictly military (loss of discipline) terms but also on POLITICAL terms. On these terms, the results of the way in which Stalin waged the war (once he recovered from the mistakes that had previously taken Nazis to power in Berlin) were not exactly the best ones for socialism as a global enterprise. This does not mean Satanizing Stalin or the USSR. But we should accept that on the POLITICAL side, the war was waged as a war of revenge against the German people not as a war of liberation from Fascism AND capitalism. Methinks. From Jscotlive at aol.com Wed Aug 5 07:49:25 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 09:49:25 EDT Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy lifeof"engagement"withIranRe:FredFeldman Message-ID: Leonardo wades in with more of the same metaphysical mish-mash originally promulgated by Sartesian. In reply, here is something from Engels's 'Socialism, Utopian and Scientific'. 'In like manner, every organized being is every moment the same and not the same; every moment, it assimilates matter supplied from without, and gets rid of other matter; every moment, some cells of its body die and others build themselves anew; in a longer or shorter time, the matter of its body is completely renewed, and is replaced by other molecules of matter, so that every organized being is always itself, and yet something other than itself. Further, we find upon closer investigation that the two poles of an antithesis, positive and negative, e.g., are as inseparable as they are opposed, and that despite all their opposition, they mutually interpenetrate. And we find, in like manner, that cause and effect are conceptions which only hold good in their application to individual cases; but as soon as we consider the individual cases in their general connection with the universe as a whole, they run into each other, and they become confounded when we contemplate that universal action and reaction in which causes and effects are eternally changing places, so that what is effect here and now will be cause there and then, and vice versa. None of these processes and modes of thought enters into the framework of metaphysical reasoning. Dialectics, on the other hand, comprehends things and their representations, ideas, in their essential connection, concatenation, motion, origin and ending. Such processes as those mentioned above are, therefore, so many corroborations of its own method of procedure.' As to Leonardo's other points, he writes: deforms into an apologetic seeking to supplant reasoned analysis with prostituted nationalist 3rd worldism, leading to the worst possible illusions. In this fantasy world, if we wanted to build a movement against the occupation of Iraq we would have to write a blank check to the eastern oppressed nation of China, which is to say, the CCP party bureaucracy which oppresses the Chinese working class, and forget that it is the main financier of the whole operation. In short, it isn?t social being which determines consciousness but the Nation?s consciousness which determines social being. Reply: So now we have solidarity with oppressed peoples and nations described as an 'apologetic'. I wonder how Marx would have viewed such a rendering, given his views on Irish national liberation, which during the late 19th century, and up to the present, has had more than its fair share of trenchant critics among so-called socialists. I wonder what he would have made of the Filipino struggle against US imperialism at the end of the 19th, the Mau Mau's struggle against British colonialism in the 1960s, and so on. Each of the aforementioned struggles, though obviously different in their manifestations, were fought against the spread and impacts of an economic system which in its highest stage has so distorted and impeded the development of nations, economies, and societies under its domination solely for the purposes of exploitation that to withhold and give solidarity on the basis of how developed they are is repugnant. It reflects the extent to which the ideas and values of the ruling classes in the West have penetrated the consciousness of Marxists based in those countries. As for Iran, I wrote an article on the subject recently ('Iran In The Crosshairs' _http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4270_ (http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4270) ) In it I write: 'In this part of the world the experience of the vast majority of people with regard to the West and so-called western values since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire has been one of occupation, colonisation, expropriation, humiliation, and puppet dictatorships. The emergence of Political Islam in recent years as the dominant ideology in resistance to the aforementioned is a reflection of the fear in which the West held Soviet influence in the region during the height of the Cold War, a fear responsible for western intelligence services actively aiding and abetting the purging of the left in the region by its various client regimes, including Iran under the Shah.' Leonardo, for you, as with Sartesian, Marxism appears to be metaphysics, reduced to little more than an interesting theory which answers life's fundamental questions in a neat and tidy packaging. It also appears to have engendered a strain of Orientalism that is eerily close to the mindest of Rudyard Kipling when it comes to those pesky natives and primitives. Marxism is not that. Instead, if anything, it teaches us how to think not what to think. From lnp3 at panix.com Wed Aug 5 07:56:49 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:56:49 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Red Army and rape Message-ID: <4A798FA1.8050701@panix.com> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/may/01/news.features11 'They raped every German female from eight to 80' Antony Beevor, author of the acclaimed new book about the fall of Berlin, on a massive war crime committed by the victorious Red Army. * Antony Beevor * The Guardian, Wednesday 1 May 2002 "Red Army soldiers don't believe in 'individual liaisons' with German women," wrote the playwright Zakhar Agranenko in his diary when serving as an officer of marine infantry in East Prussia. "Nine, ten, twelve men at a time - they rape them on a collective basis." The Soviet armies advancing into East Prussia in January 1945, in huge, long columns, were an extraordinary mixture of modern and medieval: tank troops in padded black helmets, Cossack cavalrymen on shaggy mounts with loot strapped to the saddle, lend-lease Studebakers and Dodges towing light field guns, and then a second echelon in horse-drawn carts. The variety of character among the soldiers was almost as great as that of their military equipment. There were freebooters who drank and raped quite shamelessly, and there were idealistic, austere communists and members of the intelligentsia appalled by such behaviour. (clip) --- http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/movies/17woman.html NY Times, July 17, 2009 Diary of Soviet Violence in a Conquered Capital By A. O. SCOTT Somewhere in the middle of ?A Woman in Berlin,? the anonymous title character (Nina Hoss) runs into an old friend. It is 1945, the German capital has recently fallen to the Soviet Army, and the two women exchange what is apparently a common greeting at that time and place: ?How often?? The unspoken, self-evident meaning of this question is ?How many Russian soldiers have raped you?? That such horrific information can be exchanged so matter-of-factly, even with rueful, stoical humor, can stand as a concise summary of the insights offered by Max F?rberb?ck?s sprawling, difficult, powerful film. The sexual depredations of the victorious Red Army in Germany at the end of World War II were hardly secret at the time, certainly not to the women who suffered them. But the systematic rape of German women by Russian soldiers was nonetheless shrouded in silence for decades. When the diary that provided the source material for ?A Woman in Berlin? was first published in Germany in 1959, it was attacked in print and quickly pushed aside. In West Germany patriarchal attitudes defining male sexual violence as a matter of female honor made the frankness of the diary seem brazen and shameful, while in the East criticism of the heroic Soviet liberators was forbidden. The republication of the diary in 2003, and its subsequent adaptation by Mr. F?rberb?ck, were thus enabled both by the rise of feminism and the collapse of Communism. And ?A Woman in Berlin? is timely in another sense: it is part of a wave of recent cinematic explorations of World War II and its aftermath (mostly but not exclusively European, and including Mr. F?rberb?ck?s earlier ?Aim?e & Jaguar?) that try to tease out some of that era?s hidden stories and ethical ambiguities. (clip) From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Wed Aug 5 08:09:38 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:09:38 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape In-Reply-To: <4A798E6E.5020209@gmail.com> References: <20090805034125.90F6EB004E@smtp.hushmail.com> <4A798E6E.5020209@gmail.com> Message-ID: "This does not mean Satanizing Stalin or the USSR. But we should accept that on the POLITICAL side, the war was waged as a war of revenge against the German people not as a war of liberation from Fascism AND capitalism." Everything you say is accepted except the point above. I want to see evidences for this. I recall a speech made by Stalin, I believe in 1941, addressed to the Red Army that Soviet Union is not fighting against German people but against fascism. Show me a similar speech by Western leaders. After the war allies agreed that to root out fascism in Germany the industry must be socialised. Western allies were the forces to hinder this in West Germany. There is no one single bombing of German cities by the Soviet Union when it was clear that the war was won. Western allies especially USA continued to do so (see Leipzig and Hamburg for example). To claim that there was a mass rape of women of all age would require to show evidence and further qualification. Was is it for example an intentional act or a spontaneous act. That there were rapes of German women is known and people from east Germany say that. And this is surely not to deny. But if claim is made that is was intentionally and consciously organised to take revenge on German people this must be shown by evidences. ------ Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From nmgoro at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 08:30:39 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:30:39 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape In-Reply-To: References: <20090805034125.90F6EB004E@smtp.hushmail.com> <4A798E6E.5020209@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A79978F.7020307@gmail.com> Dogan Gocmen escribi?: > > To claim that there was a mass rape of women of all age would require to > show evidence and further qualification. Was is it for example an > intentional act or a spontaneous act. That there were rapes of German women > is known and people from east Germany say that. And this is surely not to > deny. But if claim is made that is was intentionally and consciously > organised to take revenge on German people this must be shown by evidences. > The below goes for loot also: I have NOT stated that mass rape was "intentionally and consciously organized to take revenge on German people". I haven?t even stated that there was "a mass rape of women of all age". We agree in that there WAS a wave of rapes. Period. This is enough. Had the war been waged as a war for the extension of socialism, officers on the field, and every soldier to the last, would have had strict political orders to repress rapists on the spot. Shootings included, if necessary. It is politics that leads war, not the other way round. They did not have them. It is me who challenges you to produce evidence to the contrary. And _this_ is the point. From sartesian at earthlink.net Wed Aug 5 08:35:15 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:35:15 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy lifeof"engagement"withIranRe:FredFeldmans References: Message-ID: Perhaps, given the two dispassionate and intelligent interventions by comrades Farmelant and Kosloff, we should go back to the beginning of the "debate" about dialectics. In that beginning, referencing the movement of Fatah from "anti-imperialism" to "obsolescence" J offered the following: "Dialectics, Sartersian, remember that? All is flux, all that comes into being withers away, every postive turns into a negative...so on and so on?" Of course, I don't remember that because positive and negative have nothing to do with dialectic and had nothing to do with Fatah's supposed transformation. Dialectic is not about the conversion of positive into negative, nor the struggle between "good" and "evil" or the tallying of pluses and minuses. Dialectic operates in the "becoming," in the tension between the essential nature [or existence or organization] of the subject and the appearances generated by the mediation of that essence in the very process of making the essence manifest. Now I know that's much more opaque than plus and minus, positive and negative, but it's worth the struggle, becauses.... because it, dialectic, Hegel, IMO gets us out of of Kant's epistemological trap of the "thing unto itself." [even if the escape is itself a distorted, alienated one] and into, or much closer to the real content of.....history. How does Hegel get us out of the epistemological trap? I think the most condensed expression of that escape was Hegel's argument that "to know the potentialities of a thing, is to know the thing in iself" -- don't know if I have the quote down verbatim but I think that's pretty close. So the potentialities of the thing, the organization, the being, are its essence. Marx, as I stated earlier, stands Hegel on his feet rather than his head, rather than the apprehension of the world through consciousness, it is the apprehension of the material world through labor, through the organization of social labor that determines the potenialites of that specific social organization. And how, in analysis of that material world do we are the potentialities of a "thing," subject, object, political organization, economy, made manifest. Marx pretty clearly assigns that to class, to property, and to.... unending criticism. Clearly, dialectic makes manifest the "inadequacy" of a subject not based on appearance, but on its essence, upon its potential, upon its class and property organization. Now that dialectic is not metaphysics. It is social, material. It is not plus and minus, positive and negative, good and bad. And it is most certainly not a demand to refrain from criticism until... until it's too late, until surprise, surprise, the "negative" outweighs the "positive" and its time to start the whole dreary and unsuccessful process over again. Like I said at the beginning, what J offers is in essence a repetition compulsion, where we in reality adhere to things as they are. For J Marxism appears as a conformity, a subordination, of the potential to the appearance-- making Marxism fundamental anti-material, but rather ideological, and simply an excuse. I am almost prepared to bet that all of J's 'exploration' of dialectic comes the writings of one person. Almost. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leonardo Kosloff" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 5:09 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] End of short unhappy lifeof"engagement"withIranRe:FredFeldman In his latest emasculation of Marx?s ideas, Jscotlive (J) after running the usual script on the dialectic, which as far as it goes might have been written by the old Jozef himself, throws this little beauty in for good measure: From Jscotlive at aol.com Wed Aug 5 08:50:44 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:50:44 EDT Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappy lifeof"engagement"withIranRe:FredFeldmans Message-ID: Sartesian: For J Marxism appears as a conformity, a subordination, of the potential to the appearance-- making Marxism fundamental anti-material, but rather ideological, and simply an excuse. Reply: I've read Hegel, not for a while, I grant you, but then his writings were so confused they did manage to spawn both a reactionary and progressive movement at the same time. I've also read Marx (have you?) whose work on the subject of Hegel's dialectics implied, as I said, a critique and not an affirmation. And, yes, Engels's work offers us another invaluable development on the subject. You seem to think not. Perhaps because, as again I've stated, you are intent on applying your preconceived conclusion to your investigation of the data at hand, rather than extrapolating a conclusion from that investigation. You're a complete and utter fraud, Mr Safety-Sensitive Position. That I do know. From nmgoro at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 08:55:29 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:55:29 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] [Spa] [Nico Schvartz] Las bases yankis en Colombia Message-ID: <4A799D61.6080709@gmail.com> Sorry, short of time for a translation. It is my opinion that USAmerican comrades should rally against this military deployment of their own bourgeoisie in South America. -------- Mensaje original -------- Asunto: [Nico Schvartz] Las bases yankis en Colombia Fecha: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:53:36 -0300 De: Nestor Gorojovsky Responder a: nmgoro en gmail.com Para: reconquista Popular Gentileza Agencia ALC *Las bases yankis en Colombia *Agosto 4 de 2009 /Niko Schvarz/ El tema de las nuevas bases aeronavales estadounidenses en Colombia conmociona a la regi?n y a toda Am?rica. Ser? abordado en la reuni?n de Unasur y del Consejo Sudamericano de Defensa el 10 de agosto en Quito, coincidiendo con la toma de posesi?n por Rafael Correa de su segunda presidencia, en la fecha del bicentenario del primer grito de independencia de Quito (10 de agosto de 1809). All? estar?n los presidentes, pero Uribe anunci? que no concurrir?, ni tampoco su canciller Jaime Berm?dez. Se niega a discutir el tema con sus pares y quiere colocarlos ante el hecho consumado. Fuentes militares norteamericanas alegan la necesidad de buscar un reemplazo a la base de Manta, en el Pac?fico ecuatoriano, desde la cual efectuaron el ?ltimo vuelo el 17 de julio y que deben abandonar definitivamente el 15 de setiembre. Adem?s, la nueva Constituci?n ecuatoriana prohibe la instalaci?n de bases militares extranjeras en su territorio. Pero no se trata de una simple permuta sino, como se ha dicho, de una concepci?n geoestrat?gica puesta en marcha con vistas a un control continental, a una ?nueva arquitectura? del Comando Sur, al cual se vincula el Plan Colombia y su extensi?n, as? como la reactivaci?n de la IV Flota. En las actuales bases militares de Tres Esquinas y de Larandia, en el departamento de Caquet?, y de Villavicencio, en el Meta, ya operan aviones y dispositivos de inteligencia t?cnica del Pent?gono, y tambi?n personal militar estadounidense que ha estado interviniendo en el conflicto interno colombiano. (Recu?rdese que en el operativo de liberaci?n de Ingrid Betancourt tambi?n fueron rescatados tres militares yankis capturados en acci?n que fueron fletados de inmediato a su pa?s). Ya ahora est?n actuando 800 efectivos norteamericanos en las bases, adem?s de otros 600 disfrazados de ?contratados? por compa??as de seguridad, o sea vulgares mercenarios. . Su n?mero aumentar?a apreciablemente con las nuevas bases, y adem?s ese personal tendr?a un virtual estatuto de impunidad para toda clase de delitos cometidos en Colombia, como lo denuncia el Polo Democr?tico Alternativo (v?ase la nota del d?a 1? ?La amenaza de militarizaci? n?). *Las nuevas bases a instalarse son cinco*. La de Palanquero, en Puerto Salgar, Cundinamarca, en el centro, es la mayor y se proyecta a otras regiones del continente. Posee una pista de 3 mil metros, hangares para un centenar de aviones e instalaciones para 2 mil hombres. Un informe del Comando A?reo para la Movilidad de la Fuerza A?rea de EEUU denominado Estrategia Global en Ruta y revelado por el diario colombiano ?Tiempo? a fines de mayo destaca el inter?s del Comando Sur en esta base y su deseo de convertirla en una Localidad de Cooperaci?n en Seguridad (CSL) en los marcos de sus objetivos hasta 2025, a fin de dotarse de corredores a?reos y bases que le permitan mayor alcance en sus operativos. Desde all? un avi?n C-17 podr?a recorrer casi la mitad del continente sin reabastecerse, y con el combustible apropiado su totalidad con excepci?n del Cabo de Hornos, en el extremo sur. En el proyecto de presupuesto ya elevado al Congreso se prev?n 46 millones de d?lares para acondicionar y modernizar dicha base. A la misma se unir?a la de Apiay, un poco m?s al sur en los Llanos Orientales, y la de Malambo, en el departamento Atl?ntico, muy cerca de La Guajira. Dice un estudio a ese respecto: ?La ubicaci?n del tr?o conforma un semic?rculo que virtualmente rodea a Venezuela, sin contar la vecindad de Malambo con la caliente pen?nsula guajira, que ambas naciones comparten, y cuya presencia como municipio dentro del venezolano estado de Zulia explica una de las maneras en que en que el acuerdo puede ser usado por Washington para hostilizar a Venezuela. Con una gobernaci?n en manos opositoras, en el Zulia se ha denunciado la presencia de paramilitares (colombianos) y de proyectos secesionistas?. *Razones tiene Ch?vez para preocuparse, como lo viene planteando con insistencia*. Pero tampoco termina aqu? el tema, ya que los mandos militares USA buscan adem?s la concesi?n de las bases navales de Bah?a de M?laga, sobre el Pac?fico, a no mucha distancia de Ecuador y de Brasil (que tambi?n plantearon su oposici?n a las bases) y la de Cartagena, en el departamento de ese nombre, sobre el Caribe. Con ellas estar?a asegurado el desplazamiento de su marina hacia el Atl?ntico, el Pac?fico y el Caribe. Colombia ya ha recibido 5 mil millones de d?lares de Washington por el Plan Colombia en los ?ltimos a?os, y el presupuesto para la continuaci?n del plan ya fue concedido. Pero las bases a entregar a EEUU afectan a toda la regi?n. El Polo Democr?tico Alternativo est? llamando a una gran jornada nacional contra la guerra y las bases militares en Colombia, por la soberan?a nacional y la paz en la regi?n. /Publicado en La Rep?blica, 4 de agosto 2009, p?g. 42/ Enviado por "Con Todo Ahora" - Hermano From sartesian at earthlink.net Wed Aug 5 08:53:07 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:53:07 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappylifeof"engagement"withIranRe:FredFeldmans References: Message-ID: <0AD52A58745746A6B462D6C8C54931B9@dmsthinkpad> We can trade insults J, but be sure to clear yours with the Ayatollahs. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 10:50 AM Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappylifeof"engagement"withIranRe:FredFeldmans From tcod at hotmail.com Wed Aug 5 09:02:54 2009 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:02:54 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape In-Reply-To: References: <20090805034125.90F6EB004E@smtp.hushmail.com> <4A798E6E.5020209@gmail.com> Message-ID: no, but your view is a little idealized. The reason the Soviets didn't bomb German cities is because they didn't have the massive bomber fleets the British and Americans did, thus they didn't as far as I know, engage in any significant strategic bombing at any point during the war. it was part of a division of labor among the Allies quite frankly which Stalin and the Soviet regime supported. Moreover, for one thing, the massacre at the Katyn Forest is indisputable and wrong. and of course what self serving speeches Stalin made are of minor consequence. In addition, industrial capital goods and the such were stripped out of Eastern Europe and sent to the USSR-including virtually all the rolling stock. It was this that first got Tito going and led to his split with Stalin. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=PID23384::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:NF_BR_sync:082009 From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Wed Aug 5 09:13:54 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 18:13:54 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] Red Army and rape In-Reply-To: <4A798FA1.8050701@panix.com> References: <4A798FA1.8050701@panix.com> Message-ID: This is fine, Louis, on this link there is critique of Beevor's book, description of his motivation and doubfull method he uses to come to figures and expressions such as " every woman from eight to eighty" : http://derunbequeme.blogspot.com/2008/01/was-ist-dran-der-vergewaltiger-horde.html. It is in German. Second, I do not like the expression "systematic rape of German women by Russian soldiers". This requires the evidence that it was organised intentionally and consciously. The material you provide does prove the contrary that the Red Armee was the major force behind the defeat of fascism. That was the original point where the debate started. ---- Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From tcod at hotmail.com Wed Aug 5 09:14:36 2009 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:14:36 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape In-Reply-To: <4A798E6E.5020209@gmail.com> References: <20090805034125.90F6EB004E@smtp.hushmail.com> <4A798E6E.5020209@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think this is a caricature. Even if we concede that Stalin and the soviet regime were not functioning as revolutionists, it's a leap to say that the war was primarily fought with its objective against the German people. No, the objective was against the enemy's state, generally the objective of any war. That the soviets had some further chauvinistic goal of going against the German people, the way the Nazis did as part of their racist ideology against the Soviet people is not true. True the common resentment and bigotry that naturally arises among troops for the enemy populace could have been mitigated by the promotion of revolutionary ideology by the soviet government-or by religious or humanitarian propaganda etc, the effect of these sermonettes on hardened troops, whether by political officers or priests, is problematical. No, ironically I see the character of the Soviet army in its time as similar to that of Bonaparte's. It represented great power interests, but had a certain progressive character rooted in its revolutionary genesis and the character of the social system it was based on that its opponents, feudalist and fascist respectively, did not. Were they perfect? history never is or was except in comic book like screeds well intentioned, but naive Candide like people buy into. > This does not mean Satanizing Stalin or the USSR. But we should accept > that on the POLITICAL side, the war was waged as a war of revenge > against the German people not as a war of liberation from Fascism AND > capitalism. > > Methinks. > _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=PID23384::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:NF_BR_sync:082009 From tcod at hotmail.com Wed Aug 5 09:19:05 2009 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:19:05 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape In-Reply-To: <4A79978F.7020307@gmail.com> References: <20090805034125.90F6EB004E@smtp.hushmail.com> <4A798E6E.5020209@gmail.com> <4A79978F.7020307@gmail.com> Message-ID: Actually my grandfather, formerly a second-seat avaitor in WW1, was called back into service in WW2 as a JAG officer assigned to Patton's Third Army in Europe where he defended soldiers accused of crimes which included a number of African Americans accused of rape of French women. The position of the brass was that they were to be hanged (as depicted in the film "Dirty Dozen") as an example to the French population. He was proud of the fact that he never lost a man to the gallows. > Had the war been waged as a war for the extension of socialism, officers > on the field, and every soldier to the last, would have had strict > political orders to repress rapists on the spot. Shootings included, if > necessary. It is politics that leads war, not the other way round. _________________________________________________________________ Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail?. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/LearnMore/personalize.aspx?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_express:082009 From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Wed Aug 5 09:39:29 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 18:39:29 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape In-Reply-To: References: <20090805034125.90F6EB004E@smtp.hushmail.com> <4A798E6E.5020209@gmail.com> <4A79978F.7020307@gmail.com> Message-ID: http://www.uni-protokolle.de/Lexikon/Rote_Armee.html "Die F?hrung der Roten Armee versuchte das Problem seit Juni 1945 einzud?mmen jedoch anfangs wenig erfolgreich. Ab dem fr?hen Herbst wurden ertappte T?ter bestraft die Bestrafung selbst wurde vom lokalen Kommandaten verh?ngt und konnte vom mehrt?gigen Arrest bis zu einigen Jahren Straflager reichen. Kam es zu einer Vergewaltigung mit Todesfolge wurde der schuldige Soldat meist zur Abschreckung erschossen. Erst durch die Einrichtung der Besatzungsregierung in Berlin konnte das Problem dort entsch?rft werden. Seit Mitte 1947 wurde die Rote Armee auch r?umlich von der Wohnbev?lkerung getrennt. Im M?rz 1949 schlie?lich erlie? das Pr?sidium des Obersten Sowjets einen Erlass der das Strafma? vereinheitlichte und erh?hte. Eine Vergewaltigung zog zwingend eine Strafe von 10 bis 15 Jahren im Arbeitslager nach sich schwere F?lle (Minderj?hrige Gruppen Vergewaltigung mit K?rperverletzung) eine Strafe von 10 bis 20 Jahren." A rough translation of the content: This is a description of what leadership of the Red Army did against rapes. It says that the leadership first tried to stop the rape of German women. But with little success. Then since early autumn 1945 the punishment could take an arrest of many days up to some years of punishment camp. If the rape lead to the death of the victim the person concerned was shot death. In 1949 presidium of the highest Soviets determined measures to be taken against people committing rape: 10 to 15 or 10 to 20 years of punishment camp depending on the case. This clearly shows that rapes were even not tolerated. -------- Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From tcod at hotmail.com Wed Aug 5 09:40:36 2009 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:40:36 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] "Totalitarianism" In-Reply-To: References: <951D125131C34B3B9DCACD10AEDD624F@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: Sophistry or not, we need to have some EVIDENCE that the rapes committed by soviet troops were in fact any different in their character than those of the other armies discussed AND WERE PART OF A SOVIET GOVERNMENT POLICY. Yes, "materialism" is what we proceed from and that in turn is rooted in evidence which is not "rumor, conjecture, surmise" etc. You talk about the Holocaust, in which regard I just saw the excellent documentary "The Specialist" about Eichmann's trial in 1961. Show us some documents from soviets archives that order troops or promulgate a policy of promoting troops raping women. For what is worth, I think this skepticism is shared not just by ostensible Bolsheviks but by many common Russian folk, who are overall proud of the role of thier country and its people in the Great Patriotic War. Quite frankly I consider this a wild and irresponsible allegation that I'm surprised I would hear vented on a list dedicated to socialists as I consider, at this point, it to be precisely the type of stuff we hear from the Obama birthers etc on the crackpot right. I regret you have fallen for this, but if you have some actual evidence-and not some rumorized hearsay-then I'll be the first to apologize. And no, I don't glibly excuse rapes or other crimes against civilians when committed by the "good guys" whether American, German or Russian. As was pointed out in The Specialist, testimony of victims is often pretty much anecdotal as to them as individuals, which is certainly compelling, what really showed that these horrors were part of a systemic thing organized was the documentary evidence going back to the Wansee Conference that explicily planned this extermination out etc. _________________________________________________________________ Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1 From tcod at hotmail.com Wed Aug 5 09:41:30 2009 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:41:30 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape In-Reply-To: References: <20090805034125.90F6EB004E@smtp.hushmail.com> <4A798E6E.5020209@gmail.com> <4A79978F.7020307@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thank you! > A rough translation of the content: > This is a description of what leadership of the Red Army did against rapes. > It says that the leadership first tried to stop the rape of German women. > But with little success. Then since early autumn 1945 the punishment could > take an arrest of many days up to some years of punishment camp. If the rape > lead to the death of the victim the person concerned was shot death. In 1949 > presidium of the highest Soviets determined measures to be taken against > people committing rape: 10 to 15 or 10 to 20 years of punishment camp > depending on the case. > > This clearly shows that rapes were even not tolerated. > -------- > Dogan G?cmen > (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) _________________________________________________________________ Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1 From Midhurst14 at aol.com Wed Aug 5 09:45:57 2009 From: Midhurst14 at aol.com (Midhurst14 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:45:57 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Red Army and rape Message-ID: Aren't you purists forgetting what the Nazis did to Soviet womanhood George From bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 09:51:53 2009 From: bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com (Bhaskar Sunkara) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:51:53 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Red Army and rape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Aren't you purists forgetting what the Nazis did to Soviet womanhood George ------------ Why is that relevant? And is your definition of a "purist" someone who acknowledges widespread rape and abuse and sympathizes with its victims? From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Wed Aug 5 09:57:53 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 18:57:53 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] Red Army and rape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/8/5 Bhaskar Sunkara Aren't you purists forgetting what the Nazis did to Soviet womanhood George ------------ "Why is that relevant?" This is relevant because every soldier in the Red Army suffered from the loss of his relatives either by rape or otherwise by Nazis. ---------- Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From Midhurst14 at aol.com Wed Aug 5 09:57:43 2009 From: Midhurst14 at aol.com (Midhurst14 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:57:43 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Red Army and rape Message-ID: Who started the war George Anthony From nmgoro at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 10:19:21 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:19:21 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] Peaceful coexistence [was Re: Red Army and rape] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A79B109.2090305@gmail.com> Midhurst14 en aol.com escribi?: > Aren't you purists forgetting what the Nazis did to Soviet womanhood > George No, at least I do not. Nor am I a purist. To be fully honest, I don?t know what _I myself_ would have done if I had been a Soviet soldier in Germany. My own family on mother?s side was smoked away into thin air through the vents of Auschwitz. I can?t rely on myself being anything than "personal" under such circumstances. But what I try to bring to the list is that yes, Stalin?s army was much like Napoleon?s, and though I understand (and even share) in the sense of pride of both French and Soviet peoples in the glories and -objective- historic role played as soldiers of the shadow of a Revolution, as a politician I cannot but deplore the bad consequences for world revolution that the "socialist nationalist" spirit brought to all of us. Someone mentioned Tito on this kind of issues some posts back. I am with Tito. For Yugoslavians, the struggle for national liberation of the Southern Slavs was understood as part of a revolution, and thus they turned against the wrong policies of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe even though their share of blood and death at the hands of the Nazi troopers was among the highest in the war. Napoleon, as I commented yesterday, remembered too late that there was something else in the "Marseillaise" than just French elation. Stalin did not need to remember that in the "International" there was something more than the elation of the people who had attempted, for the first time, to assault Heaven succesfully. Nothing of the above can be understood as a rejection of the positive historical role of the Red Army during WWII. What I try to say is that without the extremely "patriotic" component, probably the best result of that victory wouldn?t have been, as it was, the consolidation of a welfare system in Western Europe. Probably the final result would have been socialist revolutions sweeping the same fraction of the globe. The conduct of the Soviet troops as regards the civilian populations and even the military ?lite in North Eastern Europe (somebody brought Katyn to the debate, adequately IMHO) can be traced back to the same, wrong, political idea which presided over the pacifist pressure by the Soviet Union on Communist guerrilla formations in the Mediterranean countries (maquisards, Italian partizani, the Greek communists). Peaceful coexistence with the Western bourgeoisies was a bad choice. Not only it allowed those bourgeoisies to strengthen themselves again, and strike back. It helped bury a little deeper the best legacy of October 1917. Again: I am not diminishing the overhuman effort of the Soviets. I am stating that this policy deprived that effort of its best result. It is too late to weep over spilt milk, now. But if we don?t come to terms with the mistakes of those times, we will have a harder time to launch socialist revolutions again in the core countries. I am particularly interested in what might happen in Central Eastern Europe, which from my own point of view may be the lever to launch revolutions again in Europe, or to further relapse into bourgeois (and this time almost openly Fascist) rule. From sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com Wed Aug 5 10:16:03 2009 From: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com (sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:16:03 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and dancing corpses Message-ID: <20090805161603.BA2C020042@smtp.hushmail.com> Mark wrote: >More generally, the Soviet position >was shamefully indistinguishable from >the approach of the western allies. >And the Communist Parties waged the >same propaganda campaign of national >hatred. > Here your position is simply uninformed. The Soviet position was never identical with the Western allies. Before the war the Soviets wanted a defense treaty with France, Britain and Poland to check Germany. The British refused based on their desire to keep the Soviets isolated and on the naive assumption that Poland could hold out three or four months if attacked by Germany giving the British time to mobilize and intervene. The diplomatic context for the non-aggresion pact between Hitler and Stalin was a refusal by Britain and France to even consider an alliance with the Soviet Union. After Barbarossa the desperate straits of the Soviets was amply demonstrated by Vojtech Mastny in "Russia's Road to the Cold War." He convinced me that after Stalingrad there was a serious proposal by the Soviet government to sign a peace with the Germans in exchange for a total withdrawal of their troops. Making a separate peace would not have been an admirable thing to do but it was understandable given the exhaustion of the Soviet people. After the war Stalin clearly favored a untied, neutral, and de-miitarized Germany. It was courtesy of the Western allies that the world got the Cold War instead. >And the Communist Parties waged the >same propaganda campaign of national hatred. Let's look at what actually happened with the most important CP in this assertion, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. You are right on the national and racial hatred peddled by the Western Allies. I was just reading a British newspaper from July, 1944 with this choice phrase: "The Germans as a nation are without remorse, without generosity of spirit, understanding nothing but brute force." This was the tone of Western allied propaganda from the beginning to the end of the war and as regarded Japan it was much worse. By contradistinction Soviet propaganda went through three distinct phases. In the beginning of the conflict there were references, and appeals, to "Brother German workers." As the situation grew more desperate this was replaced by "Comrade, kill your German." Finally as the Soviet Army advanced into German itself the propaganda shifted to distinguishing Nazism as distinct from the German people. >Even in death, the corpse of the USSR >prances about aping the western >capitalist powers by lying about its >past record. > What are you talking about? Is your problem with history or the fact that not everyone on the left buys the "totalitarian" model for equating Stalin with Hitler and the Soviet Union with Nazi Germany? Since corpses can not lie, or prance, your problem is obviously with the living. There are plenty of political forces heavily invested in "totalitarianism" as a form of moral equivalency and they are doing so for avowedly right wing purposes. I believe this sentiment is behind the work of recent German historians stressing the suffering of Volksdeutsche refugees from who were killed or driven from their homes throughout Eastern Europe. Shall we blame communist propaganda for that wave of retribution? It wasn't fair or just but given the experience of Nazi occupation it is completely understandable and it has nothing to do with anyone's propaganda. The problem with this line of argument, and the totalitarian model in general, is that it is so interested in scoring polemical points that it frees itself from the study of history and therefore, from historical materialism. There were a good many mistakes, and a great deal of tragedy in the world's first attempt to construct a socialist state. It is important to study that record seriously and understand it for what it was, and what it was not. From schaffer at optonline.net Wed Aug 5 10:20:20 2009 From: schaffer at optonline.net (Les Schaffer) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:20:20 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] End of short unhappylifeof"engagement"withIranRe:FredFeldmans In-Reply-To: <0AD52A58745746A6B462D6C8C54931B9@dmsthinkpad> References: <0AD52A58745746A6B462D6C8C54931B9@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: <4A79B144.50201@optonline.net> S. Artesian wrote: > We can trade insults J, but be sure to clear yours with the Ayatollahs. > > can you guys cool it for a while and move on to other subjects? or at least ignore each other for a while? > Perhaps, given the two dispassionate and intelligent interventions by > comrades Farmelant and Kosloff, we should go back to the beginning of the > "debate" about dialectics. right on ... speak to the rest of us and ignore each other for a bit. thanks Les From dwaltersMIA at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 10:21:25 2009 From: dwaltersMIA at gmail.com (nada) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:21:25 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] On who won WWII? Message-ID: <4A79B185.8010508@gmail.com> Nestor made a comment in passing on the "Totalitarian" thread (which seemed to calm down and drain away the "Rivers of Blood" discussion on Trotsky vs Stalin") about how WWII was won in Stalingrad and Kursk and not at Normandy etc. [It's funny because this is not the Soviet view. In fact, it's only Western Leftists, both Trotskyists and Stalinist/anti-Revisionists, that actually put this rather mythic proposition forward. In reading the very Trotskyist Militant from 1942, you will see *nothing but praise* for The Red Army. Its as if the western Allies were not in the war. And that from the anti-Stalinist left, not even the pro-Stalinist faction itself, the Daily Worker.] If you take what Nestor says, and look at this seriously, he is quite wrong, or, perhaps, only 3/4 true. We all know the 'facts' of this: biggest tank battle in the war: Kursk. Biggest land battle where armies directly confronted each other: Stalingrad. We know that about 8 out 9 German divisions were facing Russian divisions. All true. Also a half truth. One assumes that it was the Russians that won the war "almost by themselves". I think this is leftist projection based on a failed understanding on how the USSR survived. You have to ask: "if there was not a million German troops tied up in occupied western Europe...would the results have been the same?" "if *massive* allied material aid...from thousands of tanks to uniforms to food to fighter planes produced by western workers, mostly American, ...would the results have been the same?" "if Hitler faced the USSR with a neutral capitalist west...would the results have been the same?" My conclusion would of been that the USSR probably would of lost or at least been pushed back to the foothills of the Ural Mountains to rot in the cold of a Siberian winter. In fact, there are too many *numerous* instances even *with* the actual scenario the exact same that it was where Hitler's pretense of being an actual strategic genius caused the loss of Germany against Russia. Stalingrad is the best example but there are lots of others. What is not widely looked at was that the forces facing Stalingrad were only about 2/3 of the total number of army groups he sent there. The other 1/3 were sent *south east* of Stalingrad to take Baku. Post-Stalingrad western and even *Soviet* historians had said this was a huge mistake. Had that army been sent to the Volga at Stalingrad, the Wehrmacht could of *secured* a large stretch of the Volga and strengthened it's defensive lines there against the Deep Thrust counter-attacks of the Red Army. It would of cut off, probably for good, all oil flowing north on barges from Baku. End game, likely. There are too many numerous other scenarios before and after Stalingrad that could of resulted in a defeat. Add to this that the Allies were supplying the USSR and tying up *enough* troops in France and Belgium, maintaining about 1/4 of it's air force against possible bombing raids by the British, and THAT is the reason they won. David From bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 10:27:24 2009 From: bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com (Bhaskar Sunkara) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:27:24 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Red Army and rape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And I suppose if hundreds of thousands of Afghan women were to be raped by US soldiers you would mention 9/11? German civilians who were victimized should be acknowledged as victims, that was probably the reason why Louis posted those excerpts. From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Wed Aug 5 10:28:26 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 19:28:26 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and dancing corpses In-Reply-To: <20090805161603.BA2C020042@smtp.hushmail.com> References: <20090805161603.BA2C020042@smtp.hushmail.com> Message-ID: 2009/8/5 "There were a good many mistakes, and a great deal of tragedy in the world's first attempt to construct a socialist state. It is important to study that record seriously and understand it for what it was, and what it was not." This is exactly what needs to be done bur never buy in the anticommunist propaganda. Again, thank you very much for your insightful and informative contribution. -- Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From sartesian at earthlink.net Wed Aug 5 10:31:25 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:31:25 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Red Army and rape References: Message-ID: <97E7FAE4DF4748F58ED6B5F1AC30654F@dmsthinkpad> This is the point where the discussion becomes more than inane; it becomes downright oppressive. We go from arguing that Russia wanted to keep Germany intact and was trying to make a class, or semi-class distinction, between the people and the fascists; to arguing about whether or not rape was tolerated and/or programmatic in the strategy and tactics of the Red Army; to now JUSTIFYING rape as some sort of revenge. I can only imagine what the women who read this list must be thinking. Probably something along the lines of "get me out of here quick." I'm sure we're just a short post or two away from somebody channelling Eldridge Cleaver and positing that rape is a revolutionary expression by the oppressed and exploited seeking to recover their manhood that has been expropriated by _____________[fill in the blank with the ideological construct of your choice]. Isn't anyone embarrassed by this crap appearing on the list? I know the real content of history is not so highly regarded by those who think Trotsky was an insane adventurer and Hegel was a confused metaphysician who gave rise to reaction and those who think things aren't plus a minus are all buckler-unders and frauds, but I can't resist adding just a bit of historical detail: On Soviet advocacy of a "confederated Germany." Well, confederation it may have been, but like certain friends, the confederacy would have lacked benefits. For example, David Glantz, formerly of the US Army's War College and perhaps the foremost US authority on the Red Army and Soviet strategy during WW2 writes in "Slaughterhouse," "The Soviets retained the approximately 30 percent of Poland they occupied in 1939 and 'compensated' post-war Poland by appropriating to it, with Allied concurrence, an almost equal land mass consisting of territory than had been German for the better part of two centuries or more." As for "every soldier in the Red Army suffering loss of relatives by rape or otherwise," that too is just not the case. Nothing was more horrific that the casualties and brutality suffered over such an extended period of time by the Red Army and the Soviet population. However, by the time of the capture of Berlin, turnover in the Red Army ranks had been so severe that many of the soldiers were from areas east of the Urals that had not suffered direct fire consequences of the German, excuse me, Nazi German and allied fascist invasion. Well so much for history. I have to say, anyone trying to justify, or rationalize rape as an eye for an eye, is simply not worth talking to. And that included Eldridge Cleaver. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dogan Gocmen" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Red Army and rape > 2009/8/5 Bhaskar Sunkara > Aren't you purists forgetting what the Nazis did to Soviet womanhood > George > ------------ > > "Why is that relevant?" > > This is relevant because every soldier in the Red Army suffered from the > loss of his relatives either by rape or otherwise by Nazis. > > ---------- > Dogan G?cmen > From arthur.kunkin at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 10:41:14 2009 From: arthur.kunkin at gmail.com (Art Kunkin) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 09:41:14 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] Red Army and rape In-Reply-To: <97E7FAE4DF4748F58ED6B5F1AC30654F@dmsthinkpad> References: <97E7FAE4DF4748F58ED6B5F1AC30654F@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: My compliments to you, Mr. Artesian. You are a voice of sanity in this thread. Art Kunkin On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:31 AM, S. Artesian wrote: > This is the point where the discussion becomes more than inane; it becomes > downright oppressive. > > We go from arguing that Russia wanted to keep Germany intact and was trying > to make a class, or semi-class distinction, between the people and the > fascists; to arguing about whether or not rape was tolerated and/or > programmatic in the strategy and tactics of the Red Army; to now JUSTIFYING > rape as some sort of revenge. > > I can only imagine what the women who read this list must be thinking. > Probably something along the lines of "get me out of here quick." > > I'm sure we're just a short post or two away from somebody channelling > Eldridge Cleaver and positing that rape is a revolutionary expression by > the > oppressed and exploited seeking to recover their manhood that has been > expropriated by _____________[fill in the blank with the ideological > construct of your choice]. > > Isn't anyone embarrassed by this crap appearing on the list? I know the > real content of history is not so highly regarded by those who think > Trotsky > was an insane adventurer and Hegel was a confused metaphysician who gave > rise to reaction and those who think things aren't plus a minus are all > buckler-unders and frauds, but I can't resist adding just a bit of > historical detail: > > On Soviet advocacy of a "confederated Germany." Well, confederation it > may have been, but like certain friends, the confederacy would have lacked > benefits. For example, David Glantz, formerly of the US Army's War College > and perhaps the foremost US authority on the Red Army and Soviet strategy > during WW2 writes in "Slaughterhouse," > > "The Soviets retained the approximately 30 percent of Poland they occupied > in 1939 and 'compensated' post-war Poland by appropriating to it, with > Allied concurrence, an almost equal land mass consisting of territory than > had been German for the better part of two centuries or more." > > As for "every soldier in the Red Army suffering loss of relatives by rape > or > otherwise," that too is just not the case. Nothing was more horrific that > the casualties and brutality suffered over such an extended period of time > by the Red Army and the Soviet population. However, by the time of the > capture of Berlin, turnover in the Red Army ranks had been so severe that > many of the soldiers were from areas east of the Urals that had not > suffered > direct fire consequences of the German, excuse me, Nazi German and allied > fascist invasion. > > Well so much for history. > > I have to say, anyone trying to justify, or rationalize rape as an eye for > an eye, is simply not worth talking to. And that included Eldridge > Cleaver. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dogan Gocmen" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 11:57 AM > Subject: Re: [Marxism] Red Army and rape > > > > 2009/8/5 Bhaskar Sunkara > > Aren't you purists forgetting what the Nazis did to Soviet womanhood > > George > > ------------ > > > > "Why is that relevant?" > > > > This is relevant because every soldier in the Red Army suffered from the > > loss of his relatives either by rape or otherwise by Nazis. > > > > ---------- > > Dogan G?cmen > > > > > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/artkunkin%40gmail.com > -- I can teach YOU how you MIGHT be able to stay alive, healthy and happy for 200 years or more. Seriously! A new insight into ancient science! Please see my fre-e 'Immortality & Health Blog" at artkunkin.com. My eBook is at www.alchemyrevealed. com. To "see" me, "roll-over" my name on top) From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Wed Aug 5 10:43:57 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 19:43:57 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] Red Army and rape In-Reply-To: <97E7FAE4DF4748F58ED6B5F1AC30654F@dmsthinkpad> References: <97E7FAE4DF4748F58ED6B5F1AC30654F@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: 2009/8/5 S. Artesian > This is the point where the discussion becomes more than inane; it becomes > downright oppressive. > > In this debate I said everything I can contribute and I think generally that everything is said what is to be said. ----- Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From Midhurst14 at aol.com Wed Aug 5 10:59:19 2009 From: Midhurst14 at aol.com (Midhurst14 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:59:19 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Peaceful coexistence [was Re: Red Army and rape] Message-ID: Interesting Several factors that highlight the role of the west in the struggle against Nazism In the greatest and decisive tank battle at Kursk, the west refused to give the positions of German forces to the Soviet army That was done by one of the UK "spy" ring, subsequently labelled a traitor as was Philby, Burgess,McLean and Blunt- all recruited by James Klugman at Cambridge Generally in line with the role of the west before, during and after the war Presaged by non -intervention in Spain Forcing the Soviet Union to sign a non aggressions pact with Hitler to gain time Prior to all that of course The Nazis imprisoned the Communist's in the concentration camps before anyone else The size of the Communist vote-six million-frightened the German ruling class to death and into giving state power to Hitler King Edward the 8th was a Nazi sympathiser as was Churchill before the Jewish community bailed him out when he was broke Anything else you want to know? George Anthony From schaffer at optonline.net Wed Aug 5 11:01:34 2009 From: schaffer at optonline.net (Les Schaffer) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:01:34 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] 98% of Clean Energy Research Proposals Rejected by Obama In-Reply-To: <118a59080908050717o435b3878g27f3c7ebd0bd1dcd@mail.gmail.com> References: <118a59080908050717o435b3878g27f3c7ebd0bd1dcd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A79BAEE.7060109@optonline.net> to be clear on this, we would need to see how many applications were received this year relative to previous years. it is a feeding frenzy out there right now. i know universities are scrambling to get some of the stimulus money. i read that NIH proposals are up by a factor of TEN this year over last year. can you imagine an agency getting a ten-fold increase in funding applications within one year and yet make good decisions about outlays? the effectiveness of stimulus money at the research level has to be gauged: how many applied, who gets funded, why, and what are they promising, and what realistically can be delivered? 98% rejected is not enough information. but true too, $150M US is peanuts ... Les From markalause at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 11:06:48 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 13:06:48 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Red Army and rape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Midhurst14 at aol.com> wrote: > Aren't you purists forgetting what the Nazis did to Soviet womanhood > George > ________________________________________________ I didn't, but you lot ignored it. And, if you let the Nazis set the bar, what does that tell us? Still, I am grateful that Mindhurst has offered an excuse for what the deniers eny. ML From lnp3 at panix.com Wed Aug 5 11:12:26 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:12:26 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] G.A. Cohen died this morning Message-ID: <4A79BD7A.7020803@panix.com> http://the-brooks-blog.blogspot.com/2009/08/obituary-g-cohen-1941-2009.html From meisner at xs4all.nl Wed Aug 5 11:25:24 2009 From: meisner at xs4all.nl (Jeff) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:25:24 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] Red Army and rape In-Reply-To: <97E7FAE4DF4748F58ED6B5F1AC30654F@dmsthinkpad> References: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20090805192524.031ce898@pop.xs4all.nl> At 12:31 05/08/09 -0400, you wrote: > to now JUSTIFYING >rape as some sort of revenge. > >I can only imagine what the women who read this list must be thinking. The men too, I hope! > >Isn't anyone embarrassed by this crap appearing on the list? Yes, ME for sure! I appreciate reading this list to see what conclusions are reached by people who start from a similar background/methodology. As much as I may disagree with them, I respect their attempt to understand history and apply those lessons toward our shared goal. Sometimes I even think they are "nutty," but that just shows how much one can delude themselves and I still recognize their sincerity. But this falls into a different category: >Aren't you purists forgetting what the Nazis did to Soviet womanhood >This is relevant because every soldier in the Red Army suffered ..... The above being considered a "response" to evidence of rape by, what I must call, "our side." I am interested in hearing conflicting evidence and EXPLANATIONS for what actually did or didn't happen. But JUSTIFICATION of rape?? Such talk makes me think I'm on the wrong list. When hearing this I cannot help but remembering the (almost surely) widespread use of rape (apparently organized as a systematic policy) in the Bosnian war of the early 90's, when some "Marxists" (i.e. Stalinists) found themselves (for reasons I still cannot fathom) in alliance with the Serbian state and with the Bosnian Serbs. They had a similar blind spot to the incidence of rape. When questioned they would cringe and fall back on "there's human rights abuses by ALL sides, but we have to concentrate on opposing imperialism which is ultimately responsible......" etc. etc. >As for "every soldier in the Red Army suffering loss of relatives by rape or >otherwise," that too is just not the case. Nor would it matter. There is no such thing as a sentence of "rape" for any crime, anywhere. What's more, an army is not entitled to extract revenge, even using legal forms of punishment. But much more than that, how on earth is a German woman (who was not a soldier) to be punished for what happened to a Russian woman?!? That smacks of rape as a property crime! Need I say more? >I have to say, anyone trying to justify, or rationalize rape as an eye for >an eye, is simply not worth talking to. Or in the case of this list, I would say they have no business posting here :-( - Jeff From dwaltersMIA at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 11:51:37 2009 From: dwaltersMIA at gmail.com (nada) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:51:37 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] 98% of Clean Energy Research Proposals Rejected by Obama Message-ID: <4A79C6A9.6050203@gmail.com> Yes, it's a cluster*ck of lobbying. It mirrors in a bizarre mutated way the lobby groups for insurance have tried to kill healthcare reform (Obama's plan specifically). I've been trying to follow the energy debate and it's so centrifugal in nature as to be incomprehensible. About the only thing I think that is good that came out of it is the killing of Yucca mountain, at least it's mothballing. At least I think... David From lycophidion at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 12:01:18 2009 From: lycophidion at gmail.com (Michael Friedman) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 14:01:18 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Marxism Digest, Vol 70, Issue 13 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <709f342d0908051101qdf077f7j26132c369944800f@mail.gmail.com> Frankly, I don't have to distort your formulation, it was so moronic. Maybe you should stick to the dialectical mental masturbation you've been indulging in. No, peabrain, I wouldn't consider that "progress" -- an inapplicable, anthropocentric term, to boot -- for the reasons I've already stated. Your -- and Mage's -- points of view on this put you squarely in the creationists' camp, not because of content, but because of methodology. You can do whatever the fuck you want to, it's just that no-one who gives a shit cares. > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 00:17:44 EDT > From: Jscotlive at aol.com > Subject: [Marxism] On "progressive evolution": Was: End of short > ? ? ? ?unhappy life of"engagement"withIra > To: marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Michael: > > Nope. On this, Sartesian is absolutely on the money. Evolution does > not ?in any way entail progress, > > Reply: > > Sartesian's on nothing but crack. And your attempt to distort what I've > said does you no favours either. There is NO such thing as 'progressive > evolution' as you, not I, have termed it. But the PROCESS of evolution, without > being conscious of itself - how could it be, unless conforming to some big > idea? ?- immanently constitutes progress in terms of the natural ?selection > which lies at its root. > > Adaptability? Survival of the fittest? > > Wouldn't you say that any species or life form which survives changes in > its environment or habitat has progressed in terms of its ability to survive, > ?while those which have and do not have not? > > I would. What is more, I do. > *************************************** > -- Michael Friedman, Ph.D. City University of New York Sackler Institute for Comparative Genomics American Museum of Natural History 79th Street and Central Park West New York, NY 10024 Office: 212-313-8721 Cell: 718-812-4246 From marxistfront at yahoo.co.in Wed Aug 5 12:01:51 2009 From: marxistfront at yahoo.co.in (marxistfront at yahoo.co.in) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 23:31:51 +0530 Subject: [Marxism] Protest State Terrorism in Manipur Message-ID: Office of the Manipur Students' Association Delhi New Delhi Reference No. MSAD 20090803 /Invitation Protest State Terrorism in Manipur Invitation Dear friends, In Manipur right to life is under suspension as security personnel have become perpetrator of extra-judicial killing of civilians or fake encounter. MSAD considered that practically there is no difference between warlordism and state terrorism under the regime of Chief Minister of Manipur O. Ibobi. The gang of state sponsored terrorists rechristened as COMMANDO have become commission seekers and looters who would kill anyone for money and promotion. Several individuals were falsely implicated after they were killed in fake encounter, i.e., a civilian becoming a posthumous terrorist. The fake encounter of 23 July 2009 is a glaring example. On that gruesome day a killing spree was unleashed at the heart of the crowded Imphal City in broad daylight. It led to the killing of a pregnant woman Ms Rabina and a medical attendant Mr. Ch. Sanjit and injury of five others. In order to cover up the crime Ibobi had immediately responded with a fabricated report of the incident in the Manipur Assembly. He had charged the insurgents operating in Manipur as responsible for it. Not a single MLA in Assembly including the opposition party had raised voice for a judicial enquiry into the incident. They unanimously accepted the fabricated report prepared by O. Ibobi and his handpicked policemen. Truth was totally silenced as a result of witnesses fearing to speak out openly and there was deliberate denial of a transparent judicial enquiry. Justice was denied to the victims and those who demanded judicial enquiry were arrested. However, state terrorism in the name of suppressing insurgency orchestrated by the Government of Manipur under the leadership of O. Ibobi is being exposed once again. A detail visual report of the incident is now available at Tehelka Vol.6 Issue 31, New Delhi. (http://www.Tehelka.com). MSAD condemned terrorism in any form in any part of Manipur and any further attempt to extend state terrorism in the hills or any other parts of Manipur. MSAD demanded that O. Ibobi must not only revoke the false statement of 23 July but also resign on moral ground. MSAD demanded that the terrorists responsible for killing unarmed civilians must be dismissed from serving in the Police Department and they must be punished. Please Join Protest State Terrorism in Manipur At Manipur Bhawan, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi Date: Tuesday, 4 August 2009 Time: 10 a.m. Sd/- O. Sandhyarani Chanu, President Manipur Students' Association Delhi 3 August 2009 -- Click for exclusive coverage on the New Bajaj Pulsar 220 the fastest Indian bike http://www.zigwheels.com/Features/Bajaj-Pulsar-220-DTSi-Special-Coverage/Pul sar_20090623-1-1 _______________________________________________ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List at lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list From lycophidion at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 12:02:41 2009 From: lycophidion at gmail.com (Michael Friedman) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 14:02:41 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] On "progressive evolution": Was: End of short unhappy life of"engagement"withIra Message-ID: <709f342d0908051102s2e951a80wdae0a2a32f481856@mail.gmail.com> Frankly, I don't have to distort your formulation, it was so moronic. Maybe you should stick to the dialectical mental masturbation you've been indulging in. No, peabrain, I wouldn't consider that "progress" -- an inapplicable, anthropocentric term, to boot -- ?for the reasons I've already stated. Your -- and Mage's -- points of view on this put you squarely in the creationists' camp, not because of content, but because of methodology. You can do whatever the fuck you want to, it's just that no-one who gives a shit cares. > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 00:17:44 EDT > From: Jscotlive at aol.com > Subject: [Marxism] On "progressive evolution": Was: End of short > ? ? ? ?unhappy life of"engagement"withIra > To: marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Michael: > > Nope. On this, Sartesian is absolutely on the money. Evolution does > not ?in any way entail progress, > > Reply: > > Sartesian's on nothing but crack. And your attempt to distort what I've > said does you no favours either. There is NO such thing as 'progressive > evolution' as you, not I, have termed it. But the PROCESS of evolution, without > being conscious of itself - how could it be, unless conforming to some big > idea? ?- immanently constitutes progress in terms of the natural ?selection > which lies at its root. > > Adaptability? Survival of the fittest? > > Wouldn't you say that any species or life form which survives changes in > its environment or habitat has progressed in terms of its ability to survive, > ?while those which have and do not have not? > > I would. What is more, I do. > *************************************** > -- Michael Friedman, Ph.D. City University of New York Sackler Institute for Comparative Genomics American Museum of Natural History 79th Street and Central Park West New York, NY 10024 Office: 212-313-8721 Cell: 718-812-4246 -- Michael Friedman, Ph.D. City University of New York Sackler Institute for Comparative Genomics American Museum of Natural History 79th Street and Central Park West New York, NY 10024 Office: 212-313-8721 Cell: 718-812-4246 From Waistline2 at aol.com Wed Aug 5 12:13:55 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 14:13:55 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape Message-ID: But if the Soviet Union had NOT waged the war as a "National", "Patriotic", war, every unit to the last soldier would have known that their duty once they crossed the border was to GAIN THE GERMAN PEOPLE, AND ITS WORKING CLASS, for socialism. Massive rape and loot, on our side, the side of socialists, cannot be understood on strictly military (loss of discipline) terms but also on POLITICAL terms. On these terms, the results of the way in which Stalin waged the war (once he recovered from the mistakes that had previously taken Nazis to power in Berlin) were not exactly the best ones for socialism as a global enterprise. This does not mean Satanizing Stalin or the USSR. But we should accept that on the POLITICAL side, the war was waged as a war of revenge against the German people not as a war of liberation from Fascism AND capitalism. Comment The Soviet armed forces should have not ?looted? Germany? Why not? Why should Germany not have been ?looted?? To save the German workers? Germany should have been liberated of an equivalent value equal to that in which she took from the Soviet workers as war aggressors. The German army was not filled with capitalist but workers. It is a fact that some Soviet tanks had to throw ammunition over board to fill tanks with ?loot.? I do not think this act of ?looting? - taking back by force of arms an equal value destroyed by the German fascists, is because of the Patriotic nature of the propaganda campaign to rally the people of the Soviet Union. I believe this was called justice by the men of the Soviet Army and the party was complicit in these actions. An old Indian story is in order. I leave my teepee to hunt or hang out with the fellows, only to return and discover my wife has been brutalized and murdered, my personal belonging taken and teepee ruined. We hunt down the violator in his community. Their community chief says, ?we should not exact revenge but build this man a teepee and imprison him so as to rehabilitate him and return him to the tribe.? I say, ?I do not understand your meaning. I am here because he called for me to take his teepee and deny him the wind. I come to honor his call. ?Why should another teepee for the violator be provided? Are we to also to hunt the buffalo to feed him; bring him fresh water and another women and divert our human labor towards his protection. Why would we station men to watch him from moon to moon? Are we to also to give him our finest horse to run with the wind, rather than deny him the wind? Why should we try to perform mystery and make him one of us when he clearly is not? What is the purpose? Why do you seek to protect him and stop his call from being answered? ? The community chief says, ?we should not seek revenge for wrong inflicted against us, but seek forgiveness and class brotherhood.? I say, ?what is the meaning of ?revenge?? I do not understand the meaning of class with one who has murdered my wife and words of those who protect this taker of life. Clearly this one that has killed my wife and taken my personal things does not deserve anything other than one arrow. The call must be answered.? ?No brother, we must teach him and rehabilitate him.? I look at my other brothers, hunch my shoulder?s and say, ?then it shall be many arrows shot and half your women murdered, to answer your call. Then you will provide us with tepees, fresh water; guard us from other, hunt the buffalo for us and bring us new women to speak with. Your ways are strange indeed. ? The Soviets did not loot Germany. Expropriation of the fascist classes and supporters was not an act of looting. The capitalist and fascists loot. The proletariat expropriate. II. Rape - mass rape, may have taken place. In fact, I personally believe this did take place. Massive rape took place as an act of revenge and humiliation of ?the German.? On the political side the war was waged as a war to defeat the fascist aggressors. It was a patriotic war against capitalist fascism. It was the duty of all to defend the motherland of socialism. Those who hated socialism were called upon to defend the motherland of socialism in the basis of defending the motherland. I have never understood the objection to this patriotic call. The weakness was on the ideological side in respect to rape. Revenge was dished out. The fascist understood that their actions would drive men insane but this did not prevent them from attacking and killing everything in their way. Thus, the fascist hurt us twice with one blow. Many of the returning soldiers also raped Soviet wives after their return. There is no deed to low for fascists aggressors. The fascist understood what they were doing to drive men insane and revealed their intensions in promising the German masses ?French wine, Polish hams and Slavic slave women.? Their propaganda was highly effective and affected Soviet troops. III. >> But if the Soviet Union had NOT waged the war as a "National", "Patriotic", war, every unit to the last soldier would have known that their duty once they crossed the border was to GAIN THE GERMAN PEOPLE, AND ITS WORKING CLASS, for socialism.<< The first task of the Soviet troops crossing the border was anhilation of the enem, not to debate. WL. From markalause at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 12:21:19 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 14:21:19 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, I never thought I'd say this, making a political justification for mass rape is probably preferable to defending it by pretending it never happened. All of this came from the politics, from how the Soviets chose to regard the Germans...as nationally subhuman and beast.. On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:13 PM, wrote: > But if the Soviet Union had NOT waged the war as a "National", > "Patriotic", war, every unit to the last soldier would have known that > their duty once they crossed the border was to GAIN THE GERMAN PEOPLE, > AND ITS WORKING CLASS, for socialism. Massive rape and loot, on our > side, the side of socialists, cannot be understood on strictly military > (loss of discipline) terms but also on POLITICAL terms. > > On these terms, the results of the way in which Stalin waged the war > (once he recovered from the mistakes that had previously taken Nazis to > power in Berlin) were not exactly the best ones for socialism as a > global enterprise. > > This does not mean Satanizing Stalin or the USSR. But we should accept > that on the POLITICAL side, the war was waged as a war of revenge > against the German people not as a war of liberation from Fascism AND > capitalism. > > > Comment > > The Soviet armed forces should have not ?looted? Germany? Why not? Why > should Germany not have been ?looted?? To save the German workers? Germany > should have been liberated of an equivalent value equal to that in which she > took from the Soviet workers as war aggressors. The German army was not > filled ?with capitalist but workers. > > It is a fact that some Soviet tanks had to throw ammunition over board to > fill tanks with ?loot.? I do not think this act of ?looting? - taking back > by ?force of arms an equal value destroyed by the German fascists, is > because of the ?Patriotic nature of the propaganda campaign to rally the people > of the Soviet ?Union. I believe this was called justice by the men of the > Soviet Army and the ?party was complicit in these actions. > > An old Indian story is in order. I leave my teepee to hunt or hang out with > ?the fellows, only to return and discover my wife has been brutalized and > murdered, ?my personal belonging taken and teepee ruined. We hunt down the > violator in his community. Their community chief says, ?we should not exact > revenge but build this man a teepee and imprison him so as to rehabilitate > him ?and return him to the tribe.? > > I say, ?I do not understand your meaning. I am here because he called for > me to take his teepee and deny him the wind. I come to honor his call. > > ?Why should another teepee for the violator be provided? Are we to also to > hunt the buffalo to feed him; bring him fresh water and another women and > divert ?our human labor towards his protection. Why would we station men to > watch him ?from moon to moon? Are we to also to give him our finest horse to > run with the ?wind, rather than deny him the wind? Why should we try to > perform mystery and ?make him one of us when he clearly is not? What is the > purpose? Why do you seek ?to protect him and stop his call from being answered? ? > > > The community chief says, ?we should not seek revenge for wrong inflicted > against us, but seek forgiveness and class brotherhood.? > > I say, ?what is the meaning of ?revenge?? I do not understand the meaning > of class with one who has murdered my wife and words of those who protect > this ?taker of life. Clearly this one that has killed my wife and taken my > personal ?things does not deserve anything other than one arrow. The call must > be ?answered.? > > ?No brother, we must teach him and rehabilitate him.? > > I look at my other brothers, hunch my shoulder?s and say, ?then it shall > be ?many arrows shot and half your women murdered, to answer your call. Then > you ?will provide us with tepees, fresh water; guard us from other, hunt the > buffalo ?for us and bring us new women to speak with. Your ways are strange > indeed. ? > > The Soviets did not loot Germany. Expropriation of the fascist classes and > supporters was not an act of looting. The capitalist and fascists loot. The > ?proletariat expropriate. > > II. > > Rape - mass rape, may have taken place. In fact, I personally believe this > did take place. Massive rape took place as an act of revenge and > humiliation of ??the German.? > > On the political side the war was waged as a war to defeat the fascist > aggressors. It was a patriotic war against capitalist fascism. It was the duty > of all to defend the motherland of socialism. Those who hated socialism > were ?called upon to defend the motherland of socialism in the basis of > defending the ?motherland. > > I have never understood the objection to this patriotic call. > > The weakness was on the ideological side in respect to rape. ?Revenge ?was > dished out. The fascist understood that their actions would drive men insane > ?but this did not prevent them from attacking and killing everything in > their ?way. Thus, the fascist hurt us twice with one blow. Many of the > returning ?soldiers also raped Soviet wives after their return. There is no deed to > low for ?fascists aggressors. The fascist understood what they were doing to > drive men ?insane and revealed their intensions in promising the German > masses ?French ?wine, Polish hams and Slavic slave women.? Their propaganda > was highly effective ?and affected Soviet troops. > > > III. > >>> But if the Soviet Union had NOT waged the war as a "National", > "Patriotic", war, every unit to the last soldier would have known that > their duty once they crossed the border was to GAIN THE GERMAN PEOPLE, > AND ITS WORKING CLASS, for socialism.<< > > > The first task of the Soviet troops crossing the border was anhilation of > the enem, not to debate. > > > WL. > > > > > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/markalause%40gmail.com > From schaffer at optonline.net Wed Aug 5 12:24:59 2009 From: schaffer at optonline.net (Les Schaffer) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:24:59 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] clip quoted text (was: this and that) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A79CE7B.6020301@optonline.net> as always, when a debate heats up, the text clipping disappears. remember, everyone, clip quoted text. Les From sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com Wed Aug 5 12:33:34 2009 From: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com (sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:33:34 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape (Soldiers and socialism) Message-ID: <20090805183334.52D06B004E@smtp.hushmail.com> Nestor wrote: >Had the war been waged as a war for >the extension of socialism, >officers on the field, and every soldier >to the last, would have had strict >political orders to repress rapists >on the spot. Shootings included, if >necessary. It is politics that leads >war, not the other way round. > Nestor is absolutely right that the Red Army and the Soviet government bear the responsibility for the criminal acts committed by their soldiers in the field. We must also bear in mind though that while politics always aspires to lead war, it is not always the case. The Red soldiers, sailors and workers that stormed the Winter Palace were definitely fighting for socialism. It is also true that when the comrades discovered the vast wine cellars a good many of them were drunk off their butt for about two days before order and discipline were restored. It is evident to me that the order and discipline of the Soviet Army regarding looting and rape dissolved when they hit German territory. I believe the top leadership on the spot, political and military lost control and the atrocities ensued. It was an unbelievably savage zone of conflict at the end of an unbelievably savage campaign. In 1945 Soviet soldiers captured by the Germans were beaten to death on the spot with the small shovels (entrenching tool) carried by infantrymen. Once again, the tenet of the totalitarian school believes that the evil dictatorship has such overwhelming social control that everything done must be according to an official directive. The top Soviet priority in the spring of 1945 was to finish off the Nazis as quickly as possible and everythng else became secondary. This was tragic for German civilians and a political disaster when the Soviets had to then construct an regime in East Germany founded on the premise of eternal friensdship between the German and Soviet peoples. The security services on the ground knew this which is why they were sending those anguished reports. Does this imply that mass rape was an organized goal of Stavka and the Politburo? Mark has so contended and the evidence does not support him. Could it just be that there were many other instances in Soviet history when the party and the government were responding to events as they imperfectly understood them and, in essence, lost control of situations they were essentially reacting to? Was everything in the Stalin era a cynical ploy by people without commitment to anything other than their own murderous hold on power? This is an open historical question and one which is at the heart of Mark's vehemence toward other comrades on this list. From eindeoc at freenet.de Wed Aug 5 12:34:02 2009 From: eindeoc at freenet.de (Einde O'Callaghan) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:34:02 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape In-Reply-To: <4A79978F.7020307@gmail.com> References: <20090805034125.90F6EB004E@smtp.hushmail.com> <4A798E6E.5020209@gmail.com> <4A79978F.7020307@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A79D09A.7020609@freenet.de> Nestor Gorojovsky wrote: > Dogan Gocmen escribi??: >> To claim that there was a mass rape of women of all age would require to >> show evidence and further qualification. Was is it for example an >> intentional act or a spontaneous act. That there were rapes of German women >> is known and people from east Germany say that. And this is surely not to >> deny. But if claim is made that is was intentionally and consciously >> organised to take revenge on German people this must be shown by evidences. >> > > The below goes for loot also: > > I have NOT stated that mass rape was "intentionally and consciously > organized to take revenge on German people". I haven??t even stated that > there was "a mass rape of women of all age". We agree in that there WAS > a wave of rapes. Period. This is enough. > > Had the war been waged as a war for the extension of socialism, officers > on the field, and every soldier to the last, would have had strict > political orders to repress rapists on the spot. Shootings included, if > necessary. It is politics that leads war, not the other way round. > > They did not have them. It is me who challenges you to produce evidence > to the contrary. > If I recall correctly, during the Russian Civil War, i.e. when the Red Army was under the political leadership of Trotsky, rape was strictly forbidden and harshly punished - up to and including the death penalty. Enforcing this was one of teh roles of the political commissars. When political commissars neglected their duties they were also subject to the harshest penalties - also including the death penalty. By 1945 this was no longer the case - I've come across no reports of soldiers who raped German women being punished for doing so. I've already quoted the article by Ilya Ehrenburg, one of the major propagandists in the Soviet war effort, where he describes Germans as "animals" - not Nazi Germans, not upper-class Germans, but all Germans. This isn't an example of internationalism - and when you describe your enemies as animals then treating them (or their wives, sisters, mothers and daughters) as sub-humans is almost inevitable - and rape (which has a lot to do with power and very little to do with sex as such) is a common consequence. Einde O'Callaghan From meisner at xs4all.nl Wed Aug 5 12:38:19 2009 From: meisner at xs4all.nl (Jeff) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:38:19 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20090805203819.04c7f8ac@pop.xs4all.nl> At 14:13 05/08/09 EDT, WL2 wrote: >The Soviet armed forces should have not "looted" Germany? Why not? Well lots of reasons why not. But more importantly, this was a discussion about mass RAPE, which you address in terms of LOOTING = stealing PROPERTY. Did I get that right?? Your "old Indian story" makes the same equivalence: >"Why should another teepee for the violator be provided? Are we to also to >hunt the buffalo to feed him; bring him fresh water and another women Does anyone see a difference between bringing a needy person (rightly or wrongly) a teepee, buffalo meat, fresh water, and a WOMAN?? >The Soviets did not loot Germany. Expropriation of the fascist classes and >supporters was not an act of looting. The capitalist and fascists loot. The > proletariat expropriate. Alright, "expropriate" what? This was a discussion about rape of women. Exactly what does the proletariat have a right to "expropriate?" Is this all in my head, or do we have a different idea of what constitutes "property?" - Jeff From fred.fuentes at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 13:08:02 2009 From: fred.fuentes at gmail.com (Fred Fuentes) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:08:02 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Leftist comments on new "media law" in Venezuela? In-Reply-To: <967734.38040.qm@web65709.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <967734.38040.qm@web65709.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Adam Berg wrote: > So, basically, international bourgeois media - plus institutions like Human Rights Watch - were LYING massively? > The Attorney General Luisa Ortega, presented her proposal for such a law (the one you provide a link to). As in many other countries in the world, citizens of any stripe can present laws to parliament, which can then decided whether to debate them or not. In this case the media commission, while taking into consideration some of her proposals as part of a broader debate on the media, has explicitly stated that there is no consensus on the proposal by Ortega. To make this simple for you to understand: back in Australia, any local citizen can turn up to their local council and propose a law regarding local issues. If i turn up to one meeting and proposal a law that murder should be legalised in the local area, and the council responses by saying "interesting idea but we dont agree" does that mean its fair for the media to say local council discussing law to legalise murder? Would it be truthful of the media to say so? Or would it be more accurate to say that a sole person proposed a silly law, that until now NO ONE in the National Assembly has come to defend in its totality (although accepting that it has some valid points that are worth incorporating into the discussion). (VIDEO) Ley Especial contra los Delitos Medi?ticos a?n no cuenta con el consenso de la Asamblea Nacional Venezolana de Televisi?n (VTV) - www.aporrea.org 05/08/09 - www.aporrea.org/medios/n139944.html diputado Manuel Villalba Credito: Vtv 04 de agosto 2009. -El presidente de la Comisi?n de Medios de la Asamblea Nacional, diputado Manuel Villalba, inform? que la propuesta de Ley Especial contra los Delitos Medi?ticos a?n no cuenta con el consenso, en el seno de la Comisi?n de Medios de la Asamblea Naciona, debido a que s?lo existen propuestas que ser?n debatidas. El diputado Villalba neg? la existencia de un supuesto art?culado de la propuesta de Ley, como lo han venido difundiendo algunos medios de comunicaci?n. Destac? que seguir?n debatiendo los aportes que realiz? la Fiscal General de la Rep?blica, Luisa Ortega D?az, y convoc? a todos los sectores sociales a unirse a esta discusi?n comunicacional. "Es necesario considerar todos los elementos jur?dicos que tenemos a mano en contra del terrorismo medi?tico, convocando a los consejos comunales, trabajadores y estudiantes, a continuar en un debate en el que la sociedad venezolana debe seguir participando", coment?. Se?al? que en este debate se incluir? a los trabajadores de los medios de comunicaci?n social: periodistas, camar?grafos, t?cnicos, para que tambi?n participen en la discusi?n sobre la llamada dictadura medi?tica, que "pretenden imponer desde las grandes empresas de comunicaci?n social" nacionales e internacionales. Precis? que ese terrorismo medi?tico se refleja y se visualiza cuando hay empresas de comunicaci?n, que llaman al pueblo a desconocer las medidas que el gobierno ha tomado en el marco de la Ley Org?nica de Telecomunicaciones. "Si alg?n gobierno ha sido respetuoso de la libertad de expresi?n, ha sido precisamente ?ste. Tan s?lo que no puede nadie apoyarse en una patente de corso, y pretender decir que la libertad de expresi?n no tiene l?mite", asever?. Se?al? que la AN apoya la proposici?n presentada por la Fiscal Ortega D?az, quien mostr? preocupaci?n porque el terrorismo medi?tico sigue sin castigo. "Hoy queremos aclarar esa situaci?n, sobre todo porque hemos visto c?mo, desde el espacio internacional, pretenden hacer ver que en nuestro pa?s hay persecuci?n y limitaci?n a la libertad de expresi?n", recalc?. ?Medios de comunicaci?n o partidos pol?ticos? Desire? Santos Amaral, diputada de la Asamblea Nacional, asegur? que continuar?n promoviendo y profundizando el debate de la propuesta de Ley en todo el territorio nacional, y reiter? que "analizar?n el comportamiento de cada medio y la actitud de sus due?os", quienes s?lo buscan alcanzar sus intereses pol?ticos. Resalt? la importancia de establecer mecanismos que garanticen el derecho del pueblo a estar informado oportuna y verazmente. "Siempre se ha ejercido plenamente la libertad de expresi?n, aun cuando ha habido excesos en el uso de esa libertad". Apoy? la decisi?n del ministro Diosdado Cabello de democratizar el espectro radioel?ctrico que se inici? con las primeras 34 emisoras (32 radios y 2 televisoras). "Hay que rescatar el buen periodismo, que se debata en las redacciones tambi?n. Yo exhorto a que se apliquen las leyes, as? como lo hace el ministro con las emisoras ilegales" "El mal uso tiene que enfrentarse, porque no puede haber en el pa?s nadie que act?e con absoluta impunidad", dijo, al tiempo que asegur? que "la discusi?n de la propuesta de Ley debe centrarse en analizar los medios y en combatir el terrorismo, la zozobra y las matrices de opini?n que crean tensi?n en la poblaci?n". From eindeoc at freenet.de Wed Aug 5 13:17:26 2009 From: eindeoc at freenet.de (Einde O'Callaghan) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:17:26 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A79DAC6.3020606@freenet.de> Waistline2 at aol.com wrote: > > The Soviet armed forces should have not ???looted??? Germany? Why not? Why > should Germany not have been ???looted???? To save the German workers? Germany > should have been liberated of an equivalent value equal to that in which she > took from the Soviet workers as war aggressors. The German army was not > filled with capitalist but workers. > > It is a fact that some Soviet tanks had to throw ammunition over board to > fill tanks with ???loot.??? I do not think this act of ???looting??? - taking back > by force of arms an equal value destroyed by the German fascists, is > because of the Patriotic nature of the propaganda campaign to rally the people > of the Soviet Union. I believe this was called justice by the men of the > Soviet Army and the party was complicit in these actions. > Whatever this position represents it has nothing in common with the politics of Lenin, the Bolsheviks or the early Comintern. During the first World War Lenin and the Bolsheviks demanded a peace without reparations or annexations. The Comintern (and teh KPD) opposed the Versailles Treatey among other reasons because it demanded reparations from Germany (i.e. from the whole German people, even though it was the German ruling class that was responsible for taking Germany into teh war) and because a weakening of German industry by removing whole factories also meant a weakening of the German proletariat. After 1945 the Soviet Union annexed those parts of Poland it had occupied under the Hitler-Stalin Pact in 1939 and "compensated" Polant by giving it an equivalent area of eastern Germany. The removal of factories was a form of reparations - which did indeed weaken the proletariat in the Soviet Zone and set back industry there by about a decade - the British, French and American zones were not subjected to reparations at all (although the French did initially want them and did take over control of Saarland with its coalfields for 10 years). All in all, these policies seem to have little in common with the communism of Lenin, the Bolsheviks and the early Comintern. One final comment, many of the factories dismantled weren't (or indeed couldn't) be reconstructed within the USSR and it simply rotted or rusted. And in one respect the former Soviet Zone (later the GDR) still hasn't recovered - on many sections of the railway system where there had been two sets of tracks (one in each direction) one set was removed and sent to the USSR. Very few of these tracks were ever replaced in GDR times and some of them have still not been replaced today although on those parts of the railway system that haven't been closed down (in the run-up to privatisation) there has been major investment since German reunification. Einde O'Callaghan From lueko.willms at t-online.de Tue Aug 4 08:42:40 2009 From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:42:40 +0200 (MES) Subject: [Marxism] Question for German comrades In-Reply-To: <4A78193A.60908@freenet.de> References: <4A78193A.60908@freenet.de> Message-ID: <020.60c60600e048784a.006@lws-media.de> Einde O'Callaghan (eindeoc at freenet.de) wrote on 2009-08-04 at 13:19:22 in about Re: [Marxism] Question for German comrades: > > > It was however among local officials of the IGMetall that one of the > initiatives arose that led to the founding of the WASG, which fused with > the PDS to form DIE LINKE. What needs to be completed by mentioning that WASG is the abbreviation of _electoral_ alternative for social justice (WahlAlternative f?r Soziale Gerechtigkeit) which did explicitly just aim at the electoral arena, and with that explicitly no different and more combative line for trade union policies. In the former GDR, the PDL (Partei "Die Linke") is more a party of petty and medium entrepreneurs than one of the working class. And many of the former GDR burocrats still accuse the working people for having them stolen their good living. Cheers, L?ko Willms Frankfurt, Germany -------------------------------- From lueko.willms at t-online.de Wed Aug 5 13:19:08 2009 From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:19:08 +0200 (MES) Subject: [Marxism] Peaceful coexistence [was Re: Red Army and rape] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <010.c86d0b002cdb794a.001@lws-media.de> Midhurst14 at aol.com (Midhurst14 at aol.com) wrote on 2009-08-05 at 12:59:19 in about Re: [Marxism] Peaceful coexistence [was Re: Red Army and rape]: > > > The Nazis imprisoned the Communist's in the concentration camps before > anyone else > Anything else you want to know? How many communists were handed over to the German fascists by the Kreml burocracy? How many German and other communists were murdered in the USSR? Why did the Kreml not demand the release of Ernst Th?lmann in exchange for its role playing Hitler's quartermaster? Cheers, L?ko Willms Frankfurt, Germany -------------------------------- From shmage at pipeline.com Wed Aug 5 13:53:15 2009 From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:53:15 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Leftist comments on new "media law" in Venezuela? In-Reply-To: References: <967734.38040.qm@web65709.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8B4B067C-7AD3-43AA-B19F-798B3D73C7A7@pipeline.com> On Aug 5, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Fred Fuentes wrote: > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Adam Berg > wrote: >> So, basically, international bourgeois media - plus institutions >> like Human Rights Watch - were LYING massively? >> > > The Attorney General Luisa Ortega, presented her proposal for such a > law (the one you provide a link to). As in many other countries in the > world, citizens of any stripe can present laws to parliament... When the Attorney General of a country proposes a law she is not some "citizen of any stripe" proposing a "silly law," but a representative of the government. If she had been a acting irresponsibly, rather than floating a trial balloon, she would have been fired instantly. That she wasn't proves that Chavez's nauseating genuflection before Khamenei and his Ahmedi-nejad was not merely an ordinary act of political prostitution (like Castro's shamefaced endorsement of the Russian occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968) but expressed some real ideological agreement. Shane Mage > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it > always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, > kindling in measures and going out in measures." > > Herakleitos of Ephesos From shmage at pipeline.com Wed Aug 5 14:14:07 2009 From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 16:14:07 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] On "progressive evolution": Was: End of short unhappy life of"engagement"withIra In-Reply-To: <709f342d0908051102s2e951a80wdae0a2a32f481856@mail.gmail.com> References: <709f342d0908051102s2e951a80wdae0a2a32f481856@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4F2479FF-FC91-461E-933D-E53DF78F4B65@pipeline.com> On Aug 5, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Michael Friedman wrote: > Mage's -- point[s] of view on this put[s] > [him] squarely in the creationists' camp, not because of content, but > because of methodology... That scientific orthodoxy is Friedman's doxy we know all too well. But does he really mean that anyone who thinks she ain't worth a plugged nickel is a "creationist," at least in "methodology" (whatever that is supposed to mean)? Shane Mage > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it > always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, > kindling in measures and going out in measures." > > Herakleitos of Ephesos From e.c.apling at btinternet.com Wed Aug 5 14:22:43 2009 From: e.c.apling at btinternet.com (Paddy Apling) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:22:43 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape In-Reply-To: <4A798E6E.5020209@gmail.com> References: <20090805034125.90F6EB004E@smtp.hushmail.com> <4A798E6E.5020209@gmail.com> Message-ID: <13191CBC9A184B059DAF6738759F9A9C@PaddyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nestor Gorojovsky" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape > World War II was won by the Allies in Kursk and in Stalingrad, not in > Normandy or Monte Cassino. > > This, to begin with. And no socialist would deny that. > > But what Lause points out is an entirely different thing. > > We are socialists, so that we should have a word on the way in which the > Red Army got degraded when entering Germany. > > Yes, of course, loot and rape are "side effects" of military actions, > and massive loot and rape are side effects of massive military actions. > > But if the Soviet Union had NOT waged the war as a "National", > "Patriotic", war, every unit to the last soldier would have known that > their duty once they crossed the border was to GAIN THE GERMAN PEOPLE, > AND ITS WORKING CLASS, for socialism. Massive rape and loot, on our > side, the side of socialists, cannot be understood on strictly military > (loss of discipline) terms but also on POLITICAL terms. > Because of his first paragraphs, I will excuse Nestor for the last paragraph quoted above, because he has no experience of war - but he should read Stalin's War Speeches, where despite and as well as the concentration on the meaning for Russia of winning the Great Patriotic War he was time and time again insisting on a distiction between Fascists and the real interests of the German people. The war was truly a war of the whole people of the Soviet Union, not simply the working class who were (and still are) not the majority of its population. The successes of the concentration on the idea of a Great PatrioticWar and its linking with the socialist ideals of the Soviet Union was exemplified particularly in the great partisan efforts of the people of Byelorussia and their efforts to save the population, including its Jewish population and refugees, from the barbarism of the invading German Fascists. It is necessary for socialists to concentrate on the treachery of the ruling classes of Britain, France (and the United States - standing as it did, on the sidelines until Pearl Harbour) and to assess realistically the relationship of the vast problems faced throughout its existence by the Soviet Union and the undoubted mistakes made by its leaders - so easy to criticise in hindsight. History based on supposition of what MIGHT have happened if some other policy had been decided at the time is not Marxist history, but fantasy. As well, just remember how the situation of the poor countries of the world has deteriorated since the end of the Soviet Union, which by its mere existence held in check the depridations of the imperialists. At the end of the war I certainly would have no sympathy with anyone wailing about the sufferings of the vanquished German nation - among whom real opposition to fascism had shrunk to very small number as a result of the 12 years of Nazi oppression and the extermination of all opposition by the Nazi concentration camps and industrial mass murder. ---- and I saw at first hand the devastation wrought by the RAF and USAAF in Germany and Italy - but knew very well that this was on a different order of magnitude to the devastation caused by the German Fascists in the Soviet Union, where the human losses were much greater than those in ALL the other countries involved in the war combined. And then our leaders immediately set about creating Germany once again into a Great Power and Ally. Please comrades, learn some deep appreciation of what the world suffered from fascism and forget arguing about what might have been if some of the political struggles in the Soviet Union had concluded differently. The Soviet Union survived the greatest war in history - and saved us all. Remember. Paddy http://apling.freeservers.com From dmozart1756 at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 14:25:33 2009 From: dmozart1756 at gmail.com (Dennis Brasky) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 16:25:33 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Israel Seeks Ways to Silence Human Rights Groups In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53a1ffe70908051325i759dfd03lb6d739dd5df8e722@mail.gmail.com> > > Israel Seeks Ways to Silence Human Rights Groups > > First goal is to stop Gaza war crimes revelations > > By Jonathan Cook in Nazareth > > Groups reported to be in the foreign ministry?s sights are: B?Tselem, whose > activities include providing Palestinians with cameras to record abuses by > settlers and the army; Peace Now, which monitors settlement building; > Machsom Watch, whose activists observe soldiers at the checkpoints; and > Physicians for Human Rights, which has recently examined doctors? complicity > in torture. > > > http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23194.htm > > ------------------------------ > From Waistline2 at aol.com Wed Aug 5 14:34:25 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 16:34:25 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape Message-ID: >> Alright, "expropriate" what? This was a discussion about rape of women. Exactly what does the proletariat have a right to "expropriate?" Is this all in my head, or do we have a different idea of what constitutes "property?" <<< - Jeff This is what was stated: "Germany should have been liberated of an equivalent value equal to that in which she took from the Soviet workers as war aggressors. The German army was not filled with capitalist but workers." EQUIVALENT VALUE EQUAL TO . . . . is what was acceptable payment for crimes against the Soviet people. One does not have to demand reparations but to demand such is not wrong morally or politically. From Jscotlive at aol.com Wed Aug 5 14:40:24 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 16:40:24 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Red Army and rape Message-ID: Sartesian: As for "every soldier in the Red Army suffering loss of relatives by rape or otherwise," that too is just not the case. Nothing was more horrific that the casualties and brutality suffered over such an extended period of time by the Red Army and the Soviet population. However, by the time of the capture of Berlin, turnover in the Red Army ranks had been so severe that many of the soldiers were from areas east of the Urals that had not suffered direct fire consequences of the German, excuse me, Nazi German and allied fascist invasion. Reply: Here we go again with subjectivism masquerading as a serious analysis and rendering of history. I think a citation is required for such a bold and neat and tidy assertion that by the time of the capture of Berlin 'most' of the Soviet troops were fresh, clean and entirely unaffected recruits from the Soviet version of Bondi Beach, where the war and its consequences had passed them by. Oh yeah, they were not involved in a war of annhiliation, which Stalin called exactly right. And, no, they hadn't passed through thousands of square miles of Soviet territory laid waste, complete with mass graves of their fellow countrymen and women. No, they were sipping pina coladas, like adult boy scouts on a fun camping trip, playing soldiers. What utter ahistorical and apolitical shite. The sheer brutality of the Russian Front is impossible for historians and commentators to even come close to comprehending. The number killed alone - 25-30 million - is so huge it almost fails to register the impact n the senses it deserves. The notion that the Soviet troops would be shorn of the same human base instincts when involved in such a brutal war as any other troops is idealistic in the extreme. There is no war throughout history in which atrocities have not occurred. I'm sure Spartacus and his army committed its fair share. How about the Paris Commune? The Cuban Revolution? Atrocities, regardless of the politics involved, are part and parcel of war. It would be nice to think that the Soviet troops were all fully developed Marxists and internationalists, marching through Germany lockstep singing the Internationale, picking up recruits as they went. During such an orgy of death and slaughter such as the Russian Front all human reason goes out the window. In its place comes by turns abject terror, rage and cruelty in the extreme. In fact war in itself constitutes the ultimate in human depravity, and among every war there's ever been the war between the Soviet Union and the Nazis is probably without peer in its brutality, scale and therefore in the scale of human cruelty it unleashed. In terms of its historical significance, and the alternative of a Nazi victory and what it would have meant, the Soviet Union's victory, which in truth was the deciding factor in winning the entire war, should be heralded as a monumental leap forward in human progress. From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Wed Aug 5 14:53:10 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 23:53:10 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape In-Reply-To: <13191CBC9A184B059DAF6738759F9A9C@PaddyPC> References: <20090805034125.90F6EB004E@smtp.hushmail.com> <4A798E6E.5020209@gmail.com> <13191CBC9A184B059DAF6738759F9A9C@PaddyPC> Message-ID: "Please comrades, learn some deep appreciation of what the world suffered from fascism and forget arguing about what might have been if some of the political struggles in the Soviet Union had concluded differently. The Soviet Union survived the greatest war in history - and saved us all." Dear Paddy, thank you very much for your thoughtfull contribution. ------- Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From meisner at xs4all.nl Wed Aug 5 14:54:56 2009 From: meisner at xs4all.nl (Jeff) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:54:56 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20090805225456.02606534@pop.xs4all.nl> Me: >>> Alright, "expropriate" what? This was a discussion about rape of women. >Exactly what does the proletariat have a right to "expropriate?" > >Is this all in my head, or do we have a different idea of what constitutes >"property?" <<< > >- Jeff Your direct response (below) totally misses my point, and thus PROVES my point in a way I could hardly have done myself! - Jeff WL2: (Intentionally NOT clipped) >This is what was stated: > >"Germany should have been liberated of an equivalent value equal to that >in which she >took from the Soviet workers as war aggressors. The German army was not >filled with capitalist but workers." > >EQUIVALENT VALUE EQUAL TO . . . . is what was acceptable payment for >crimes against the Soviet people. One does not have to demand reparations but to >demand such is not wrong morally or politically. > >From time to time the issue of reparations to blacks in America - because >of slavery, is raised and discussed. Generally, I do not weigh in on this >issues because I do not advocate reparations in this instance. If anything >reparations would be North to the South under proletarian rule. In the North >a different solution would be formulated. However, those Marxists that >support reparations "for blacks" are not "politically wrong." Or morally wrong. > >I do believe such advocacy by Marxists is a view of American history with >a Northern bias. > >On the issue of reparations and the unequal treaty of the US government >with the Indian nations, I tend toward strong support for reparations and >ending the unequal treaties as immediate and long term payment for historical >crimes. > >The Soviets did not loot Germany. > >It was the German fascist that did the looting. > > From meisner at xs4all.nl Wed Aug 5 15:00:09 2009 From: meisner at xs4all.nl (Jeff) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:00:09 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] "Rape instinct"?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20090805230009.02644b74@pop.xs4all.nl> At 16:40 05/08/09 EDT, Jscotlive at aol.com wrote: > >The notion that the Soviet troops would be shorn of the same human base >instincts when involved in such a brutal war as any other troops is >idealistic in the extreme. I won't even start on this one.... - Jeff From Waistline2 at aol.com Wed Aug 5 15:05:37 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:05:37 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Peaceful coexistence [was Re: Red Army and rape] Message-ID: >> How many German and other communists were murdered in the USSR? Why did the Kreml not demand the release of Ernst Th?lmann in exchange for its role playing Hitler's quartermaster?<< Cheers, L?ko Willms Frankfurt, Germany Comment I cannot answer either question because I do not know. You could perhaps enighten me, so if asked in the future I will know. As I understand matters Stalin personally signed execution orders for over 45, 000 individuals. Were most communists? I do not know. I do view the Soviet-Nazi Pact (The Molotov?Ribbentrop Pact), no different from any other pact the Soviets had with bourgeois states. I believe the lesson of the Second World Imperialist War is why it was in fact the Second World Imperialist War. The fascists inflicted a heavy loss on the world workers. The Soviet State may have shot itself in the foot on more than one occasion but managed to hobble into Berlin. We'll see how good we do with the growing fascist wave in America. Fortunately, we have plenty of comrades who have already figured out how to wage the war. Now, all we need is some workers and destitute proletarians. WL. From Jscotlive at aol.com Wed Aug 5 15:18:37 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:18:37 EDT Subject: [Marxism] "Rape instinct"?? Message-ID: Jeff, quoting me: The notion that the Soviet troops would be shorn of the same human base >instincts when involved in such a brutal war as any other troops are >idealistic in the extreme. Then writes: I won't even start on this one.... Reply: Well, let's see. If, as I do, you consider rape a form of violence, and the purpose of war to inflict more violence on your enemy than they inflict on you; and given that the war in question was one of the most brutal and cruel in human history, why would you think that rape would not be part and parcel of the violence involved? Further, to assert that under the kind of circumstances that no one on this list, without having experienced anything close to what the troops involved in this war experienced, could possibly come close to understanding, that somehow the Red Army was made up of barbarians as opposed to the nice, clean British or American troops, surely constitutes a case of unconscious chauvinism. Neither Britain nor the US suffered a scintilla of the brutality that was visited on the Soviet Union by the Nazi hordes. Revenge, whether we wish to admit it or not, is a very basic human instinct. Look, for example, at the US reaction to 9/11, when a mere 3000 were killed. Afghanistan was turned into a parking lot, Iraq was pounded into the ground and both nations will take probably a generation to recover. Now compare 9/11 to the Nazi invasion and occupation of the Soviet Union and maintain that the reaction of the Red Army in what was, again, a war of annihilation, was not in some way inevitable, given what we know of war and how it so distorts human behaviour and reasoning. In fact, to separate out the rape from the rest of the violence inflicted in the course of this war, and, further, to focus on the rape committed by one side, reveals nothing less and is motivated by ideological disdain for the Soviet Union as a whole. From Midhurst14 at aol.com Wed Aug 5 15:38:56 2009 From: Midhurst14 at aol.com (Midhurst14 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:38:56 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape Message-ID: The Battle of El Alamein was a side show But important for Churchill and the reason he joined the war on the side of progress, to save the British Empire After all the Germans had colonies in Africa that had been lost after WW1 Chamberlain was an appeaser and the British ruling class was riddled with them, seeing Hitler's method of dealing with the organised working class as their ideal Mosley had considerable support in East London William Joyce (Lord Haw Haw) was a councillor in Shoreditch George Anthony NB Antony Beevor's book on Stalingrad showed only grudging respect for the intelligence and bravery displayed by Soviet troops, men and women What can you expect, he had been an officer in the 11th Hussars I was a National Serviceman in the Third Hussars, where the officers were either nitwits or maniacs George Anthony From jayclinton88 at yahoo.ie Wed Aug 5 15:39:41 2009 From: jayclinton88 at yahoo.ie (Jay Clinton) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:39:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Marxism] "Rape instinct"?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <942812.17156.qm@web24711.mail.ird.yahoo.com> ? I think there is a problem in using the word "instinct" here... When you put homo sapien in a war, with all its debasement of personalities, you get atrocities. This is empirically true. That the behavior is a not-uncommon response by many homo sapiens? in this given situation does not make it "instinct."? The human animal is not a blank slate, but instinct would have to be true across gender and culture and time. Did a majority commit atrocities such as rape? I don't think so. Did women? I am therefore guessing that the word "instinct" was used here more generically, but imprecisely on? a list where science is commonly discussed. --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Jscotlive at aol.com wrote: From: Jscotlive at aol.com Subject: [Marxism] "Rape instinct"?? To: "jc" Date: Wednesday, 5 August, 2009, 9:18 PM Jeff, quoting me: The notion that the Soviet troops would be shorn of the same human base? >instincts when involved in such a brutal war as any other troops are? >idealistic in the extreme. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From Midhurst14 at aol.com Wed Aug 5 15:41:01 2009 From: Midhurst14 at aol.com (Midhurst14 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:41:01 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape Message-ID: For the truth about the Pearl Harbour stitch up read "Day of Deceit" by Robert B Stinnet George Anthony From Midhurst14 at aol.com Wed Aug 5 15:43:53 2009 From: Midhurst14 at aol.com (Midhurst14 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:43:53 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Peaceful coexistence [was Re: Red Army and rape] Message-ID: You tell me Where did you get our information? Readers Digest or Comic Cuts George Anthony From Midhurst14 at aol.com Wed Aug 5 15:48:38 2009 From: Midhurst14 at aol.com (Midhurst14 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:48:38 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Question for German comrades Message-ID: Have you forgotten the role of Karl Leibnicht and Rosa Luxembourg And the premature rising just before the end of the war, where a block of flats took up arms and were murdered for their pains The KPD was never destroyed by Hitler and functioned illegally inside and outside the concentration canps George Anthony From fred.fuentes at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 15:51:10 2009 From: fred.fuentes at gmail.com (Fred Fuentes) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:21:10 -0430 Subject: [Marxism] Thinking Left in Bolivia: Interview with Alvaro Garcia Linera Message-ID: Thinking Left in Bolivia: Interview with Alvaro Garcia Linera Linda Farthing, August 3, 2009 Bolivian Vice President ?lvaro Garc?a Linera first became passionate about politics during the widespread resistance to the Hugo Banzer dictatorship in 1979. Soon after, he left Bolivia to train as a mathematician at Mexico's National Autonomous University, where he was active in the Central American solidarity Movement. Drawn to sociology, he began reading everything he could in an effort to analyze the situation of Bolivia's indigenous majority population from a Marxist perspective. In Garc?a Linera's intellectual life, political questions have always been the most important. Upon his return to Bolivia, he became a founding member of the indigenous Marxist guerrilla organization EGTK (Tupac Katari Guerrilla Army), which disbanded when its leadership was captured in the early 1990s. After five years in prison, Garc?a Linera joined the sociology department at La Paz's public university. He quickly emerged as one of Bolivia's leading public intellectuals and stayed at the university until 2005, when he became Evo Morales's running mate in the presidential elections. Slender, light-skinned and tall, bundled into a Russian great coat that President Morales brought him back from Moscow, and armed with a cup of coca tea in one hand and the ubiquitous cellphone in the other, Garc?a Linera wasted little time in formalities when we sat down to talk recently. Can you describe the differences between what you call Andean-Amazonian capitalism and capitalism in Northern countries? How do you see the link between this kind of capitalism and socialism?...............rest at http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/2009/08/thinking-left-in-bolivia-interview-with.html From meisner at xs4all.nl Wed Aug 5 15:55:15 2009 From: meisner at xs4all.nl (Jeff) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:55:15 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] "Rape instinct"?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20090805235515.02ff8fec@pop.xs4all.nl> At 17:18 05/08/09 EDT, you wrote: > >Well, let's see. If, as I do, you consider rape a form of violence yes... >, and the > purpose of war to inflict more violence on your enemy than they inflict on >you That sounds like a prescription for war crimes of every sort! War is normally defended as having strategic goals and what you just described goes beyond what most armies consider acceptable even by their OWN standards! Notwithstanding that it is commonplace in practice. > and given that the war in question was one of the most brutal and >cruel in human history, why would you think that rape would not be part and >parcel of the violence involved? That was already answered by Einde O'Callaghan: >If I recall correctly, during the Russian Civil War, i.e. when the Red >Army was under the political leadership of Trotsky, rape was strictly >forbidden and harshly punished - up to and including the death penalty. >Enforcing this was one of teh roles of the political commissars. When >political commissars neglected their duties they were also subject to >the harshest penalties - also including the death penalty. This isn't a discussion about Soviet soldiers, it's about the Soviet ARMY which included a command structure. That command structure went right up to the top. That is why we hold Bush and Cheney responsible for what happened at Abu Graib, for instance, even though they cannot (easily) be directly connected to any particular act of torture. So Stalin and the CPSU are responsible both for the successes and failures but also for any systematic abuses by the military they led. Talking about "indiscipline" among the troops doesn't work either. Low ranking soldiers faced with war have an "instinct," if you will, to retreat and save their skins. Armies advance into battle because of discipline handed down from above. If that discipline had included the death sentence for rape, as it did under Trotsky's leadership (according to the above quote), would the outcome not have been quite different? >Revenge, whether we wish to >admit it or not, is a very basic human instinct. Look, for example, at the >US reaction to 9/11 Great example. Ideology and propaganda has nothing to do with it. Racism and nationalism has nothing to do with it. Just the "revenge instinct." Boy, did YOU ever get the ruling class of the hook! >In fact, to separate out the rape from the rest of the violence inflicted >in the course of this war, and, further, to focus on the rape committed by >one side I wasn't focusing on the rape from either side: that's a matter of history. I was focusing on the CURRENT insensitivity toward rape among "Marxists" here and now. That's a tragedy that continues to the present :-( And also: >Further, to assert that ..... >somehow the Red Army was made up of barbarians as opposed to the nice, >clean British or American troops, surely constitutes a case of unconscious >chauvinism. Yes it would. Everyone on this list who has stated that position should be kicked off immediately. - Jeff From sartesian at earthlink.net Wed Aug 5 15:58:05 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:58:05 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Red Army and rape References: Message-ID: <31869B02353244549771DE5E28968081@dmsthinkpad> Geez you are an insufferable moron. A claim was made and utilized, as an excuse, a rationalization for rape that EVERY Red Army soldier had lost a relative to rape or some other barbaric practice. Every. That was the claim. I don't remember you asking for any documentation of the "every." Do you have any documentation for the "every"? Of course you don't. You got nothin. I said nothing about war of annihilation once troops are moved into combat theaters, it's always a war of annihilation. I never said "most," I said many were from the areas that had not been subject to Nazi siege. You can't even distort things properly. But let's go back into Glantz's works and get some resupply, reoutfit information: From lnp3 at panix.com Wed Aug 5 16:04:33 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:04:33 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Moderator's note Message-ID: <4A7A01F1.5050608@panix.com> 1. A number of comrades are overposting. The limit is 5 posts per day. Please keep track. 2. Comrades are beginning to become abusive. This is the main reason that I try to steer conversations away from anything having to do with the USSR. 3. I urge you to write one last thing on the Red Army, rape, etc. and then we move on. I note that comrades are beginning to repeat themselves anyway. 4. I am very busy with fiscal year end processing at work and can't pay as close attention as I normally do, but I do have a pretty good sense that things are starting to unravel. That is not good. From Midhurst14 at aol.com Wed Aug 5 16:20:19 2009 From: Midhurst14 at aol.com (Midhurst14 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 18:20:19 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Moderator's note Message-ID: Provided I'm not provoked, this is my last word George Anthony From tcod at hotmail.com Wed Aug 5 16:28:08 2009 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 22:28:08 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] "Rape instinct"?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No dude, that's not a defense that is very helpful as it assumes that this happened and then makes excuses for it. Moreover, it is a slap in the face to the millions of soviet soldiers and partisans who didn't do things like that. I'm not sure what your experiences in war or military life are, but there are plenty of people who have fought in wars and been in extreme situations and not committed these crimes; ultimately it is an unavoidable individual moral decision that a person must make in that situation which the movie "Casualties of War" depicts very well. Finally, to glibly say that since war is about violence and rape is violence means that anything goes including rape is unacceptable. > Well, let's see. If, as I do, you consider rape a form of violence, and the > purpose of war to inflict more violence on your enemy than they inflict on > you; and given that the war in question was one of the most brutal and > cruel in human history, why would you think that rape would not be part and > parcel of the violence involved? > _________________________________________________________________ Get free photo software from Windows Live http://www.windowslive.com/online/photos?ocid=PID23393::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_PH_software:082009 From poeticaleconomy at yahoo.com Wed Aug 5 17:23:09 2009 From: poeticaleconomy at yahoo.com (Max Clark) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 16:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Marxism] video of open class warfare in S.Korea Message-ID: <313720.28586.qm@web45012.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8185877.stm "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close up the factory with our?Korean dead!' So bellows president Lee Myung-Bak. (I don't have any audio on the library?computer I'm using, so excuse my ignorance as to the value of the commentary contained in the above link.) The very best, Max Clark http://clarkmax.blogspot.com/ From nmgoro at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 17:44:31 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:44:31 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] On who won WWII? In-Reply-To: <4A79B185.8010508@gmail.com> References: <4A79B185.8010508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A7A195F.9090809@gmail.com> nada escribi?: > Nestor made a comment in passing on the "Totalitarian" thread (which > seemed to calm down and drain away the "Rivers of Blood" discussion on > Trotsky vs Stalin") about how WWII was won in Stalingrad and Kursk and > not at Normandy etc. > > [It's funny because this is not the Soviet view. In fact, it's only > Western Leftists, both Trotskyists and Stalinist/anti-Revisionists, that > actually put this rather mythic proposition forward. In reading the very > Trotskyist Militant from 1942, you will see *nothing but praise* for The > Red Army. Its as if the western Allies were not in the war. And that > from the anti-Stalinist left, not even the pro-Stalinist faction itself, > the Daily Worker.] > > If you take what Nestor says, and look at this seriously, he is quite > wrong, or, perhaps, only 3/4 true. We all know the 'facts' of this: > biggest tank battle in the war: Kursk. Biggest land battle where armies > directly confronted each other: Stalingrad. We know that about 8 out 9 > German divisions were facing Russian divisions. All true. Also a half > truth. One assumes that it was the Russians that won the war "almost by > themselves". > No. This is my own opinion, based (among other and more "academic" sources) on direct conversations with local residents in Uruguay and Argentina who either lived through that war on the Russian side (anti- and pro-Soviet commentators), and on family collections. Of course, it is just an opinion. As everybody knows, opinions are like arses: there is one for each person. From nmgoro at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 17:57:31 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:57:31 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape In-Reply-To: <13191CBC9A184B059DAF6738759F9A9C@PaddyPC> References: <20090805034125.90F6EB004E@smtp.hushmail.com> <4A798E6E.5020209@gmail.com> <13191CBC9A184B059DAF6738759F9A9C@PaddyPC> Message-ID: <4A7A1C6B.6020701@gmail.com> Paddy Apling escribi?: > Because of his first paragraphs, I will excuse Nestor for the last paragraph > quoted above, because he has no experience of war Well, not of inter-imperialist war. That?s true. I know Paddy has that experience, so that I will refrain from any answer. But please remember, Paddy, that in my own country and in Latin America in general, the limits between peace and war can be hazy from time to time. From eindeoc at freenet.de Wed Aug 5 18:10:01 2009 From: eindeoc at freenet.de (Einde O'Callaghan) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 02:10:01 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape In-Reply-To: <4A7A1C6B.6020701@gmail.com> References: <20090805034125.90F6EB004E@smtp.hushmail.com> <4A798E6E.5020209@gmail.com> <13191CBC9A184B059DAF6738759F9A9C@PaddyPC> <4A7A1C6B.6020701@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A7A1F59.1020905@freenet.de> Nestor Gorojovsky wrote: > Paddy Apling escribi?: > >> Because of his first paragraphs, I will excuse Nestor for the last paragraph >> quoted above, because he has no experience of war > > Well, not of inter-imperialist war. That?s true. > > I know Paddy has that experience, so that I will refrain from any answer. > > But please remember, Paddy, that in my own country and in Latin America > in general, the limits between peace and war can be hazy from time to time. > I would also think that being a resident of Argentina you, Nestor, have experience of the class war (in the literal sense of the word) that by comparison makes the experience of most of us who live in the countries east and west of the North Atlantic fade into insignificance. Einde O'Callaghan From markalause at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 18:25:30 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 20:25:30 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Moderator's note In-Reply-To: <4A7A01F1.5050608@panix.com> References: <4A7A01F1.5050608@panix.com> Message-ID: This discussion began with the assertion that the Soviets distinguished between Germans and the Nazi state. I objected to this as a fairy tale, mentioning in particular the mass rape of what was estimated as two million German females of all ages by elements of the Red Army. In response, we were told that it never happened. We were told that it did happen, but that it was excusable because soldiers of other armies did it, because of modernization problems, etc. And we even had mass rape politically justified. As with other Fundamentalists, the faithful ignored evidence when convenient and damned the unbelievers... Through most of it was, my astonishment gave way to deep disgust... And the list wonders why there aren't more women participating in these discussions. The Marxism to which I've always adhered has never required denying discomforting facts and it has never justified anything like mass rape. I've never been as utterly ashamed of a discussion on this list on any subject as on this one. ML From humaneco at hsph.harvard.edu Wed Aug 5 18:34:30 2009 From: humaneco at hsph.harvard.edu (Richard Levins) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:34:30 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Moderator's note In-Reply-To: References: <4A7A01F1.5050608@panix.com> Message-ID: <4A79ECCA.F29D.002C.1@hsph.harvard.edu> Among all the military historians and war buffs fighting old battles, where o where is there a feminist socialist voice in this discussion? ========================= Richard Levins From sabocat59 at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 18:55:59 2009 From: sabocat59 at gmail.com (Greg McDonald) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 20:55:59 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Moderator's Note Message-ID: <6e42edf00908051755s77706e89j4107b46eb8cf9ac0@mail.gmail.com> Richard Levins wrote: Among all the military historians and war buffs fighting old battles, where o where is there a feminist socialist voice in this discussion? The few women who participate on this list, from what I understand, refer to it as marxmale. After perusing the discussion on rape, I would add "marxfail". Greg McD From shmage at pipeline.com Wed Aug 5 19:03:58 2009 From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:03:58 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] On who won WWII? In-Reply-To: <4A7A195F.9090809@gmail.com> References: <4A79B185.8010508@gmail.com> <4A7A195F.9090809@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5072D6E1-DB34-4808-AE29-AF051D5BD03E@pipeline.com> On Aug 5, 2009, at 7:44 PM, Nestor Gorojovsky wrote: > nada escribi?: >> Nestor made a comment in passing on the "Totalitarian" thread (which >> seemed to calm down and drain away the "Rivers of Blood" discussion >> on >> Trotsky vs Stalin") about how WWII was won in Stalingrad and Kursk >> and >> not at Normandy etc. >> Though the war was not "won in Stalingrad and Kursk," it was won (or, for the Wehrmacht, lost) in the sense of *decided* at Stalingrad and Kursk. Everything afterward was endgame, sadistically protracted by the criminal, barbarous, counterrevolutionary policy of Unconditional Surrender so adamantly insisted on by all the Big Three. Shane Mage > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it > always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, > kindling in measures and going out in measures." > > Herakleitos of Ephesos From mqduck at mqduck.net Wed Aug 5 19:10:06 2009 From: mqduck at mqduck.net (Jeffrey Thomas Piercy) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:10:06 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] Moderator's Note In-Reply-To: <6e42edf00908051755s77706e89j4107b46eb8cf9ac0@mail.gmail.com> References: <6e42edf00908051755s77706e89j4107b46eb8cf9ac0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A7A2D6E.9030308@mqduck.net> Greg McDonald wrote: > Richard Levins wrote: > > After perusing the discussion on rape, I > would add "marxfail". I do hope 4chan memes aren't starting to enter this list. http://images.google.com/images?q=fail From lnp3 at panix.com Wed Aug 5 19:18:44 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:18:44 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Book announcement Message-ID: <4A7A2F74.5090300@panix.com> 7/30/09 Sisters and brothers, There are two pieces of good news regarding 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis Edited by Lenni Brenner 1 - The hard cover edition, 3,300 copies, has completely sold out, showing that there is a lot of interest in the topic. 2 - A new trade paperback edition is about to be published in approximately one month. There is one change from the hardcover edition, a better translation of Vladimir Jabotinsky?s ?The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs).? As his 1923 article about what he frankly called ?Zionist colonisation? is the political and military ?bible? of Binyamin Netanyahu?s Zionist-Revisionist movement, the paperback translation better expresses the mentality behind Revisionism?s 1930s ties to Mussolini and today?s Likud Party hyper-militarism. Single copy orders are at $22 plus shipping and handling. For purchases of 20 or more copies the publisher offers a 40% discount from the list price at $13.20 per copy plus shipping and handling. You can get the book in two ways. You can get signed copies by contacting me at BrennerL21 at aol.com. Tell me where you want the book sent and how, via postal mail or Fed-Ex, and I?ll give you the shipping cost to your location. Then it will go out to you when you send a check or postal money order to Lenni Brenner POB 20598 Park West Post Office NY,2 0NY 10025-1514 If you order from anywhere in the US and want to pay via Visa or Mastercard, contact the publisher at suzanne at barricadebooks.com Barricade Books 185 Bridge Plaza North Suite 308-A Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Suzanne will give you the shipping costs. For a democratic secular Palestine/Israel in a democratic secular world, Lenni Brenner BrennerL21 at aol.com www.smithbowen.net/linfame/brenner From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Wed Aug 5 19:27:01 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:27:01 +1000 Subject: [Marxism] (Aug 5) S. Korea: Ssangyong sit-in workers' appeal: `Our lives are at stake' | Links Message-ID: <4A7A3165.6080403@greenleft.org.au> KMWU/KCTU: We desperately need International Labour Organisation to make some some kind of intervention asking South Korean government to call off this extraordinarily dangerous raid and participate in negotiations over alternatives to dismissal and a future for the plant. Our union members' lives are at stake. Any international solidarity demonstrations should take place in front of South Korean embassies with the above two demands. We also appreciate it if you use any other diplomatic channels possible to ask the South Korean government to stop the raid and participate in or foster negotiations. Full article at (with graphic oics and video) http://links.org.au/node/1184 Subscribe free to Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 You can also follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism From pt_costello at yahoo.com Wed Aug 5 19:53:39 2009 From: pt_costello at yahoo.com (Pat Costello) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 18:53:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Marxism] Rape is not necessarily a consequence of war Message-ID: <746939.84683.qm@web63103.mail.re1.yahoo.com> In Susan Brownmiller's landmark book about rape, "Against Our Will", she discusses the politics of rape and war and finds that in fact, the Vietcong did not practice rape as a political policy. http://books.google.com/books?id=tHeoE5iJ1-sC&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272&dq=rape+vietcong+brownmiller&source=bl&ots=juVTu1iaIS&sig=xoxz3RffLYkm3qSJQKJB2jqliFI&hl=en&ei=ATB6SuK2DuavtgfG55joAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=rape%20vietcong%20brownmiller&f=false Discussing the issues of rape and war without referring to Brownmiller is rather like talking about the movement to abolish slavery and not referring to Harriet Beecher Stowe. From dwaltersMIA at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 20:40:26 2009 From: dwaltersMIA at gmail.com (nada) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:40:26 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] On who won WWII? Message-ID: <4A7A429A.7040409@gmail.com> Shane Mage: "Though the war was not "won in Stalingrad and Kursk," it was won (or, for the Wehrmacht, lost) in the sense of *decided* at Stalingrad and Kursk." Point taken. Probably more so that any *other* point. I actually think that the Stalingrad battle was decided before hand, by the Germans splitting their army. It allowed the Russian to crush them at Stalingrad. David From Waistline2 at aol.com Wed Aug 5 22:12:45 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 00:12:45 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Marxism: science and doctrine ...not philosophy Message-ID: "There is no possibility of tactical unity with a section of the bourgeoisie." Science and Doctrine One of the major problems in the Marxist movement is the sectarianism that develops from a confusion of the merging of science, which develops without interruption, and doctrine, which changes with every change in social development. Science: A science is a branch of knowledge dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general law. In this respect, Marxism is the science of society and functions as any other science in its field. Doctrine: A doctrine is a particular principle or policy. All doctrine ? that is to say, all policy and principles ? arise upon and utilize some assumption, fact, or scientific achievement. Let us take military doctrine, which is the most important of all doctrine. At the beginning of WWI the French High Command assumed that the French spirit of ?lan ? the spirit of attack ? or the offensive would counter balance the larger more experienced and better equipped German Army. The entire French military doctrine of WWI and consequently the strategy was built on this assumption ? and with disastrous consequences. The Japanese made this exact mistake in WWII. Marxism: The Marxist doctrine must not be confused with Marxism as a science. Marxism as a science can best be summed up as this: "In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations that correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of productions constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political, and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production ? or what is but a legal expression for the same thing ? with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation, the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relation of production never appear before the material condition of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself." This statement is a magnificent expression of social science and is the basis for all Marxist writing. So, how does doctrine arise from science? Let us take a military example. Prior to the invention of the breech-loading rifle, military doctrine called for close order mass assault upon one military force by another. Generally, one volley would be fired and the attacking force would complete the assault with bayonets and rifle butts. The scientific development of the rapid fire, breech-loading rifle and, later, the machine gun and rifled artillery forced military leader to drop the doctrine of close order mass assault in favor of open rank assault with the defending force protected by trenches. During WWI the development of motor vehicles and carbon steel presented the military with the tank which forced the abandonment of trench warfare in favor of foxholes. For example, when scientists developed jellied gasoline, the military immediately understood its use in war. Napalm forced the creation of new military doctrine that took the destructive power of napalm into consideration. In other words, each advance in science forces the practical workers movement to develop doctrine and policy compatible with those advances. Now, what was the doctrine of Marxism and under what conditions was it developed? The process was the social revolution from agriculture to industry. The development of industry had created new classes and a new economy. The big and petty bourgeoisie as well as the working class were in revolutionary struggle with the feudal political structure. In his "Address to the Communist League," Marx spelled out the principal doctrine of the working class revolutionaries as: The relation of the revolutionary workers' party to the petty-bourgeois democrats is this: it marches together with them against the faction which it aims at overthrowing, it opposes them in everything whereby they seek to consolidate their position in their own interest. This tactic was in line with the doctrine of the time which was, "For us the issue cannot be the alteration of private property but only its annihilation, not the smoothing over of class antagonisms but the abolition of classes, not the improvement of existing society but the foundation of a new one." Lenin could easily adopt not only Marxism as a science, but also then the current doctrine of Russia was going through the same historic transformation from agriculture to industry that western Europe went through a hundred years before. That doctrine had to change but little to be compatible to the specifics of the Russian revolution. Lenin writes: "A social Democrat must never for a moment forget that the proletariat will inevitably have to wage a class struggle for socialism even against the most democratic and republican bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. Hence, the absolute necessity of a separate, independent, strictly class party of Social Democracy. Hence, the temporary nature of our tactics of "striking a joint blow with the bourgeoisie" and the duty of keeping a strict watch "over our ally, as over an enemy." Once again science has created new means of production that is creating new classes and destroying the old. This time, the resulting political struggle is not between the feudal regime on the one hand and the workers and bourgeoisie on the other. This time there are no developing middle classes and the classical doctrine of Marx has no meaning for us. The science of society is more important than ever before. The principle task of the Marxist today is to create a new doctrine and consequently new tactics for this new period of time. Science developed new means of production: advanced robotics. Robotics is just as hostile to the political system based on electro-mechanics as the steam engine was to the political system based on agrarian production by combined human and animal labor. The above quoted scientific statement by Marx is completely applicable, but the doctrine is not. There is no possibility of tactical unity with a section of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie of Marx's time no longer exists. Capitalism as Marx faced it no longer exists. The science remains, but we must evolve a new revolutionary doctrine for this period. From wsredden at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 23:48:46 2009 From: wsredden at gmail.com (Shawn Redden) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 01:48:46 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Flashpoints on Honduras Message-ID: At the 30 minute mark, another fantastic report on the ground in Tegucigalpa from Tim Russo. Student resistance to a military crackdown and demands from the popular movement for a Constituent Assembly. This report is preceded by a half-hour interview with Jeremy Scahill on Blackwater. http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/52984 Solidarity, Shawn From fred.fuentes at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 23:56:04 2009 From: fred.fuentes at gmail.com (Fred Fuentes) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 01:56:04 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] U.S. appears to soften support for Honduras's Zelaya Message-ID: U.S. appears to soften support for Honduras's Zelaya Wed Aug 5, 2009 2:52pm EDT By Susan Cornwell http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5744L120090805 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. policy on Honduras' political crisis is not aimed at supporting any particular individual, the State Department said in a new letter that implied softening support for ousted President Manuel Zelaya. The letter to Republican Senator Richard Lugar contained criticism of Zelaya, saying the left-leaning former leader had taken "provocative" actions ahead of his removal by the Honduran military on June 28. The State Department also indicated severe U.S. economic sanctions were not being considered against the de facto government of Roberto Micheletti, which took over in Honduras after Zelaya removed from office. "Our policy and strategy for engagement is not based on supporting any particular politician or individual. Rather, it is based on finding a resolution that best serves the Honduran people and their democratic aspirations," Richard Verma, the assistant secretary for legislative affairs, said in the letter. "We have rejected calls for crippling economic sanctions and made clear that all states should seek to facilitate a solution without calls for violence and with respect for the principle of nonintervention," he said. The letter was dated Tuesday and obtained by Reuters on Wednesday. President Barack Obama has condemned Zelaya's ouster, refused to recognize Micheletti, cut $16.5 million in military aid to Honduras and thrown his support behind the mediation efforts of Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, whose proposals include Zelaya's reinstatement. Last week the U.S. government announced it was revoking diplomatic visas for several members of Micheletti's administration. REPUBLICAN THREAT But the State Department letter, while "energetically" condemning Zelaya's ouster on June 28, noted that the coup had been preceded by a political conflict between Zelaya and other institutions inside Honduras. "We also recognize that President Zelaya's insistence on undertaking provocative actions contributed to the polarization of Honduran society and led to a confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal," it said. Zelaya was pushing for constitutional reforms that included changing term limits for presidents. His opponents accused him of trying to seek re-election, but he denies the allegation. The Supreme Court ordered his arrest and the Honduran Congress later approved his ouster. In the letter to Lugar, the State Department also indicated the Obama administration has still not made a definite decision as to whether Zelaya's ouster constituted a coup. "We have suspended certain assistance as a policy matter pending an ongoing determination under U.S. law about the applicability of the provisions requiring termination of assistance in the event of a military coup." Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had asked the government to explain its policy on the Honduran political crisis, warning that Senate confirmation may be delayed for a diplomatic nominee for Latin America without it. The letter appeared to be a response to this request. Because of U.S. support for Zelaya, conservative Republican Senator Jim DeMint has threatened to delay a Senate vote on the nomination of Arturo Valenzuela to be assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs. DeMint welcomed the State Department letter but said the Obama administration had not gone far enough. "I'm glad to see the State Department is finally beginning to walk back its support for Manuel Zelaya and admit that his 'provocative' actions were responsible for his removal," he said through a spokesman. "These admissions are helpful, but what is necessary is for President Obama to end his support for Zelaya who broke the law and sought to become a Chavez-style dictator," DeMint said, referring to Venezuela's socialist president Hugo Chavez, an ally of Zelaya. (Editing by Kieran Murray and Paul Simao) From bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 00:25:24 2009 From: bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com (Bhaskar Sunkara) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 02:25:24 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] video of open class warfare in S.Korea In-Reply-To: <313720.28586.qm@web45012.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <313720.28586.qm@web45012.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No commentary, not much sound either. Thanks for the link. > > (I don't have any audio on the library computer I'm using, so excuse my > ignorance as to the value of the commentary contained in the above link.) > > The very best, > Max Clark > From Jscotlive at aol.com Thu Aug 6 00:31:22 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 02:31:22 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Rape Instinct? Message-ID: Tom Cod: No dude, that's not a defense that is very helpful as it assumes that this happened and then makes excuses for it. Moreover, it is a slap in the face to the millions of soviet soldiers and partisans who didn't do things like that. I'm not sure what your experiences in war or military life are, but there are plenty of people who have fought in wars and been in extreme situations and not committed these crimes; ultimately it is an unavoidable individual moral decision that a person must make in that situation which the movie "Casualties of War" depicts very well. Finally, to glibly say that since war is about violence and rape are violence means that anything goes including rape is unacceptable. Reply: I haven't made excuses for anything. What I've done rather is attempt to analyse what happened conscious of the role that the prism we are viewing the events in question through can play in said analysis. Neither do I defend what happened. But to assert, or allude, to the notion that thousands of Red Army soldiers were born or congenital rapists, without even attempting to look at the material conditions under which the atrocities in question were committed, is to lapse into a reactionary view of human nature. And to place the scale and utterly brutal nature of the war fought between the Soviet Union and the Nazis alongside other wars is to fail to give this titanic struggle its proper place in history. Yes, you're right, Casualties of War, Platoon, etc., are good examples of the ability of the individual to rebel against the commission of atrocities by the group. But in both movies, it's worth noting, it is the minority who refused to go along with the atrocities being committed not the majority. Group psychology, peer pressure, the formation of an alternate and distorted value system in the context of the rarefied conditions of combat, have to be factored into any analysis of a subject such as this. The key point is that the atrocities committed against German women by the Red Army reflect the nature of the war being waged by both sides. The atrocities committed by the Nazis - the mass executions, torture, the laying waste of entire villages and towns - I suggest made it pretty much inevitable that atrocities would be committed in return by the Red Army. Stalin had described the war as a war of annhiliation. Soviet propaganda against the Nazis was decidedly different during the war's infancy as opposed to its latter stages. Initially, it was internationalist in tone and message, separating the German state and ruling class from the German people. But as the Nazis approached Moscow it became nationalist in tone and message, focusing on the defece of the Soviet Fatherland, describing the Germans as locusts, etc. This propaganda, combined with the horrible atrocities the advancing Soviet troops witnessed against their fellow countrymen and women, was bound to have an effect on many of the troops. The atrocities committed by the Red Army reflect the brutality and cruelty of the Nazi invasion which presaged them. They are not defensible, nor even comprehensible. But then again neither was this war, which stands apart from any other in modern history in scale, brutality and cruelty. From laracrete at verizon.net Thu Aug 6 02:05:03 2009 From: laracrete at verizon.net (lara crete) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 04:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarism/Rape/World War II Message-ID: <622800FC-FCD9-4424-BBF1-4ECCF12067F1@verizon.net> "And the list wonders why there aren't more women participating in these discussions." ML Thanks for invitation. I doubt that an Iraqi/Afghani/ Palestinian woman at the present time, who has lost every men out her family and just buried her children, would participate in the discussion between academically acclaimed me, analyzing with all the coolness of the bookish knowledge the end of her life. To get some feelings about "who raped whom" I may recommend the Soviet movie ( early 70-ties), based on the Yury Nagibin's novel "The Women's Realm". ( Title preserved) Action takes a place in the godforsaken Siberian village, where there are no more men left alive but still too many and too small children, who cry for food. ( What is also not there). At the end of their struggle for survival one of 16 got the luck : her husband is wounded but alive and coming home. At the certain day all of them are gathering on the shabby train station to meet the man. Tied to the stretcher a man is brought from the train and women meet a human alive but without legs and arms. His eyes, observing the reaction, is the last moment, interrupted by the hysterical cry of his wife. I noticed that long time members of this list like movies. There was even the attempt to remember some Soviet films.("Cranes Are Flying" , how about this one?). Now, please, continue quite exciting topics like "who won the World War II?" Or -"who raped whom and how many were raped by the Reds and by the Nazi". And, please, the moderator of the list is right: do not insult each other. From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Thu Aug 6 03:38:46 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:38:46 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarism/Rape/World War II In-Reply-To: <622800FC-FCD9-4424-BBF1-4ECCF12067F1@verizon.net> References: <622800FC-FCD9-4424-BBF1-4ECCF12067F1@verizon.net> Message-ID: Lara, thank you very much for this. I have not seen them yet, but will do soon. Here is a short article by me, describing how October Revolution and Soviet Union played an emancipatory role in national liberation movements before and after the WWII. It is in German: *"Die Oktoberrevolution hat f?r die Befreiung der unterdr?ckten V?lker eine welthistorische Bedeutung. Die b?rgerlichen Ideologen m?gen heute die gro?e sozialistische Oktoberrevolution als einen Akt der ?Verr?ckten? behandeln und die F?hrer dieser gr??ten Anstrengung in der Geschichte der Menschheit mit Hitler vergleichen. Sie m?gen ?Schwarzb?cher? ?ber das ?Verbrechen? dieser Revolution, die ?wahrhaftig das bedeutendste Datum der gesamten Menschheitsgeschichte ist? (Palmiro Togliatti), schreiben. Die Europ?ische Linke (EL) mag in ihrem ?Manifest? in den revolution?ren Versuchen des 20. Jahrhunderts trotz der ?gro?en Errungenschaften? nur noch ?gro?e Niederlagen und Trag?dien? erblicken, um sich dann sofort von dieser revolution?ren Tradition abzusetzen. Doch die unterdr?ckten V?lker und die Verelendeten dieser Erde empfingen aus der sozialistischen Oktoberrevolution einen Impuls f?r die endliche und die lang ersehnte Befreiung vom Kolonialismus und der imperialistischen Unterdr?ckung. Auf dieses revolution?re Erbe darf auch heute - eben gerade auch aus Sicht der unterdr?ckten V?lker - nicht verzichtet werden.*" Read more at: https://www.secarts.org/journal/index.php?show=article&id=535. There are several web sites which published it. It basically describes what I said above by comparing Frantz Fanon's and Naz?m Hikmet's intellectual development and by this it compares Algerien and Turkish national liberation movements and more generally describes the break down of classical colonialism as a result of October Revolution and the defeat of fascism by Soviet Union. I think to understand and explan what is happening in national liberation movements it is absolutely necessary to understand the historical emancipatory role of Soviet Union. Cheers, ------ Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From sabocat59 at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 04:18:29 2009 From: sabocat59 at gmail.com (Greg McDonald) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 06:18:29 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Honduras: The Invisible Barrier, Rape as a Political Metaphor, and New Forms of Struggle Message-ID: <6e42edf00908060318x59a009f2tbe50a534dc23a044@mail.gmail.com> Yesterday the police entered the National Autonomous University of Honduras, firing rubber bullets, tear gas, water cannons, and beating students, teachers, and even the rector, as she had the temerity to approach the police to engage in dialogue. It should be noted that latin america takes great pride in a certain noble tradition: university space is never to be violated by the armed representatives of the state. It is viewed as sacred space, much like the refuge offered by a church sanctuary. So when the police entered that space yesterday, they broke an invisible barrier. Much to their credit, the students fought back with rocks, and eventually forced the police to retreat. But the damage has been done. In the second article posted below, Union president Rene Andino states that now the people need to begin to arm themselves for self defense, and human rights defender Andre Pavon applauds the actions of the students which forced the police to retreat from the campus. Of course, it was the same Andre Pavon the other day who alluded to the possibility of a direct US military intervention as a machiavellian response to the possible onset of civil war. The US military industrial complex helps to plan the coup, (which is also perhaps a soft coup against Obama), then steps back and lets Clinton play the role of disinterested mediator between two equal sides, and then is forced, reluctantly, to use force to bring an end to the violence which it wrought in the first place. Ah, such are the heavy burdens of empire! Whether or not that scenario is played out in all of its cynical and tragic implications, we may be nonetheless entering a new phase of popular struggle for popular democracy in Honduras. Recently one could discern murmurs of discontent, that "other more profound methods" of struggle were needed to confront the military dictatorship. i am reminded of a popular radio ad run frequently on radio globo, advertising the need for women to arm themselves to protect against violence. "Una mujer armada es una mujer segura", goes the refrain (An armed woman is a safe woman). This brings to mind the t-shirts some of my friends had printed up while I was a graduate student at the University of Florida, in response to a spate of rapes and violence against women on campus. The shirt had a picture of a 38 special pointing straight ahead, with the slogan emblazoned underneath "you can't rape a 38". Indeed. As the honduran citizenry comes to the profound realization of their collective political rape at the hands of what now appears to be a US backed military dictatorship, they may be on the verge of employing a similar response. Greg McDonald For video of the police invasion see: http://hondurasoye.wordpress.com/ and: http://mimalapalabrahn.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/ Honduras Coup 2009 Responses to the Coup d'etat in Honduras on Sunday June 28, with special emphasis on producing English-language versions of commentaries by Honduran scholars and editorial writers and addressing the confusion encouraged by lack of basic knowledge about Honduras. Wednesday, August 5, 2009 While State Department Waffles, Honduran University Members are Beaten As news comes that the State Department has assured Senator Richard Lugar that they do not actually support President Zelaya (confirming the opinions of most of my Honduran correspondents), that they blame him for "provoking" the coup (recalling other forms of blaming the victim whose actions draw violent responses), and that they have no intention to use their economic leverage (reassuring the Micheletti regime that they can dig in and wait and eventually they will get away with their coup), the regime's threatened escalation of violence comes to fruition, unfolding as I write in the National University campus in Tegucigalpa. Here, reports from multiple correspondents, echoed by Telesur and Tiempo (of Hondurs), note that the National Police are using tear gas, beatings, and shooting at students and faculty who were engaged in peaceful protest of the illegitimate regime that is stealing their freedoms. Among those victimized by this violence: Julietta Castellano, Rector (equivalent to Chancellor) and respected symbol of the integrity of this institution. According to Olvin Rodriguez, member of the Junta Directiva (executive committee) of the university, as they were exiting with their hands up in response to police demands, they were set upon, beaten, and thrown to the ground. He writes that "Not even in the epoch of repression by the bloody General Alvarez Martinez in the 1980s was the autonomy of the university violated as it was today." The reference is to the dictator who preceded the period of almost thirty years of constitutional rule destroyed in the coup of June 28. As Honduran commentators have argued, the damage being done to the fabric of civil society will not easily be repaired. An email report from the scene sent to me at 1:45 describes a scene of horror: A half hour ago, the police force and military of the dictatorial regime imposed on Honduras, has initiated a vandalistic offensive against the National Autonomous University of Honduras. With the pretext of dissolving a peaceful demonstration of resistance that the students were carrying out at the entry to the University in Tegucigalpa, they began to throw tear gas, and as the students fled to the interior of the university grounds, they have pursued them and continue their human hunt at this moment, with SHOTS. The Rector and members of the Junta Directiva of the University, who had come out to dialogue with the police and military, have been assaulted in their physical integrity, thrown on the ground, grabbed with blows. There are wounded, the cruel repression continues in the present moments. Colleagues, students and administrators from within the University are calling us, anguished, they cannot exit, they are shooting at them, breaking in the windows and walls, the tear gas has entered the university halls, they feel they are suffocating and are afraid to come out and be shot with bullets. Meanwhile, a second correspondent, whose father is among those trapped on the campus, writes that Radio Globo is reporting that at least three wounded have been transported by a Red Cross ambulance for medical care. These reports also say the Police Commander Somoza, supposedly in charge, disclaims any knowledge of whoever is giving orders to this contingent of police and military. Radio Globo reports that students have armed themselves with stones and are attacking the police and commandos, pushing them back, but that strong reinforcements are coming for the military. It is imperative that the US State Department NOT BE ALLOWED to ignore these latest acts of violent repression by the Honduran regime. The State Department MUST DENOUNCE these actions, and must take action to punish the regime and induce it to cease its campaign of terror against its citizens. {When pigs fly} http://www.rlp.com.ni/noticias/general/58025 Bestial represi?n enfurece a dirigentes populares (audio) Tegucigalpa. Por Dick Emanuelsson, Radio La Primer?sima. | agosto 6, 2009 El hast?o por la represi?n colma la paciencia de los dirigentes populares en Honduras. Ante la bestial represi?n que este mi?rcoles desataron los militares con los estudiantes universitarios, ya hay voces pidiendo otras formas de lucha. Andr?s Pav?n, presidente del Comit? de Derechos Humanos de Honduras (CODEH) , confiesa que "hoy he recibido una lecci?n de la resistencia en la Universidad. Los muchachos han ganado, han triunfado ac? hoy". Pav?n habl? as? de la enconada resistencia de miles de universitarios y trabajadores del a Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de Honduras (UNAH), cuyo recito fue mancillado hoy por las hordas militares de la dictadura de Michelleti. Ellos resistieron y expulsaron a los polic?as antimotines que no solamente atacaron a las desarmadas masas hondure?as en el territorio de Alma Mater, sino violent? ese territorio atacando brutalmente disparando por lo menos 150 balas de gomas m?s los gases lacrim?genas, contaba Pav?n. Ni siquiera la vicerrectora de la UNAH, Rutilia Calder?n, se salv? de la represi?n cuando intentaba de negociar con la fuerza uniformada y fue golpeada en su pecho por un agente y tirada a la calle. La Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de Honduras no apoyaba oficialmente la manifestaci?n de los estudiantes, pero cuando los polic?as empezaron a atacar a los j?venes y estos a responder con piedras, la rectora, Julieta Castellanos, sali? a mediar. Se acerc? a los uniformados para hablar, pero la empujaron hasta que se cay?. "No ten?an por qu? entrar hasta el campus universitario, vamos a demandar por eso a la polic?a", se quej?. Esta es la entrevista con Andr?s Pav?n (en mp3) Ren? Andino, presidente del Sindicato de Trabajadores de la UNAH, Sitraunah advierte al r?gimen de facto de Micheletti que el pueblo puede empezar de armarse para defenderse. "Ni en la ?poca m?s oscuras de la d?cada -80 cuando hab?a un r?gimen represivo, hab?an entrado como han hecho hoy. Vamos a luchar hasta las ?ltimas consecuencias para que el pa?s vuelva a la institucionalidad en nuestro pa?s." El pueblo y los universitarios se defienden, con piedras contra francotiradores y uniformados con todo tipos de armas. "Hoy lamentablemente solo contamos con piedras que encontramos, pero ma?ana puede ser que contamos con armas y la situaci?n va a ser diferente", asegura Andino. From versomail at verso.co.uk Thu Aug 6 05:06:18 2009 From: versomail at verso.co.uk (Verso Mail) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:06:18 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] FW: NEW TITLE FROM VERSO: PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF SODOM by TARIQ ALI Message-ID: NEW TITLE: PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF SODOM Tariq Ali Published 21st July 2009 ------------------------------- "A sharp and learned guide with a poet's touch." New York Press "Ali broadens our horizons, geographically, historically, intellectually, and politically . . . [He] has a sharp mind and wit. His mode of history-telling is lyrical and engaging, humane and passionate." The Nation "There are fewer and fewer Marxist intellectuals like Ali around these days, and we are the worse for it." The Glasgow Herald Written over the last four decades, these provocative essays and diary entries explore the links between literature, history and politics. Training a critical, imaginative and occasionally a satirical eye on the works of varied writers- including Cervantes, Tolstoy, Proust, Joyce, Musil, Roth, Powell, Platonov, Solzhenitsyn, Grossman, Munif, Goytisolo and Rushdie-Ali discusses common themes as well as polarities, first impressions and re-readings, always seeking to contextualize the text in the political and historical milieu of its creation. Inviting the reader to share in the frustrations and pleasures of world literature and showcasing Ali's range and polemical verve, this collection will be sure to attract critical attention and a wide readership. ------------------------------- TARIQ ALI is a writer and filmmaker. He has written more than a dozen books on world history and politics, as well as scripts for the stage and screen. He is an editor of the New Left Review and lives in London. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISBN 9781844673674 ?12.99 / $24.95 / Hardback / 256 pages Protocols of the Elders of Sodom is available from all good bookshops and: http://www.versobooks.com/books/ab/a-titles/ali_t_protocols_of_the_elders.shtml UK: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Protocols-Elders-Sodom-Other-Essays/dp/1844673677 http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/browse/book/isbn/9781844673674 US: http://www.amazon.com/Protocols-Elders-Sodom-Other-Essays/dp/1844673677 ---------------------------------------- Visit Verso's new blog for information on our upcoming events, new reviews and publications and special offers. http://versouk.wordpress.com/ And get updates on Twitter too! http://twitter.com/VersoBooksUK ---------------------------------------- From farmelantj at juno.com Thu Aug 6 06:46:40 2009 From: farmelantj at juno.com (farmelantj at juno.com) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:46:40 GMT Subject: [Marxism] (no subject) Message-ID: <20090806.084640.7802.0@webmail16.vgs.untd.com> New Statesman obits for Jerry Cohen and Francis Jeanson. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/cultural-capital/2009/08/ga-cohen-death-equality http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/cultural-capital/2009/08/francis-jeanson-1922-france Jim Farmelant ____________________________________________________________ You're never too old to date. Senior Dating. Click Here. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTQbQYjCjQhEzKNN5iNLRnDim3Xn8v7SG5OEw9e28WWu0Z0o7QeaH2/ From douglain at dietsoap.org Wed Aug 5 23:20:01 2009 From: douglain at dietsoap.org (Douglas Lain) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 22:20:01 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] An Interview with David Laibman on the subject of the Financial Crisis Message-ID: <5C416DD8-DFC0-45A9-802D-03BB69303454@dietsoap.org> A conversation with David Laibman: Professor of Economics at Brooklyn College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York. He is the Editor of Science & Society, the longest continuously published journal of Marxist scholarship, in any language, in the world, and the author of Deep History: A Study in Social Evolution and Human Potential(2007). He is also a fingerstyle guitarist. Q: Economics, according to the dictionary, is the branch of social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and their management. From this definition it seem pretty clear, to me at least, that economic theories are really descriptions of how social relationships and social power are set up so that the material world can be managed. So this also means that any economic crisis exposes either structural flaws built into the social order or a corruption of the social order into something all together different. To what extent do you think that the current crisis exposes flaws intrinsic to the capitalist order and to what extent are we living in a corrupted system? Is there something wrong with capitalist social relationships that naturally leads to this Ponzi economy? A: Let me begin with your definition of economics. I like it better than the one economists generally use. Economists generally define economics as the science of optimal choice, and they turn it into a kind of a logical analysis of choice among alternative uses of scarce resources and things like that which drive all of the actual social content out. The dictionary definition, the distribution and consumption of goods and services, is good, but I'd go further. I'd say it's the study of the social relations into which people enter as they reproduce their lives through their metabolism with nature. Now, do I think that the current crisis indicates structural flaws? I do. Do I think that these structural flaws mean that the system is inevitably doomed to come to an end on some date for certain? I don't. I think that Capitalism has been a remarkable engine of economic growth over recent centuries. It's survival results from its capacity to solve problems that previous systems couldn't, and to manage our productive relationships with nature, which are continually developing and evolving, in a more dynamic and efficient way. And Marx paid high credit to Capitalism along those lines. You know famously he said, although it's sometimes forgotten, that the bourgeoise in one generation had created more wealth, and had made more progress in the production and management of wealth than all preceding generations together. That Capitalism had done an enormous job. I think then, however, what his perspective indicates is that there is a transition toward a maturing of Capitalism which suggests that increasingly it in turn, from having been a source of human development becomes a break or an obstacle to human development. That's a structural flaw. The Ponzi aspect of the current crisis, the extension of financial means beyond all capacity for repayment and the vast overextension in the mortgage market for example, is the sort of thing that economists who don't look at the Capitalist system as a social system would focus on as the unique triggering incident, the specific event that defines or explains the current crisis. I think that the potential for that kind of excessive financial development always exists as the Capitalist process unfolds, but when it leans to a serious crisis that crisis itself has to be explained by looking for deeper causes, for things that are beneath the surface of that. There will always be greed. There will always be emergence of expectations that are not founded in reality. Under those circumstances it's rational for speculators in a Capitalist process to jump on the bandwagon because if you don't your competition will. So the question "Couldn't these people have seen what they were dong?" is kind of a silly question. Of course they could. Anyone who is vaguely aware of history knows that a Ponzi scheme cannot last. It has to crash. The kind of debt overhang that developed in 2007 and 2008 could not last forever. Of course, people knew that, but from an individual point of view in the struggle to for the accumulation of wealth it was perfectly rational to go ahead and do it. More of the transcript of the interview is available at the Examiner. This interview was recorded for the Diet Soap Podcast and can be heard in its entirety in episode 17. From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Aug 6 06:52:53 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:52:53 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] How Orwellian was Orwell? Message-ID: <4A7AD225.7060205@panix.com> From The Times Literary Supplement August 5, 2009 How Orwellian was Orwell? How the political and historical context of Orwell's work is often missed or ignored Richard Vinen Paul Anderson, editor ORWELL IN "TRIBUNE" "As I Please" and other writings, 1943?7 401pp. Methuen. Paperback, ?14.99. 978 0 413 7765 5 Philip Bounds ORWELL AND MARXISM The political and cultural thinking of George Orwell 253pp. I. B. Tauris. ?52.50 (US $89.50). 978 1 84511 807 5 More than any other British author of the twentieth century, George Orwell has escaped from his own time. Every schoolchild who gets as far as GCSE English will have read at least one Orwell novel, and the one that they are most likely to have read (Nineteen Eighty-Four) is, ostensibly at least, not set in Orwell?s own lifetime. Orwell was fascinated by children?s literature and some of his books have a special appeal to children (particularly, I suspect, boys in their early teens). This means that most people read Orwell before they have any sense of the period in which he wrote; indeed, before they have much sense of why it might matter to understand the period in which a writer worked. Even the most sophisticated readers take Orwell out of context. In 1940, Q. D. Leavis argued that Orwell?s early novels (the ones with clear temporal settings) were "wasted effort". Ever since then, critics have judged him largely on his long essays, and these reinforce the impression of a man outside his own time ? big enough to interpose himself between Tolstoy and Shakespeare at a time when his contemporaries were locked in petty Bloomsbury disputes. His admirers think of him as an emblem of universal integrity. Central European dissidents in the 1980s appealed to his memory, and committees of the great and good award an Orwell Prize to writers who have made their reputations writing about, say, Sweden since the 1970s. I doubt if a day passes when some politician or journalist does not denounce something or other as "Orwellian", a word that Orwell would have hated. Orwell did not enjoy such special status in the eyes of his contemporaries. Much of his writing was made up of book reviews churned out to pay the bills. The flavour of this life is captured in a short letter that he wrote to T. S. Eliot asking whether Faber might be interesting in commissioning him to translate Jacques Roberti?s ? la Belle de Nuit, a task that apparently required a command of low-life Paris argot. Some of his work seemed to fit into easily identifiable patterns. Cyril Connolly had admired Orwell since meeting him at prep school, but, in Enemies of Promise (1938), he stitched together quotations from Orwell, Hemingway and Christopher Isherwood into a single passage to show how indistinguishable "colloquial" writers could be. Both these books are designed, in part, to put Orwell back into the context of his own times. The articles he wrote for Tribune between 1943 and 1947 are gathered into a single volume with an excellent introduction by Paul Anderson. They have all been published in previous collections and some of them, such as "The Decline of the English Murder", are already well known, but publication of the Tribune articles is useful because Orwell wrote for the paper at a time when he was writing Animal Farm and thinking about Nineteen Eighty-Four. His article on Yevgeny Zamyatin?s We, a book which is sometimes seen as a model for Nineteen Eighty-Four, appeared in January 1946, though any reader of the Tribune articles will conclude that Burnham?s The Managerial Revolution was a more important influence on Orwell?s thinking. For most of this time, large parts of the British Left, including some of the other writers for Tribune, were pro-Soviet. More importantly, support for the Soviet alliance was part of the official policy of both Britain and the United States. In short, Orwell?s most famous books need to be understood against the backdrop of Yalta rather than that of, say, the Berlin airlift. The Tribune articles show how intermittent anti-Americanism, suspicion of the British ruling classes and distaste for the realpolitik of the great powers were blended with a personal dislike of Stalinism. Orwell repeatedly drew attention to facts about the Soviet Union that were inconvenient to the Western Allies; he wrote, for example, about the mass rape of women in Vienna by Russian soldiers. An article of September 1944 about the Warsaw Uprising is particularly striking; in it he asked why the British intelligentsia were so "dishonestly uncritical" of Soviet policy, but he also suggested that Western governments were moving towards a peace settlement that would hand much of Europe to Stalin. If the Tribune articles tell us mainly about Orwell after 1943, Philip Bounds sets him against the fast-changing political backdrop to his whole writing career. In the mid 1930s, the Communist International turned away from "class against class" tactics to encourage Popular Front alliances of anti-Fascist forces. This position changed with the Molotov?Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939, then changed again with the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. These gyrations produced odd consequences in Britain, a country in which there was not a large Communist party (though there were some significant figures who, as Orwell put it, believed in the Russian "mythos" ) and in which the most important leaders of the Labour Party were not tempted by an anti-Fascist alliance with the Communists. The Popular Front was supported by an odd coalition that ranged from Stafford Cripps to the Duchess of Atholl. Orwell opposed the Popular Front, or, at least, he was rude about its English supporters. During the Spanish Civil War he fought with the non-Stalinist POUM rather than the International Brigade (joined by most Communists). He reversed his position overnight in 1939: he claimed to have dreamt of war and then come downstairs to see the newspaper reports of the Molotov?Ribbentrop pact. He supported the war against Hitler and became an eloquent defender of patriotism though he also thought, at least in 1940 and 1941, that the British war effort might be combined with a revolutionary transformation of British society. His position was sometimes close to that of Trotskyists and he quoted the Trotskyite slogan "the war and the revolution are inseparable" with approval in 1941. Orwell?s interest in Trotsky, however, seems to have been rooted in a sympathy for outsiders and in the sense that, to quote his friend Malcolm Muggeridge, "Trotsky blows the gaff" on the Soviet Union. Orwell did not believe that Russia would necessarily have been less repressive if ruled by Trotsky rather than Stalin. He was not much interested in Marxist theory and his remark, apropos of T. S. Eliot, that Anglo-Catholicism was the "ecclesiastical equivalent of Trotskyism", was probably designed to annoy Trotskyites as much as Anglo-Catholics. Bounds covers all of Orwell?s writing ? the early autobiographical novels and exercises in fictionalized autobiography as well as the better-known works ? and tries to trace the themes that run through them all. In particular, he argues that, for all of his anti-Soviet talk, Orwell was influenced by Communist or fellow-travelling writers. This influence was masked by his general cussedness and by a capacity for annexing the ideas of authors he had once denounced; for example, he wrote a savage review of The Novel Today (1936) by the Communist Philip Henderson. However, Orwell?s remarks about modernism in his essay "Inside the Whale" (1940) seem to owe something to Henderson?s assault on literature that avoids "the urgent problems of the moment". Orwell even transports the same rather laboured joke from Punch ? about the young man who tells his aunt "My dear, one doesn?t write about anything; one just writes" ? from his 1936 review to his 1940 essay. The changes in Communist strategy made Orwell?s relations with its cultural commentators all the more complicated. Sometimes he seemed to draw on ideas expressed by Communist writers during the "class against class" period to attack the Popular Front, and then to draw on the Popular Front?s discovery of national culture to attack Communists after the Molotov?Ribbentrop pact. Bounds?s book is wide-ranging, stimulating and well written. I was not, however, entirely convinced by its arguments. This is partly because it is hard to prove influence. Bounds himself frequently admits that we cannot be sure that Orwell read a particular author whose ideas seem, in some respects, to run parallel to his own. Some Marxist authors whom Orwell had read seem not to have influenced him very much. He reviewed Christopher Hill?s The English Revolution 1640, though he himself did not go in for the celebration of seventeenth-century radicalism that was so common among English left-wingers ? rather unconvincingly, Bounds attributes this to the belief that Orwell?s readers were likely to be "culturally ambitious members of the lower middle class". Emphasizing Orwell?s roots on the Left means playing down his links to writers on the Right. Anthony Powell, a friend of Orwell, does not feature in this book at all. Bounds suggests that Orwell?s interest in conservative writers ? notably Rudyard Kipling ? sprang partly from a desire to answer a certain kind of Communist attack on them. Orwell wanted to show the peculiarity of English conservatism and to distinguish it from Fascism. He certainly underlined the difference between Kipling and Wodehouse and Fascists. However, there were times when he argued that Fascism itself might assume a particularly English form. In any case, he admired many right-wing writers ? including, for example, Louis-Ferdinand C?line ? for reasons that cut across his politics. Bounds?s careful researches into relatively minor English Marxists can sometimes obscure the importance of the two most important left-wingers with whom Orwell was associated: John Strachey and Victor Gollancz. Neither of these men was a member of the Communist party, though both were close to it at times. Strachey?s The Coming Crisis (1932) presented a Marxist analysis, but Strachey, like Orwell, also admired the work of some authors on the Right: he described The Waste Land as "the most important poem produced in English in our day". Gollancz was a publisher and founder, along with Strachey and Stafford Cripps, of the Left Book Club, and it is tempting to present him as a kind of antiOrwell: devious, shrewd about money, politically conformist and an intellectual who was not intelligent. Orwell himself thought privately that Gollancz was "very enterprising about left stuff and . . . not too bright". However, relations between the two men were sometimes closer than Orwell cared to admit. Gollancz published Orwell?s first book, Down and Out in Paris and London (1933), and, according to one account, it was he who chose "Orwell" as Eric Blair?s pen name (the alternatives were "Kenneth Miles" and "H. Lewis Allways"). It is true that Gollancz, or the Left Book Club, turned down Homage to Catalonia and Animal Farm, for fear of offending Communists, but the Left Book Club did publish The Road to Wigan Pier, though with an introduction by Gollancz himself in which he said that he had noted at least a hundred points with which he disagreed. It is also important to remember that there was a period, from September 1939 until the summer of 1941, when Orwell, Gollancz and Strachey were united by common distaste for what they called the Communist Party?s "betrayal of the left". Should we see Orwell as primarily a political writer? He certainly came to see himself as one. In 1946, he wrote: "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written . . . against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism . . . it is where I lacked a political purpose that I wrote lifeless books". However, not all his early work was "lifeless", and his later books are not entirely animated by politics. Throughout his career, Orwell saw that literature might be an end in itself. As a twenty-year-old policeman in Burma, during his brief attempt to flee from his destiny as a writer, he had read War and Peace and been seduced by its characters: "people about whom one would gladly go on reading for ever". He had begun the 1940s hoping to produce a three-volume family saga. Would he have returned to this apparently unpolitical work if he had believed that he would have time to finish it? The fact that Orwell was very ill for much of the period when he wrote his most famous works, and that he died in January 1950 a few months after the publication of Nineteen Eighty-Four, raises all sorts of questions. His most savage critics see his last works as reflecting the despair of a dying man ? but, for my money, Burmese Days (1934) is the most despairing of his works. And how would he have reacted to the Cold War, and to seeing his own books used as weapons in that war? Perhaps most importantly, how would an author who had defined himself in terms of failure and obscurity have reacted to wealth and fame? Richard Vinen?s book Thatcher?s Britain: The politics and social upheaval of the Thatcher era, was published earlier this year. From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Aug 6 07:19:38 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:19:38 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] War is not in our genes Message-ID: <4A7AD86A.1040300@panix.com> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.500-winning-the-ultimate-battle-how-humans-could-end-war.html Winning the ultimate battle: How humans could end war * 07 July 2009 by John Horgan * Magazine issue 2715. Subscribe and get 4 free issues. * For similar stories, visit the Genetics and Human Evolution Topic OPTIMISTS called the first world war "the war to end all wars". Philosopher George Santayana demurred. In its aftermath he declared: "Only the dead have seen the end of war". History has proved him right, of course. What's more, today virtually nobody believes that humankind will ever transcend the violence and bloodshed of warfare. I know this because for years I have conducted numerous surveys asking people if they think war is inevitable. Whether male or female, liberal or conservative, old or young, most people believe it is. For example, when I asked students at my university "Will humans ever stop fighting wars?" more than 90 per cent answered "No". Many justified their assertion by adding that war is "part of human nature" or "in our genes". But is it really? Such views certainly seem to chime with recent research on the roots of warfare. Just a few decades ago, many scholars believed that prior to civilisation, humans were "noble savages" living in harmony with each other and with nature. Not any more. Ethnographic studies, together with some archaeological evidence, suggest that tribal societies engaged in lethal group conflict, at least occasionally, long before the emergence of states with professional armies (see our timeline of weapons technology). Meanwhile, the discovery that male chimpanzees from one troop sometimes beat to death those from another has encouraged popular perceptions that warfare is part of our biological heritage. These findings about violence among our ancestors and primate cousins (see "When apes attack") have perpetuated what anthropologist Robert Sussman from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, calls the "5 o'clock news" view of human nature. Just as evening news shows follow the dictum "if it bleeds, it leads", so many accounts of human behaviour emphasise conflict. However, Sussman believes the popular focus on violence and warfare is disproportionate. "Statistically, it is more common for humans to be cooperative and to attempt to get along than it is for them to be uncooperative and aggressive towards one another," he says. And he is not alone in this view. A growing number of experts are now arguing that the urge to wage war is not innate, and that humanity is already moving in a direction that could make war a thing of the past. Among the revisionists are anthropologists Carolyn and Melvin Ember from Yale University, who argue that biology alone cannot explain documented patterns of warfare. They oversee the Human Relations Area Files, a database of information on some 360 cultures, past and present. More than nine-tenths of these societies have engaged in warfare, but some fight constantly, others rarely, and a few have never been observed fighting. "There is variation in the frequency of warfare when you look around the world at any given time," says Melvin Ember. "That suggests to me that we are not dealing with genes or a biological propensity." Anthropologist Douglas Fry of ?bo Akademi University in Turku, Finland, agrees. In his book, Beyond War, he identified 74 "non-warring cultures" that contradict the idea that war is universal. His list includes nomadic hunter-gatherers such as the !Kung of Africa, Australian Aborigines and Inuit. These examples are crucial, Fry says, because our ancestors are thought to have lived as nomadic hunter-gatherers from the emergence of the Homo lineage around 2 million years ago until the appearance of permanent settlements and agriculture less than 20,000 years ago. That time span constitutes more than 99 per cent of the evolutionary history of Homo. Fry does not deny that lethal violence probably occurred among our nomadic hunter-gatherers' forebears, but he asserts that hunter-gatherers in the modern era show little or no genuine warfare - organised fighting between rival groups. Instead, he says, most violence consists of individual aggression, often between two men fighting over a woman. These fights might occasionally precipitate feuds between groups of friends and relatives of the antagonists, but such rivalry is costly and so rarely lasts long. Humans "have a substantial capacity for dealing with conflicts non-violently", he says. One group might simply "vote with its feet" and walk away from the other. Alternatively, a third party might mediate a resolution. Or in rare cases, a man might be so compulsively aggressive and violent that others in the band would banish or even kill him. "In band society, no one likes a bully," says Fry. When battle begins Brian Ferguson of Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey, also believes that there is nothing in the fossil or archaeological record supporting the claim that our ancestors have been waging war against each other for hundreds of thousands, let alone millions, of years. The first clear-cut evidence of violence against groups as opposed to individuals appears about 14,000 years ago, he says. The evidence takes the form of mass graves of skeletons with crushed skulls, hack marks and projectile points embedded in them; rock art in Australia, Europe and elsewhere depicting battles with spears, clubs and bows and arrows; and settlements clearly fortified for protection against attacks (see "The birth of war"). War emerged when humans shifted from a nomadic existence to a settled one and was commonly tied to agriculture, Ferguson says. "With a vested interest in their lands, food stores and especially rich fishing sites, people could no longer walk away from trouble." What's more, with settlement came the production of surplus crops and the acquisition of precious and symbolic objects through trade. All of a sudden, people had far more to lose, and to fight over, than their hunter-gatherer forebears (see our timeline of weapons technology). So rather than being a product of our genes, it looks as if warfare emerged in response to a changing lifestyle. Even then it was far from inevitable, as the variability in warmongering between cultures and across time attests. The Embers have found links between rates of warfare and environmental factors, notably droughts, floods and other natural disasters that impact upon resources and provoke fears of famine. Likewise, Patricia Lambert of Utah State University in Logan found a connection between drought and warfare among the Chumash, who inhabited the coast of southern California for millennia before the arrival of Europeans (Antiquity, vol 65, p 963). Archaeologist Steven LeBlanc of Harvard University says that war is not a biological compulsion but a rational response to environmental conditions such as swelling populations and dwindling food supplies. He points out that some North American tribes fought savagely over land and other resources before the arrival of Europeans. But warfare also "stops on a dime", he says, as a result of ecological or cultural changes. In his book Constant Battles: Why we fight, LeBlanc describes how warlike Native American tribes such as the Hopi embraced peace when it was imposed on them by outsiders. "We are definitely malleable and susceptible to cultural influence," he says. Warfare is "not so hard-wired that it can't stop". Warfare on the wane Indeed, perhaps the best and most surprising news to emerge from research on warfare is that humanity as a whole is much less violent than it used to be (see our timeline of weapons technology). People in modern societies are far less likely to die in battle than those in traditional cultures. For example, the first and second world wars and all the other horrific conflicts of the 20th century resulted in the deaths of fewer than 3 per cent of the global population. According to Lawrence Keeley of the University of Illinois in Chicago, that is an order of magnitude less than the proportion of violent death for males in typical pre-state societies, whose weapons consist only of clubs, spears and arrows rather than machine guns and bombs. There have been relatively few international wars since the second world war, and no wars between developed nations. Most conflicts now consist of guerilla wars, insurgencies and terrorism - or what the political scientist John Mueller of Ohio State University in Columbus calls the "remnants of war". He notes that democracies rarely, if ever, vote to wage war against each other, and attributes the decline of warfare over the past 50 years, at least in part, to a surge in the number of democracies around the world - from 20 to almost 100. "A continuing decline in war seems to be an entirely reasonable prospect," he says. Most conflicts now consist of guerilla wars, insurgencies and terrorism - the remnants of war "Violence has been in decline over long stretches of history," agrees psychologist Steven Pinker of Harvard University. Homicide rates in modern Europe, for example, are more than 10 times lower than they were in the Middle Ages. Decreases in the rate of warfare and homicide, Pinker notes, cannot be explained by changes in human nature over such a relatively short period. Cultural changes and changes in attitude must be responsible, he says. Pinker gives several reasons for the modern decline of violence in general. First, the creation of stable nations with effective legal systems and police forces. Second, increased life expectancies that make us less willing to risk our lives through violence. Third, increasing globalisation and improvements in communications technology, which have increased our interdependence with, and empathy towards, those outside of our immediate "tribes". "The forces of modernity are making things better and better," he says. However, while war might not be inevitable, neither is peace. Nations around the world still maintain huge arsenals, including weapons of mass destruction, and armed conflicts still ravage many regions (see our timeline of weapons technology). Major obstacles to peace include the lack of tolerance inherent in religious fundamentalism, which not only triggers conflicts but often contributes to the suppression of women; global warming, which will produce ecological crises that may spark social unrest and violence; overpopulation, particularly when it produces a surplus of unmarried, unemployed young men, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. "Humans can easily backslide into war," Pinker warns. Fortunately, understanding the environmental conditions that promote war also suggests ways to limit it. LeBlanc points out that the modern focus of human competition - and the warfare that can accompany it - has shifted somewhat from food, water and land to energy. Two keys to peace, he suggests, are population control and cheap, clean, reliable alternatives to fossil fuels. Promoting the spread of participatory democracy clearly wouldn't hurt, either. Richard Wrangham of Harvard University takes another line, and makes a case for the empowerment of women. It is well known that as female education and economic opportunities rise, birth rates fall. A stabilised population decreases demands on governmental and medical services and on natural resources and, by extension, lessens the likelihood of social unrest and conflict. Since women are less prone to violence then men, Wrangham hopes that these educational and economic trends will propel more women into government. Is this all just idealistic pie-in-the-sky? Well, there is no doubt that any announcement of the end of warfare would be premature. At the very least, though, we can confidently reject the fatalistic belief that it is innate. That assumes "we're some kind of automata where aggressive genes force us to pick up knives and guns like zombies and attack each other without any thoughts going through our heads", says Pinker. War is not in our DNA. And if warfare is not innate then, surely, neither is it inevitable. Many people think the discovery of warlike behaviour among chimps supports the view that war among humans is inevitable. In fact, the work of some primatologists suggests ways to reduce human conflict. "We and all the primates have a tendency to be hostile to non-group members," says Frans de Waal of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. But the level of aggression displayed by individuals depends on their environment. He found, for example, that rhesus monkeys, which are ordinarily incorrigibly aggressive, grow up to become kinder and gentler when raised by mild-mannered stump-tail monkeys. De Waal has also reduced conflicts among monkeys and apes by increasing their interdependence - making them cooperate to obtain food, for example - and ensuring they had equal access to food (PLoS Biology, vol 5, e 190). He points to the myriad interdependencies between nations and groups of people, and believes that by fostering ever more economic cooperation through alliances such as the European Union we can promote peace. Primate violence is not blind and compulsive but calculating and responsive to circumstance, says Richard Wrangham from Harvard University. Chimps only fight when they think they can get away with it. "That's the lesson that I draw for humans." Wrangham says that although we are much less risk-averse than chimps, human societies - from hunter-gatherers to modern nations - also behave much more aggressively toward rival groups if they are confident they can prevail. He reckons that reducing imbalances of power between nations should reduce the risk of war (Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, vol 42, p 1). John Horgan is director of the Center for Science Writings at Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey From meisner at xs4all.nl Thu Aug 6 08:01:54 2009 From: meisner at xs4all.nl (Jeff) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:01:54 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] War is not in our genes In-Reply-To: <4A7AD86A.1040300@panix.com> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20090806160154.03188510@pop.xs4all.nl> At 09:19 06/08/09 -0400, you wrote: >http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.500-winning-the-ultimate-bat tle-how-humans-could-end-war.html >Winning the ultimate battle: How humans could end war Thanks for posting this, though its conclusions are not very surprising. But it's nice to see that anthropologists are discovering Marxism on their own (they just don't know the name for it!): > >War emerged when humans shifted from a nomadic existence to a settled >one and was commonly tied to agriculture, Ferguson says. "With a vested >interest in their lands, food stores and especially rich fishing sites, >people could no longer walk away from trouble." What's more, with >settlement came the production of surplus crops and the acquisition of >precious and symbolic objects through trade. From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Aug 6 08:06:23 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:06:23 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] War is not in our genes In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.20090806160154.03188510@pop.xs4all.nl> References: <3.0.3.32.20090806160154.03188510@pop.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <4A7AE35F.6010509@panix.com> Jeff wrote: > But it's nice to see that anthropologists are discovering Marxism on their > own (they just don't know the name for it!): >> War emerged when humans shifted from a nomadic existence to a settled >> one and was commonly tied to agriculture, Ferguson says. "With a vested >> interest in their lands, food stores and especially rich fishing sites, >> people could no longer walk away from trouble." What's more, with >> settlement came the production of surplus crops and the acquisition of >> precious and symbolic objects through trade. Brian Ferguson is not just any old anthropologist. He is Napoleon Chagnon's most powerful critic and has written a ton of useful material debunking sociobiological Hobbesianism. I plan to blog about his contributions down the road. From naskha3 at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 08:20:07 2009 From: naskha3 at gmail.com (Nasir Khan) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:20:07 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] Hiroshima and Nagasaki Message-ID: <18d70e600908060720g488dba8r3877c4a8cc9049d6@mail.gmail.com> by Ralph Raico, Antiwar.com, August 06, 2009 This excerpt from Ralph Raico?s ?Harry S. Truman: Advancing the Revolution? in John V. Denson, ed., Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom (Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2001). (The notes are numbered as they are because this is an excerpt. Read the whole article.) The most spectacular episode of Truman?s presidency will never be forgotten, but will be forever linked to his name: the atomic bombings of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and of Nagasaki three days later. Probably around two hundred thousand persons were killed in the attacks and through radiation poisoning; the vast majority were civilians, including several thousand Korean workers. Twelve U.S. Navy fliers incarcerated in a Hiroshima jail were also among the dead.87 Continues >> http://original.antiwar.com/Ralph-2/2009/08/05/hiroshima-and-nagasaki/ From email at addthis.com Thu Aug 6 08:43:27 2009 From: email at addthis.com (email at addthis.com) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 10:43:27 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Link shared by redarnie@gmail.com Message-ID: <200908061443.n76EhRx6003125@v0105-17-dmz.addthis.com> John Bogle, founder and former CEO of The Vanguard Group, fingers the capitalists. No more comment needed in this forum regarding his solution. http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=301235 [Message sent by redarnie at gmail.com via AddThis.com.] From meisner at xs4all.nl Thu Aug 6 08:43:16 2009 From: meisner at xs4all.nl (Jeff) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:43:16 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] Rape is not necessarily a consequence of war In-Reply-To: <746939.84683.qm@web63103.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20090806164316.04efe82c@pop.xs4all.nl> >At 18:53 05/08/09 -0700, you wrote: >>In Susan Brownmiller's landmark book >....... the Vietcong >did not practice rape as a political policy. Thanks. I'm transcribing the relevant excerpt from the link you provided, from a book by Linda Grant de Pauw: > >... Associated press correspondent Peter Arnett ..... told Brownmiller "that >it was common knowledge among the Saigon press corps that the Vietcong and >North Vietnamese Army rarely committed rape." If one of their soldiers did >commit rape, the punishment ws severe. Arnett had seen documents taken from >dead Viet Cong referring to soldiers guilty of the crime. "The VC would >publicize an execution for rape," Arnett said. "Rape was a serious crime for >them. It was considered a serious political blunder to rape and loot. It >just wasn't done. At the same time they made women who were raped by the >other side into heroines, examples of enemy atrocity." In other words, because it was considered a POLITICAL crime and punished severely, it essentially did not happen! That again is the difference between the Red Army under Trotsky (which took a similar attitude) and during WWII when rape obviously was not dealt with harshly (if at all). Saying that rape "always" occurs in war or is "natural" is not only inaccurate, but is an insult to the Vietnamese and other heroic armies who knew what they were fighting for and acted accordingly! Although off the subject of the list discussion, I also find the last sentence of the above quote very compelling. That the Vietnamese women who were raped were given the same honors and support that would be bestowed on a soldier whose leg is blown off. What a contrast to the shame, and consequent silence, suffered by the countless rape victims in so many other wars! Rather than being revictimized by the sexist society around them, the POLITICAL understanding of the Vietnamese led them to openly denounce and portray rape as the war crime it is, not just "something that happens in war." - Jeff From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Thu Aug 6 08:58:52 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:58:52 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] Violence Message-ID: This a short paper of mine, which produced some years ago: *Theories of Violence* It is almost impossible to provide a satisfactory definition of violence for all times and circumstances. Violence has many forms and varies according to contexts and circumstances. Its boundaries are fluid and it is closely connected to cognate phenomena like power and force. Power may be defined in terms of potentiality to use violence, whereas force is the implementation of power, though it may not become violent. Force may take various forms and does not need to be violent in its immediate effects. It may be used as a threat to compel adversaries to obey. But its actualisation may also sometimes include violence. In other words, violence may be defined as the most radical form of force. There is a tacit agreement that destruction is the most defining feature of violence. It may be caused by pure natural forces, though some forms of natural violence may be traced back to human causes. At first sight, violence may be judged on the immediate effects of actions. However, destruction may also last over a period of time. A master-slave relation, for example, may last decades without involving any physical destruction. But because of the lack of mutual recognition the master-slave relation involves or even requires permanent gradual psychological and emotional destruction. It may take the form of physical, psychological and emotional destruction and be directed against natural resources, animals and human beings. In human relations it may occur in all spheres of social life, in everyday life in interpersonal relations, in family life, in schools, at universities, in industrial relations between social classes and in international relations. It may have a range of motivations from psychological to cultural, political and economic. Written human history is almost a history of conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder; in short, it is a history of force and violence. Wars in their various forms as civil or international wars are the most obvious forms of violence. Compared with long, warlike and bloody ages, peaceful periods in human history may be referred to as almost a negligible episode. This is an obvious fact that hardly any philosopher would deny. Marx, for example, who describes human history as a history of the expropriation of producers from their means of production, suggests that human history is written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire. (Marx, 1978: 669) Similar observations in the liberal tradition are not rare. Kant, for example, suggests that the domination of evil in the world is as old as history; it is even as old as that oldest of all fictions, religion. (Kant, 2001: 369) If the apocalyptic warning, that we live in the final age with the last day and the destruction of the world at hand, had ever any justification, then it is in our age. Contemporarily, humanity possesses biological, chemical and nuclear means of mass destruction, whose accidental or intentional use is very likely to cause international escalation. The worst likely event could lead to the extinguishing of biological life for ages to come. What makes human beings produce such weapons of mass destruction, what turns them into aggressive and murderous beasts, if they are venerable and wish therefore to establish some kind of reliable natural circumstances and peaceful social relations around themselves? This is the grand question which any serious theory of violence has to address. In western theories of violence a demarcation line may be drawn between liberal and conservative theories on the one hand and Marxist and Anarchist theories on the other. Generally, these traditions do not differ from one another so much in their assessment that the contradiction of interests in human relations in a given society or in international relations is the major cause of potential and actual violence. But they differ crucially from one another with regard to the question of how this contradiction should be dealt with. Classical liberal theories (perhaps excepting Rousseau) are above all concerned about the monopolisation of the right to use violence rather than abolishing its cause(s). It is suggested that in bourgeois society everybody as an individual or member of a social class is a carrier of potential forces of violence. Social contract theories in their various forms are interested in developing a contractual framework by means of which all individuals (Hobbes) or citizens (Locke and Kant) would assign their potential force to a central institution called the state. In liberal historical approaches to society and the state (Hume, Smith) the division of labour, the establishment of private property and the division of society into social classes is often referred to as the real source of force and violence which has eventually evolved into monopolisation in the state. The potential force of the state is directed towards society. In other words, there is a mater-slave relation between society and the state. In classical and contemporary liberal theories this relationship is taken for granted. Some classical liberal thinkers are, however, interested in reducing and controlling this potential power by dividing it into legislative, executive and judicial powers (Montesquieu). There are other liberal and conservative thinkers, however, who regard the state as absolute master over society. Marxism stands very much in the tradition of the liberal historical approach. But its historical analysis of the origins of force and violence in social relations and natural violence caused by humans is more comprehensive and precise, and draws from this analysis entirely different conclusions. As opposed to liberal traditions Marxism wants to eradicate the cause(s) of all sorts of power and force in human relations. Marx?s and Engels? writings and works about capitalism and earlier social formations are therefore devoted to the analysis of the cause(s) of power and force in human relations. The most explicit analysis of violence in Marxist tradition is in Engels? *Anti-D?hring*. Engels explores a socio-historical approach and argues primarily against what we call biological or natural explanations of the sources of force and violence in human relations. He traces back the emergence of force in human relations to the establishment of private property relations. He suggests that the establishment of private property was by common consent rather than by force. He asserts that the means of force must have been developed before it could be made use of. For any theory which accepts that force was the origin of private property must, in the last resort, refer to some biological predisposition in human nature to use force and, in turn, must accept the positivist statement that the use of force is as natural as everything else in human relations. Psychological explanations of violence might subscribe to this naturalist position. But they might also accept the Kantian dictum that education may humanise violent human nature. But they may encounter the question why human nature, after so many ages of expanding and deepening education, worsens. Differing from passivism, which rejects any form of the use of violence, mainstream liberalism and Marxism justify the use of violence. But they provide entirely different sets of normative arguments and they differ crucially in their aims. Liberalism, though it accepts that the contradiction of interests is the major cause of violence, denies justifying the use of violence in what we call civil society. But if social relations should nonetheless become violent (in the case of a strikes and occupation of factories, for example) the state is entitled to intervene to protect private property and use violence if necessary. This is the point where mainstream liberalism meets conservative theories. Marxism, on the contrary, wants to establish a society with common ownership called communism free from the contradictions of interest caused by private property relations. Differing from Anarchism, which wants to establish a society based on small scale private ownership and believes that the establishment of this society free from contradictions of interests is possible without any transition period, Marxism envisages a transitory society called socialism. It suggests that it is more likely that the use of violence will be necessary to take over the political power and prepare the ground for the establishment of communism which is supposed to be an ethical rather than a commercial society. Lenin asserts, that to establish communism much blood will be spilled but that this is still better than the oceans of blood which are permanently spilled under imperialism; this is a concise formulation of the Marxist approach. In this assessment Marxism differs from Anarchism. They do not oppose one another in believing that violence will be necessary to take over political power but in whether a transitory society and state is necessary. -- Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Aug 6 09:12:29 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:12:29 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Violence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A7AF2DD.7070804@panix.com> Dogan Gocmen wrote: > > The most explicit analysis of violence in Marxist tradition > is in Engels? *Anti-D?hring*. Dogan, can you point me to a chapter that spells this out? The work is online at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/index.htm From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Aug 6 09:15:15 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:15:15 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Violence In-Reply-To: <4A7AF2DD.7070804@panix.com> References: <4A7AF2DD.7070804@panix.com> Message-ID: <4A7AF383.6070800@panix.com> Louis Proyect wrote: > Dogan, can you point me to a chapter that spells this out? The work is > online at: > http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/index.htm > > Never mind. It is here: As men originally made their exit from the animal world?in the narrower sense of the term?so they made their entry into history: still half animal, brutal, still helpless in face of the forces of nature, still ignorant of their own strength; and consequently as poor as the animals and hardly more productive than they. There prevailed a certain equality in the conditions of existence, and for the heads of families also a kind of equality of social position?at least an absence of social classes ? which continued among the primitive agricultural communities of the civilised peoples of a later period. In each such community there were from the beginning certain common interests the safeguarding of which had to be handed over to individuals, true, under the control of the community as a whole: adjudication of disputes; repression of abuse of authority by individuals; control of water supplies, especially in hot countries; and finally when conditions were still absolutely primitive, religious functions. Such offices are found in aboriginal communities of every period ? in the oldest German marks and even today in India. full: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch16.htm From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Thu Aug 6 09:23:46 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 18:23:46 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] Violence In-Reply-To: <4A7AF383.6070800@panix.com> References: <4A7AF2DD.7070804@panix.com> <4A7AF383.6070800@panix.com> Message-ID: I am not sure whether I was thinking of this passage. Let me check. ------ Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 09:29:02 2009 From: bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com (Bhaskar Sunkara) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Weekly Worker 781 (06/08/09) now available at cpgb.org.uk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *Weekly Worker 781 - Thursday August 6 2009* The latest edition of the Weekly Worker is now available on the CPGB website at www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/781 In this week?s issue: THE ISRAEL-PALESTINE QUESTION ONCE AGAIN Jack Conrad responds to Tony Greenstein and critiques third-worldist economism LETTERS Howler; 'Common sense'; Sisyphus rules; Holy grail; Star deniers?; Excellent FIRST OF MANY James Turley salutes a courageous act of rebellion VESTAS FIGHT GOES ON Workers keep up the pressure, writes Jim Moody SHOW TRIALS AND APOLOGETICS Just as Iranian ex-leftwingers in the west call for reconciliation between the two wings of the Islamic regime, the ruling faction clamps down on its rivals. Yassamine Mather reports HALF-MEASURE SCANDAL Barack Obama?s vague and inadequate healthcare proposals are a step too far for the right, writes Jim Creegan GOLDEN WEEK, GOLDEN DUCK AND HITTING TARGET Howard Roake explains why we wash dirty linen in public ANGLO-AMERICAN SOLUTIONS AND IMPOSING DISCIPLINE Peter Manson spoke to Hillel Ticktin about the economic crisis A PDF version of the paper can be downloaded at www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/781/781web.pdf From fred.fuentes at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 09:33:37 2009 From: fred.fuentes at gmail.com (Fred Fuentes) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:03:37 -0430 Subject: [Marxism] Venezuelan National Assembly Discusses Combating Media Terrorism Message-ID: Venezuelan National Assembly Discusses Combating Media Terrorism August 6th 2009, by Tamara Pearson ? Venezuelanalysis.com M?rida, August 5th 2009 (Venezuelanalysis.com) - In response to private international and national media claims that Venezuela is discussing a media law which denies freedom of expression and punishes journalists, National Assembly members said that no such law proposal exists, only a discussion around how to combat the "media dictatorship" and "media terrorism." The president of the media commission in the National Assembly, Manuel Villalba, said on Tuesday that a proposal for a law with 17 articles, as claimed by some media, doesn't exist and that rather, the Attorney General, Luisa Diaz, had presented ideas to the National Assembly, which are being debated, but that there is no consensus around her proposals. "It's not official," Villalba said, explaining that no law had been formally presented or proposed. "All this just confirms that there are media owners who are systematically disseminating false opinions," he said. Legislator Rosario Pacheco said that so far the draft that they have of the law considers media crime the publication of false, manipulative or distorted information that causes "harm to the interests of the state" or that threatens "public morale or mental health." The assembly has discussed a maximum penalty of four years prison. Journalist Asalia Venegis told Venezuelan Television (VTV), "This law project... incorporates everything that is unequivocally expressed in the Law of Journalist Practice and the Code of Ethics, which establish a series of perspectives over what the treatment of the news and the role of the journalist should be." Diaz also suggested the law should focus on protection for journalists who are coerced into putting their name to, or writing articles that they don't believe. Therefore, she said, rather than going against freedom of expression, the law should "promote safe and true freedom of expression that reaches everyone and doesn't attack the peace of the citizens." Further, she said in Article 20 of the Constitution, everyone has the right to freedom of expression, so long as they don't violate the rights of others or attack the state, the health of other people, or the public morale. Since Diaz's contribution to the National Assembly, opposition media and international media have published articles suggesting that the Venezuelan government supports jail for media crimes and is trying to "regulate" or "limit" free speech. El Tiempo (Latin America) portrayed the lack of consensus in the assembly as a negative thing and quoted Organisation of American States (OAS) general secretary, Jose Insulza, as saying the "situation of freedom of expression in Venezuela is "worrying." Venezuelan paper, El Universal, quoted the director of Amnesty International talking about "unacceptable restrictions on the freedom of expression" in Venezuela. An AFP article titled "Chavez's measures towards the press cause protests and international unease" highlighted the possibility of jail punishment, and quoted a protestor as saying "we're journalists, not criminals". But legislator Desiree Santos said the debate had begun because it was important to establish mechanisms that guarantee the right of the people to be informed truthfully. "There has always been full freedom of expression [in Venezuela], even when there has been an excessive use of that freedom," she said. "Bad [media] practice has to be confronted, because there can't be anyone in this country who acts with absolute impunity," Santos said. "The discussion about the proposal for the law should be centred on analysing the media and fighting terrorism, the... environment of tension that [the media] is creating amongst the population." Villalba also said, "It's not okay that in the name of freedom of expression arbitrary abuses are committed, and all kinds of outrages." He said the National Assembly would continue debating the contributions made by the Diaz, and he called on all social sectors to also participate in the discussion. There have been debates and forums across Venezuela for the last few months around the theme of media terrorism or the media dictatorship, a dictatorship which Villalba argued is being "imposed from the large social communication companies," nationally and internationally. On Sunday Diosdado Cabello, head of Venezuela's telecommunications agency (CONATEL), announced the closure of 34 private radio stations for operating illegally or violating regulations. The minister said many of the stations had failed to register or pay fees to CONATEL. Decisions are still pending on a further 206 stations. Cabello also explained that new reforms to the Telecommunications Law aim to break up the "media latifundios" by limiting ownership of radio or television stations to three per private owner. Under the reforms broadcasting concessions are designated as un-inheritable property, and are therefore non-transferable to family or colleagues in the event of the death of a concession holder. Last Friday, the minister for communication and information, Blanca Eekhout, said 90% of international publications constantly lie about, discredit, and stigmatise Venezuela. From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Thu Aug 6 09:43:11 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 18:43:11 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] Violence In-Reply-To: References: <4A7AF2DD.7070804@panix.com> <4A7AF383.6070800@panix.com> Message-ID: No, Louis, the passage I was thinking of is below, in particular the first half of it. Thank you very much for your interest. "However, let us get back again to our two men. Crusoe, "sword in hand" {D. C. 23}, makes Friday his slave. But in order to manage this, Crusoe needs something else besides his sword. Not everyone can make use of a slave. In order to be able to make use of a slave, one must possess two kinds of things: first, the instruments and material for his slave's labour; and secondly, the means of bare subsistence for him. Therefore, before slavery becomes possible, a certain level of production must already have been reached and a certain inequality of distribution must already have appeared. And for slave-labour to become the dominant mode of production in the whole of a society, an even far higher increase in production, trade and accumulation of wealth was essential. In the ancient primitive communities with common ownership of the land, slavery either did not exist at all or played only a very subordinate role. It was the same in the originally peasant city of Rome; but when Rome became a "world city" and Italic landownership came more and more into the hands of a numerically small class of enormously rich proprietors, the peasant population was supplanted by a population of slaves. If at the time of the Persian wars the number of slaves in Corinth rose to 460,000 and in Aegina to 470,000 and there were ten slaves to every freeman, [70]something else besides "force" was required, namely, a highly developed arts and handicraft industry and an extensive commerce. Slavery in the United States of America was based far less on force than on the English cotton industry; in those districts where no cotton was grown or which, unlike the border states, did not breed slaves for the cotton-growing states, it died out of itself without any force being used, simply because it did not pay." ------ Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From laracrete at verizon.net Thu Aug 6 10:03:28 2009 From: laracrete at verizon.net (lara crete) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:03:28 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarism/Rape?World War II Re: Dogan Gocmen Message-ID: Dear friend ,I have noticed and am listening to your voice in this list for quite a long time. Always a pleasure to hear it through this honorable and mostly harmonious choir. Thank you for your last post on violence. As to the movie I described as "The Women's Realm" , I do not know whether it is equipped with English subtitles and do not know, if it is, what how the title in the translation is locked like. Let me express the Cyrillic letter with the Latin: "Babye Zarstvo" ( "Baba" is the peasant's Russian word for a woman;"Zarstvo" - the Kingdom of the Tzar). Also, I knew Nazim Hikmet personally: he was a happy man after he emigrated to the Soviet Union. ( To add to the discussion of "Stalinism/Trozkism/ KGBism") With your help now will research Frantz Fanon's : to my shame have never read anything by him. Would like to ask you some questions about Montequien, to discuss with you his suggestion to "control the potential power to violence" in humans. But this is far beyond this list. Again, thank tou! From shmage at pipeline.com Thu Aug 6 10:07:18 2009 From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:07:18 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Venezuelan National Assembly Discusses Combating Media Terrorism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 6, 2009, at 11:33 AM, Fred Fuentes wrote: > In response to private international and national media claims that > Venezuela is discussing a media law which denies freedom of > expression and punishes > journalists, National Assembly members said that no such law proposal > exists, only a discussion around how to combat the "media > dictatorship" and "media terrorism."... > > ...Legislator Rosario Pacheco said that so far the draft that they > have > of the law considers media crime the publication of false, > manipulative or distorted information that causes "harm to the > interests of the state" or that threatens "public morale or mental > health." The assembly has discussed a maximum penalty of four years > prison. "manipulative" information? "distorted" information? "harm to the interests of the state?" "public morale or mental health?" Terms of total vagueness that can be used by any Ahmedi-nejad or Cheney--or Chavez-- to jail any critic for up to four years! And this "defense" of the Chavez government's antidemocratic proposal shows explicitly in its first paragraph what sort of "false information" would get you sent to jail for four years if you publish it: "claims that Venezuela is discussing a media law which denies freedom of expression and punishes journalists." Claims that the next paragraph but one proves to be perfectly justified! Shane Mage > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it > always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, > kindling in measures and going out in measures." > > Herakleitos of Ephesos From tarrit8 at aol.com Thu Aug 6 10:07:56 2009 From: tarrit8 at aol.com (tarrit8 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:07:56 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] G.A. Cohen died this morning Message-ID: <8CBE4C732481A4E-BFC-AC@WEBMAIL-MA02.sysops.aol.com> GA Cohen was a brilliant philosopher, with a great deal of precision, and he had a very subtle sense of humor. I met him a few times and wrote my phd on his relation to Marxism. Yet it must be acknowledged that he played a strong role in attempting to weaken Marxism (read his History, Labour and Freedom and his new introduction in the 2000 edition of his Karl Marx's Theory of History) and he took part in the collapse of the Communist party of Great Britain. Still he was the best opponent I ever had. Fabien Tarrit From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Aug 6 10:12:23 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:12:23 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] G.A. Cohen died this morning In-Reply-To: <8CBE4C732481A4E-BFC-AC@WEBMAIL-MA02.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CBE4C732481A4E-BFC-AC@WEBMAIL-MA02.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4A7B00E7.2030309@panix.com> tarrit8 at aol.com wrote: > GA Cohen was a brilliant philosopher, with a great deal of precision, > and he had a very subtle sense of humor. I met him a few times and > wrote my phd on his relation to Marxism. Yet it must be acknowledged > that he played a strong role in attempting to weaken Marxism (read his > History, Labour and Freedom and his new introduction in the 2000 > edition of his Karl Marx's Theory of History) and he took part in the > collapse of the Communist party of Great Britain. Still he was the best > opponent I ever had. > Fabien Tarrit Speaking of which: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/analytical_marxism/cohen.htm From cda at yorku.ca Thu Aug 6 10:29:07 2009 From: cda at yorku.ca (cda at yorku.ca) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:29:07 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] G.A. Cohen died this morning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1249576147.4a7b04d3dd20c@mymail.yorku.ca> Perhaps this is not the most tasteful time to debate the merit of his works, but, since its up there, I think we ought to reconsider the life and work of GA Cohen. For my part, I found Cohen's reading of Marx to be reducible (as is Althusser's) to interpreting Marx as an 'economic determinist'-- something I find completely untenable and inconsistent with both the entire writ and essential spirit of the body of Marx's works (whereas Althusser discovers his 'true' Marx in approximately 1/1600th of the MECW). Cohen buttressed this Althusserian reading, though he did so not as a post-Marxist, but as an 'orthodox' defender of 'Marxism'. In my opinion, well-intentioned he may have been, Cohen's life and work is a manifestation of the death knells of 20th century Marxism. He contributed, albeit unconsciously, to the decline of the Marxist tradition insofar as his writings defended an Althusserian caricature of Marx--- which was thereafter summoned as a strawman for determinism. Far from being a determinist, an autocrat, or an anti-humanist, Marx was (in my concluding opinion) the greatest philosopher of universal freedom, a steadfast lover of liberty, autogestion, direct democracy, international humanism, and, foremost, a firm believer in the praxical power of self-conscious human agency [i.e., that which he deemed the essential species-being, or Gattungswesen, of Humanity]. It is time that we resuscitated the explicit humanism of Marx's early & late writings, and, in so doing, abandon the 'orthodox' absurdities of Cohen's Althusser-like reading. Chris "Hence, man also produces in accordance with the laws of beauty." From dwaltersMIA at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 10:34:21 2009 From: dwaltersMIA at gmail.com (nada) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:34:21 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] Venezuelan National Assembly Discusses Combating Media Terrorism Message-ID: <4A7B060D.4020507@gmail.com> Such a law *seems* terribly repressive. It's one thing to incite violence and, of course, a golpe de estado. There are laws like this in very state. But "dissementating false information"? If I were in the U.S. Department, I would be very happy right about now. However, I've only seen some excerpts. I'd like to see a lot more commentary on this. David From humaneco at hsph.harvard.edu Thu Aug 6 10:40:02 2009 From: humaneco at hsph.harvard.edu (Richard Levins) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:40:02 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Violence In-Reply-To: References: <4A7AF2DD.7070804@panix.com> <4A7AF383.6070800@panix.com> Message-ID: <4A7ACF14.F29D.002C.1@hsph.harvard.edu> I think that in earliest times, slavery was somewhat different. The literature talks of people "enslaved" by Amerindians, but it was more like forced adoption into the tribe and when "rescued" many women refused to return to freedom under patriarchy. The Iliad talks of Penelope going to the river with her slave women to wash clothes. Slavery becomes like our images of it with commodity production.. ========================= Richard Levins >>> Dogan Gocmen 8/6/2009 11:43 AM >>> No, Louis, the passage I was thinking of is below, in particular the first half of it. Thank you very much for your interest. "However, let us get back again to our two men. Crusoe, "sword in hand" {D. C. 23}, makes Friday his slave. But in order to manage this, Crusoe needs something else besides his sword. Not everyone can make use of a slave. In order to be able to make use of a slave, one must possess two kinds of things: first, the instruments and material for his slave's labour; and secondly, the means of bare subsistence for him. Therefore, before slavery becomes possible, a certain level of production must already have been reached and a certain inequality of distribution must already have appeared. And for slave-labour to become the dominant mode of production in the whole of a society, an even far higher increase in production, trade and accumulation of wealth was essential. In the ancient primitive communities with common ownership of the land, slavery either did not exist at all or played only a very subordinate role. It was the same in the originally peasant city of Rome; but when Rome became a "world city" and Italic landownership came more and more into the hands of a numerically small class of enormously rich proprietors, the peasant population was supplanted by a population of slaves. If at the time of the Persian wars the number of slaves in Corinth rose to 460,000 and in Aegina to 470,000 and there were ten slaves to every freeman, [70]something else besides "force" was required, namely, a highly developed arts and handicraft industry and an extensive commerce. Slavery in the United States of America was based far less on force than on the English cotton industry; in those districts where no cotton was grown or which, unlike the border states, did not breed slaves for the cotton-growing states, it died out of itself without any force being used, simply because it did not pay." ------ Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/humaneco%40hsph.harvard.edu From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Thu Aug 6 10:41:18 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 19:41:18 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] Totalitarism/Rape?World War II Re: Dogan Gocmen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/8/6 lara crete > > Dear friend ,I have noticed and am listening to your voice in this > list for quite a long time. Always a pleasure to hear it through this > honorable and mostly harmonious choir. Thank you for your last post > on violence. As to the movie I described as "The Women's Realm" , I do > not know whether it is equipped with English subtitles and do not > know, if it is, what how the title in the translation is locked > like. Let me express the Cyrillic letter with the Latin: "Babye > Zarstvo" ( "Baba" is the peasant's Russian word for a woman;"Zarstvo" > - the Kingdom of the Tzar). Also, I knew Nazim Hikmet personally: he > was a happy man after he emigrated to the Soviet Union. ( To add to > the discussion of "Stalinism/Trozkism/ KGBism") > With your help now will research Frantz Fanon's : to my shame have > never read anything by him. > Would like to ask you some questions about Montequien, to discuss > with you his suggestion to "control the potential power to violence" > in humans. But this is far beyond this list. Again, thank tou! > Lara, it is a great honour to me talk to somebody who knew Naz?m Hikmet personally. We should exchange private emails on this. I am interested in any detail your would like to provide. After 13 years of imprisonment Naz?m was released and the regime was planing to murder him by taking him to military service as they knew he was very sick and his heart would soon or later give up in Turkish army. His escape to Soviet Union saved him from this envisaged torture and murder. It is a bit different with Frantz Fanon. Like Naz?m, he was very sick. He rejected to go to USA for medical treatment because of racist regime there. In many ways he was critical of Soviet Union but accepted to go and get medical treatment there. I do not know for how long he went there, I think for one year or so, but I know he was cured from his cancer at least for a while. We can exchange ideas on any subject at any time. I thank you very much for your warm words. ----- Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From farmelantj at juno.com Thu Aug 6 10:45:08 2009 From: farmelantj at juno.com (farmelantj at juno.com) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:45:08 GMT Subject: [Marxism] G.A. Cohen died this morning Message-ID: <20090806.124508.8514.0@webmail16.vgs.untd.com> I suspect that Jerry Cohen would not have minded if people took note of his passing by debating the merits of his works. Actually, I find his reading of Marx to have been closer to the readings that were provided by such Second International Marxists like Kautsky and Plekhanov. I believe that somewhere in KMTH he makes such an acknowledgement. But yet he did seem to have to come to such a reading by way of Althusser, even though he rejected Althusserianism. G.A. Cohen discussed Althusser in his foreword to KMTH. There, after detailing some of the positive contributions of the Althusserians to Marxism (which for Cohen included the re-emphasis on Marx's more mature writings like *Capital* rather than the earlier writings like the 1844 Manuscripts and the attention that Althusser and his followers paid to historical materialism) then proceeded to note what he regarded as some of their more negative attributes. Writing thus: "Above all, I found much of *Lire Capital* critically vague. It is perhaps a matter for regret that logical positivism, with its insistence on precision of intellectual commitment, never caught on in Paris. Anglophone philosophy left logical positivism behind long ago, but it is lastingly the better for having engaged with it. The Althusserian vogue could have unfortunate consequences for Marxism in Britain, where lucidity is a precious heritage, and where it is not generally supposed that a theoretical statement, to be one, must be hard to comprehend." Alas, one consequence of Cohen's work was to revive the very sort of mechanical materialism that Althusser had rejected along with humanist Marxism, but which the young Jerry Cohen seems to have imbibed along with his mother's milk, having been born and raised within the milieu of the Canadian CP. Cohen, himself, years later, came to see the inadequacy of this type of historical materialism but seemed to draw the conclusion that the problem laid with historical materialism in general rather than with the specific variety of historical materialism that he had embraced. Jim Farmelant ---------- Original Message ---------- From: cda at yorku.ca To: farmelantj at juno.com Subject: Re: [Marxism] G.A. Cohen died this morning Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:29:07 -0400 Perhaps this is not the most tasteful time to debate the merit of his works, but, since its up there, I think we ought to reconsider the life and work of GA Cohen. ____________________________________________________________ Cheap Airfare from $49 Airfare Rates Just Dropped! Book Now to Lock In the Best Deals. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=e-NnxyQ2nbKj1NNHIraWTgAAJ1BRugI4sJACAWmXIev8NAFPAAUAAAAAAAAAALUJCT6nwpnKG3LiNI2I7H3GfCHQAAAAAA== From Jscotlive at aol.com Thu Aug 6 11:53:18 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 13:53:18 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Budd Schulberg Dies Age 95 Message-ID: _http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/aug/06/on-the-waterfront-budd-schulberg -dies_ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/aug/06/on-the-waterfront-budd-schulberg-dies) Ironically enough, I'm just reading through a compendium of Schulberg's writings and articles on boxing, which are superb. I'm sure there will be many conflicting opinions of the man who collaborated with Elia Kazan on On The Waterfront, a great movie in many ways but at bottom an apologia for 'snitching' during the period of HUAC. I also read his novel The Disenchanted many years ago, based on his own experience as a young writer of his collaboration with F Scott Fitzgerald on a movie project in Hollywood. It follows the downward spiral of a once great writer who's seen better days and the bitter experience of a young writer witnessing his hero's demise. From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net Thu Aug 6 12:54:36 2009 From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] R Message-ID: <06514457753F40D9A744835B462772C5@office1pc> Louis wrote: I do have a pretty good sense that things are starting to unravel. That is not good. Fred comments: Louis is right about that. Let me note a rather astonishing violation of list rules that I accepted passively -- the repeated use of my name in a series of posts. When I or others violate this rule, the next post is usually from Les pointing out the error and asking that the offender cease and desist. While I really don't care if my name appears in headlines, I think the rule exists for good reasons and should be both re-explained and re-instituted. The debate over totalitarianism seemed pretty empty to me, and the debate over mass rape tipped over into madness. Totalitarianism as a concept is not a product of bad imperialist propaganda but of twentieth century phenomena took place in the real world -- the similarities which could not be missed between Stalinist and Nazi methods of rule (which does not mean that the societies were not profoundly different and counterposed). I long since have grown weary of people denouncing Trotsky (who unconditionally defended the Soviet Union), Arendt, Orwell, and others for the unforgivable crime of noticing the similarities and generalizing about them within their class orientation and intellectual capacities. Of course no society is really totalitarian, just as no party (not even the teensy-tiny US-SWP is really monolithic) but this does not mean that ruling groups in various types of crises cannot attempt to intimidate the base by organizing along totalitarian-absolutist lines. Trotsky, I believe, held that totalitarianism, including Soviet totalitarianism, was a manifestation of imperialist decay. I think he was on the right track. Are there any phenomena similar to that today. Well, without claiming that Iran is in any sense a "totalitarian state" (any more than it is a democracy) I heard some familiar bells ringing in the trial and confession of the former Iranian vice president under the liberal Islamist theocrat Khatami. Having just the previous week having read "Not Guilty!" the report of the Dewey Commission on the Charges against Leon Trotsky and the Moscow Trials. If challenged I will quote this great democratic document at length, but reading this and the confession of the Iranian official left no doubt that we sre looking at variants of similar phenomena). On "mass rape" by the Soviet soldiers in Germany, and leaving aside any suggestions that Soviet male orgasms in Geman women represented a form of reparation for a devastating imperialist assault on the Soviet Union. I hope we have no illusions that Soviet troops entered Germany as a pure and simple "Stalinist" revolutionary army. Hiwever, these problems do arise in revolutionary armies. For instance, in at least one case, the Cuban Rebel Army of the July 26 Movement in Cubs executed a recruit for violentlu sexually abusing a rural woman. I have no idea if there were other incidents of this type, So I ask a simple question. Was any Soviet soldier executed for rape or sexual abuse of a German woman. The Soviet state and military had capital. Allow me to say that since it is basically impossible for an invasion of that scale to occur and no instances of sexual abuse to take place I would argue that if NO ONE was sentenced to death or long prison terms for rape or sexual abuse, then that behavior was From sabocat59 at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 12:59:00 2009 From: sabocat59 at gmail.com (Greg McDonald) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:59:00 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Colombia Appeal Message-ID: <6e42edf00908061159w779aaf19u5dfbb9ca7cddef@mail.gmail.com> Dear Compa?er at s/Friends, In recent days we have learned that the US Army plans to use not just three (as originally reported), nor five (as reported later), but seven military bases in Colombia! That will gravely undermine Colombia?s national sovereignty and threaten the democratic and peaceful stability of the region. Please see below an unequivocal statement released by the National Executive Committee of the Polo Democr?tico Alternativo in Colombia. If you are interested in joining a national working group that will participate in the continental campaign against US militarization and intervention in Latin America, please reply to this message expressing your interest, listing areas of skills that you can offer to the group, and providing your full contact info. In peace and struggle, Daniel Delapava & Ruth Goring, Codirectors Across the Americas ## We Say No to U.S. Military Bases in Colombia Polo Democr?tico Alternativo, PDA National Executive Committee http://www.polodemocratico.net/ Bogot?, July 30, 2009 1. The government of Alvaro Uribe has announced a decision to grant the United States the use of military bases on national territory by way of an agreement that would place all of the Colombian land mass at U.S. disposal for all types of military operations inside and outside of our country. Within Colombia a foreign army would become involved in the internal armed conflict thereby exacerbating confrontation and making peace more elusive. Colombia would also become a military stationing platform for aggressive expansion of the North American world power in our region, impacting the stability of neighboring democratic and progressive governments and interfering with important plans toward the integration of Latin America and the Caribbean. 2. In addition to making a disgrace of our national sovereignty, Uribe?s decision turns Colombia into a foothold for the U.S. and its allies to carry out their plans of attacking Latin American nations that do not toe the U.S. line or that weaken its continental hegemony. It is part and parcel of an offensive by reactionary forces and the empire, which recently staged the coup d?etat in Honduras against the legitimate president of that country, Jos? Manuel Zelaya. 3. This unwarranted concession is contrary to the Colombian Constitution. Both the articles relevant to these matters as well as the appropriate decision-making processes were disrespected. This is one of the most flagrant violations against a Government of Laws committed by the Uribe administration. 4. War is a lucrative business for a small group of multinational corporations that live off their security and defense contracts with the State Department and the Pentagon. Behind the fa?ade of a war against narco-trafficking and terrorism we find the highly profitable operations of the military industrial complex ranging from arms and munitions production to contracts with mercenary outfits around the globe. 5. The increasing submission of the Colombian military to the U.S. continues the failed anti-drug policy outlined by Plan Colombia. It will mean the worsening of the economic, social and environmental problems that Colombia has endured for more than a decade and the further deterioration of the humanitarian and human rights crisis. 6. Even less acceptable is the application of judicial immunity to the North American military and mercenaries who will be given diplomatic protection for any and all crimes committed in Colombia. The precedent established by criminal acts perpetrated by United States? military personnel here and in other countries by logic transforms the so-called immunity into a grant of impunity. Given the above considerations, the Polo Democratico Alternativo-PDA- issues: a) an invitation to political and social organizations, intellectuals, advocates of democracy and human rights activists in Colombia and the continent, to meet soon to reach agreement on a common agenda and a statement against this decision, which undermines Colombia?s national sovereignty and affects the democratic and peaceful stability of the region. b) a call for a National Day of Mobilization and Protest against war and the military bases in Colombia, in defense of national sovereignty, and for peace in the region. c) a call for a national and continental campaign against U.S. militarization and intervention in Latin America which we hope will be joined by progressive and democratic forces throughout the world. d) the expression of sentiments of friendship, solidarity and support for all nations of Latin America, their peoples and the governments which legitimately represent them. -- translated by Mingas, http://mingas.info/ ## Across the Americas P.O. Box 268733 <-- new Chicago, IL 60626-8733 773-938-1036 (phone and fax) http://www.acrosstheamericas.org info at acrosstheamericas.org ## From sabocat59 at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 12:59:00 2009 From: sabocat59 at gmail.com (Greg McDonald) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:59:00 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Colombia Appeal Message-ID: <6e42edf00908061159n41799688v364a30f03470a187@mail.gmail.com> Dear Compa?er at s/Friends, In recent days we have learned that the US Army plans to use not just three (as originally reported), nor five (as reported later), but seven military bases in Colombia! That will gravely undermine Colombia?s national sovereignty and threaten the democratic and peaceful stability of the region. Please see below an unequivocal statement released by the National Executive Committee of the Polo Democr?tico Alternativo in Colombia. If you are interested in joining a national working group that will participate in the continental campaign against US militarization and intervention in Latin America, please reply to this message expressing your interest, listing areas of skills that you can offer to the group, and providing your full contact info. In peace and struggle, Daniel Delapava & Ruth Goring, Codirectors Across the Americas ## We Say No to U.S. Military Bases in Colombia Polo Democr?tico Alternativo, PDA National Executive Committee http://www.polodemocratico.net/ Bogot?, July 30, 2009 1. The government of Alvaro Uribe has announced a decision to grant the United States the use of military bases on national territory by way of an agreement that would place all of the Colombian land mass at U.S. disposal for all types of military operations inside and outside of our country. Within Colombia a foreign army would become involved in the internal armed conflict thereby exacerbating confrontation and making peace more elusive. Colombia would also become a military stationing platform for aggressive expansion of the North American world power in our region, impacting the stability of neighboring democratic and progressive governments and interfering with important plans toward the integration of Latin America and the Caribbean. 2. In addition to making a disgrace of our national sovereignty, Uribe?s decision turns Colombia into a foothold for the U.S. and its allies to carry out their plans of attacking Latin American nations that do not toe the U.S. line or that weaken its continental hegemony. It is part and parcel of an offensive by reactionary forces and the empire, which recently staged the coup d?etat in Honduras against the legitimate president of that country, Jos? Manuel Zelaya. 3. This unwarranted concession is contrary to the Colombian Constitution. Both the articles relevant to these matters as well as the appropriate decision-making processes were disrespected. This is one of the most flagrant violations against a Government of Laws committed by the Uribe administration. 4. War is a lucrative business for a small group of multinational corporations that live off their security and defense contracts with the State Department and the Pentagon. Behind the fa?ade of a war against narco-trafficking and terrorism we find the highly profitable operations of the military industrial complex ranging from arms and munitions production to contracts with mercenary outfits around the globe. 5. The increasing submission of the Colombian military to the U.S. continues the failed anti-drug policy outlined by Plan Colombia. It will mean the worsening of the economic, social and environmental problems that Colombia has endured for more than a decade and the further deterioration of the humanitarian and human rights crisis. 6. Even less acceptable is the application of judicial immunity to the North American military and mercenaries who will be given diplomatic protection for any and all crimes committed in Colombia. The precedent established by criminal acts perpetrated by United States? military personnel here and in other countries by logic transforms the so-called immunity into a grant of impunity. Given the above considerations, the Polo Democratico Alternativo-PDA- issues: a) an invitation to political and social organizations, intellectuals, advocates of democracy and human rights activists in Colombia and the continent, to meet soon to reach agreement on a common agenda and a statement against this decision, which undermines Colombia?s national sovereignty and affects the democratic and peaceful stability of the region. b) a call for a National Day of Mobilization and Protest against war and the military bases in Colombia, in defense of national sovereignty, and for peace in the region. c) a call for a national and continental campaign against U.S. militarization and intervention in Latin America which we hope will be joined by progressive and democratic forces throughout the world. d) the expression of sentiments of friendship, solidarity and support for all nations of Latin America, their peoples and the governments which legitimately represent them. -- translated by Mingas, http://mingas.info/ ## Across the Americas P.O. Box 268733 <-- new Chicago, IL 60626-8733 773-938-1036 (phone and fax) http://www.acrosstheamericas.org info at acrosstheamericas.org ## From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Aug 6 13:01:11 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:01:11 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] R In-Reply-To: <06514457753F40D9A744835B462772C5@office1pc> References: <06514457753F40D9A744835B462772C5@office1pc> Message-ID: <4A7B2877.4060604@panix.com> Fred Feldman wrote: > Louis is right about that. Let me note a rather astonishing violation of > list rules that I accepted passively -- the repeated use of my name in a > series of posts. When I or others violate this rule, the next post is > usually from Les pointing out the error and asking that the offender cease > and desist. While I really don't care if my name appears in headlines, I > think the rule exists for good reasons and should be both re-explained and > re-instituted. > Fred is right. Les is very busy with his professional chores while I am finally getting from under my fiscal year-end duties. This means I will be looking at things more carefully now. Be on your best behavior! From schaffer at optonline.net Thu Aug 6 13:06:50 2009 From: schaffer at optonline.net (Les Schaffer) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:06:50 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] R In-Reply-To: <4A7B2877.4060604@panix.com> References: <06514457753F40D9A744835B462772C5@office1pc> <4A7B2877.4060604@panix.com> Message-ID: <4A7B29CA.9080904@optonline.net> Louis Proyect wrote: > Fred is right. Les is very busy with his professional chores while I > am finally getting from under my fiscal year-end duties. This means I > will be looking at things more carefully now. Be on your best behavior! Fred is right IS right ... i saw the name-in-subject yesterday but was busy just tracking the posts to see how best rid ourselves of the personal attacks syndrome.... next time, i will step in sooner. my mistake. Les From poeticaleconomy at yahoo.com Thu Aug 6 13:10:05 2009 From: poeticaleconomy at yahoo.com (Max Clark) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:10:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Marxism] NYT: Workers End Standoff at South Korean Auto Plant Message-ID: <981882.55360.qm@web45008.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/world/asia/07seoul.html From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Aug 6 13:43:16 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:43:16 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Yanomami science wars Message-ID: <4A7B3254.9050207@panix.com> Jacques Lizot?s critique There is a cinematic quality between the clash of Napoleon Chagnon and Jacques Lizot. Chagnon, the blustering American who like to fire pistols to intimidate the Yanomami, could have been played by the young John Wayne. Lizot, the gay French disciple of structuralist Claude Levi-Strauss who seduced young Yanomami with gifts of cigarettes and pasta, could have been played by Alain Renais. It is too bad that Patrick Tierney chose to emphasize Lizot?s sexual predations in his ?Darkness in El Dorado?. While there certainly could be a case made that any adult taking sexual advantage of a young woman or man for that matter deserves opprobrium, one cannot escape feeling that Tierney was exhibiting old-fashioned homophobia in the name of defending Indian rights. Although Chagnon and Lizot started out as collaborators, they eventually parted ways?no doubt a function of deep differences over how to regard the Indians. For Chagnon, they were like Jane Goodall?s chimpanzees waging primate war on their enemies. For Lizot, they were more like the Bonobo chimps that used sexual play?including homosexual?to relieve the tensions that lead to violence. To be fair to Lizot, he did not literally think that the Yanomami were like chimps. In fact his main objection to Chagnon was over his sociobiology, a bogus science that reduces everything to genes. read full article: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/yanomami-science-wars-part-six/ From nchamah at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 14:07:24 2009 From: nchamah at gmail.com (Nchamah Miller) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:07:24 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] COLOMBIA - Colombia and its neighbours Bazookas and bases "THE ECONOMIST" PERPETUATING A LINE Message-ID: PLEASE READ CRITICALLY Colombia and its neighbours Bazookas and bases Aug 6th 2009 | BOGOT? AND CARACAS From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Thu Aug 6 14:21:41 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 23:21:41 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] R In-Reply-To: <06514457753F40D9A744835B462772C5@office1pc> References: <06514457753F40D9A744835B462772C5@office1pc> Message-ID: Fred, I will stick to what the Moderator recommended: end of the debate unless there some new arguments or evidences. The point is to remain comrades despite the differences. I have never entered the Stalin-Trotsky-debate simply because I think they had their problems and fought their fights and we have our problems. Lets fight our fights for 21th century socialism. No one in our tradition should dismissed for good or bad reason. To me they all represent the legacy of Marxism. The point is to develop a synthesis for our fight. The debate was not that empty. I learned a lot. Thanks, ------ Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From laracrete at verizon.net Thu Aug 6 14:45:52 2009 From: laracrete at verizon.net (lara crete) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:45:52 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Dogan Gocmen Message-ID: <84A163B6-CA2B-4AD9-A411-70D8093505B3@verizon.net> Dear Dogan, I opened your fascinating webside, which I picked up from the list, but could not find the way to contact you personally. I would love to talk with you about Nazim Hikmet and some other people whom he was surrounded with at that time. If you are interested would be happy to share with you whatever I know. My e=mail is laracrete at verizon.net . And, of course, - THANK YOU! From sabocat59 at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 14:55:48 2009 From: sabocat59 at gmail.com (Greg McDonald) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:55:48 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] COLOMBIA - Colombia and its neighbours Bazookas and bases "THE ECONOMIST" PERPETUATING A LINE Message-ID: <6e42edf00908061355k58138508yb47d1fb608af2084@mail.gmail.com> And here is Chavez' response, with ample proof. Also, the article got the time line wrong. First Chavez criticized the US base expansion, and then Uribe responded with the FARC nonsense. http://www.radiomundial.com.ve/yvke/noticia.php?30010 From schaffer at optonline.net Thu Aug 6 14:57:18 2009 From: schaffer at optonline.net (Les Schaffer) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:57:18 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] do not use subscribers names in Subject line Message-ID: <4A7B43AE.4020506@optonline.net> Reminder: do not use marxmail subscriber's name in the Subject line. From marvgandall at videotron.ca Thu Aug 6 15:02:49 2009 From: marvgandall at videotron.ca (Marv Gandall) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:02:49 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Rape is not necessarily a consequence of war References: <746939.84683.qm@web63103.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <17D1A9C77B924BFF82E3F57E8561BB8D@MARV> Pat Costello wrote: In Susan Brownmiller's landmark book about rape, "Against Our Will", she discusses the politics of rape and war and finds that in fact, the Vietcong did not practice rape as a political policy. ================================== Neither did the Chinese People's Liberation Army nor, as far as I know, any other "Stalinist" movements of national liberation, which suggests this issue had very little if anything to do with the doctrinal divisions between Trotskyists and Stalinists and much more to do with the differences between civil war and conventional war. The Bolsheviks, the PLA, the Vietnamese NLF, the Cubans, and others - fully understanding that their civil wars could only be won by sharply differentiating themselves from the marauding government forces who engaged in the murder, rape, and pillaging of peasant communities - instilled this consciousness in the ranks, imposed tough strictures against these practices, and readily executed offenders who compromised their standing as revolutionary people's armies. Civil war necessarily "puts politics in command". The epic conflict between the USSR and Nazi Germany, on the other hand, was a conventional war between nations rather than classes, which subordinated political considerations to military ones, appealed to national rather than social consciousness, and was marked by official indifference to atrocities committed against an enemy population. By WWII, the Soviet army was composed mainly of conscripts who had not experienced the Bolshevik revolution nor the conditions which gave rise to it, and appeals to their social consciousness and internationalism would have had, to say the least, a rather abstract character when offered on behalf of those whom the regular and partisan forces perceived as alien aggressors rather than compatriots. Against this backdrop, any Soviet command, Stalinist or otherwise, would have quickly discovered the efficacy of mobilizing the population and armed forces on the basis of patriotism rather than solidarity, and adapted to it. Appeals to nationalism have their own logic, and frequently result in time of war in the kind of undisciplined criminal behaviour displayed by the victorious and vengeful Soviet detachments against the German civilian population, notably the widespread raping of women. This seems to me to be where the explanation lies for the "uncharacteristic" behaviour of the Red Army in this instance which the left has had difficulty either acknowledging or comprehending. From lycophidion at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 15:21:27 2009 From: lycophidion at gmail.com (Michael Friedman) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:21:27 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Global Action Day for Honduras Message-ID: <709f342d0908061421j25bf9c72n5c207f57e85ec980@mail.gmail.com> August 11, 2009: Global Action Day for Honduras by Via Campesina To the sisters and brothers of all the regions of Via Campesina To the sisters and brothers of all social movements To all the people of the world Since the military coup -- after more than 38 days of untiring efforts by thousands of farmers, women, indigenous people, teachers, students, unionists, and ordinary citizens of the cities and the countryside to reverse it and to recover democracy and dignity -- the repression by the coup participants has not notched the fighting spirit of the heroic Honduran people. This struggle has now entered a crucial phase as the farmers movement and the National Front of Resistance Against the Coup d'Etat have summoned the social, union, and democratic movements to a National March that begins on the 5th of August and will culminate on the 11th of August in Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula. In support of this National March and our sister and brother farmers and all the Honduran people, Via Campesina calls on you to participate in a "Global Day of Action for Honduras," which will take place on the 11th of August of this year. We seek to mount strong solidarity efforts carrying out political and cultural mobilization, concrete actions, and political pressure and lobbying, as well as any and all possible activities that help advance the Honduran popular resistance in defeating this military coup. We ask you to inform us about your plans of action and work for the "Day of Global Action for Honduras" as soon as possible. GLOBALIZE THE HOPE! GLOBALIZE THE STRUGGLE! Write to Via Campesina Honduras: Wendy Cruz: wendycruzsanchez at yahoo.ca Mabel Marquez: mabelmarquez07 at gmail.com Henry Saragih International Coordinator of Via Campesina 11 de Agosto de 2009: DIA DE ACCI?N GLOBAL POR HONDURAS A las hermanas y hermanos de todas las regiones de La V?a Campesina, A las hermanas y hermanos de todos los movimientos sociales, A todos los pueblos del mundo: A m?s de un mes del golpe militar en Honduras y a 38 d?as de una incansable lucha de millares de campesinos, mujeres, ind?genas, maestros, estudiantes, sindicalistas, profesionistas y gente sencilla de las ciudades y del campo, para revertirlo y restaurar la democracia y la dignidad, la represi?n de los golpistas no ha mellado el esp?ritu de lucha del heroico pueblo hondure?o. Esta lucha ha entrado ahora en una fase crucial por lo que el movimiento campesino hondure?o y el Frente Nacional de Resistencia Contra el Golpe de Estado, han convocado a los movimientos sociales, sindicales y democr?ticos, a una Marcha Nacional que se inicia este d?a 5 de agosto y culminar? el 11 de agosto en Tegucigalpa y San Pedro Sula. En apoyo a esta Marcha Nacional y a nuestras hermanas y hermanos campesinos y a todo el pueblo hondure?o, La V?a Campesina les hace un llamado a un D?a de Acci?n Global por Honduras, el 11 de agosto de este a?o, para desplegar la solidaridad m?s amplia llevando a cabo movilizaciones, actos pol?ticos y culturales, acciones de presi?n y cabildeo y cualquier actividad posible que ayude al avance de la lucha popular hondure?a en la derrota del golpe militar. Les solicitamos que nos informen a la menor brevedad posible de sus planes de acci?n y trabajo del D?a de Acci?n Global de Honduras. ?GLOBALICEMOS LA LUCHA, GLOBALICEMOS LA ESPERANZA! Henry Saragih, coordinador general de la V?a Campesina This call to action was issued by Via Campesina on 5 August 2009. URL: mrzine.monthlyreview.org/honduras060809.html From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Thu Aug 6 15:23:18 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 00:23:18 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] Hiroshima and Nagasaki In-Reply-To: <18d70e600908060720g488dba8r3877c4a8cc9049d6@mail.gmail.com> References: <18d70e600908060720g488dba8r3877c4a8cc9049d6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: At the link below there is the song on Hiroshima. It is based on Naz?m Hikmet's poem "little Girl". It was originally composed by Z?lfi Livaneli but it is sung by John Beaz. As it is on facebook I do not whether you can get to the link but thought I should share it with you. http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=95434&id=679265821&ref=nf#/home.php?ref=home -- Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Thu Aug 6 15:27:47 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 00:27:47 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] Hiroshima and Nagasaki In-Reply-To: References: <18d70e600908060720g488dba8r3877c4a8cc9049d6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: And this is the youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqayiiazDxc -- Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From sabocat59 at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 15:32:06 2009 From: sabocat59 at gmail.com (Greg McDonald) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:32:06 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] ELN says US is preparing to Invade Venezuela Message-ID: <6e42edf00908061432q7124d7bu41e8440fb7c43f64@mail.gmail.com> Uribe makes his first stop in Bolivia, part of a Latin American tour to drum up support for the gringo base expansion. Morales expresses his opposition to the plan, and in general to the presence of US military forces in Latin America. A threat to democracy, he said. UNASUR plans to meet. Uribe said he will not attend. For its part, the ELN says this is the first phase of a US plan to invade Venezuela. They call on unity with FARC to defeat the US invasion, by preventing the US consolidation of military bases in Colombian territory. Greg McD (VIDEO) ELN afirma que EEUU prepara invasi?n a Venezuela: Instalaci?n de 7 bases militares gringas confirma Uribe Por: Agencias / Aporrea.org Fecha de publicaci?n: 05/08/09 http://www.aporrea.org/imprime/n139940.html Agosto 5 de 2009.- El presidente colombiano ?lvaro Uribe inici? ayer una gira por pa?ses de Suram?rica con el fin de despejar inquietudes acerca del acuerdo militar que negocia con EEUU, que considera "positivo" Seg?n altos jefes militares de EEUU y de Colombia, la instalaci?n de las bases s?lo debe ser temida por "terroristas y narcotraficantes". El Mandatario, que est? acompa?ado de su canciller, Jaime Berm?dez, visit? ayer mismo Per? y Bolivia. Su hom?logo Alan Garc?a se solidariz? ante lo que defini? como "situaciones enojosas que presentan a Colombia lamentablemente como v?ctima de algunos hechos que no deber?an ocurrir". Por su parte, Evo Morales ratific? a Uribe su rechazo. "Como v?ctima le dije que me siento agredido por la presencia de militares estadounidenses en Colombia", dijo. El Presidente colombiano estar? hoy en Chile y Paraguay, y ma?ana continuar? su periplo por Uruguay, Argentina y Brasil, seg?n la agenda preliminar que ha sido difundida, para explicarles los alcances del acuerdo que negocia con Washington para que militares estadounidenses puedan usar hasta siete bases en Colombia para operaciones contra el narcotr?fico. Se trata de tres bases de la Fuerza A?rea: Malambo (norte), Palanquero (centro) y Apiay (este); dos del Ej?rcito: en Tolemaida (centro) y Larandia (sur); y dos navales: Cartagena (norte, sobre el Atl?ntico) y M?laga (oeste, en el Pac?fico), seg?n el comandante general de las Fuerzas Militares de Colombia, Freddy Padilla. "Nadie distinto a los terroristas y a los narcotraficantes debe temer por este acuerdo transparente, respetuoso de soberan?as, de los acuerdos internacionales", dijo Padilla. Varios pol?ticos colombianos aplaudieron la gira. "Me parece conveniente. Tenemos que tratar de convencer a los vecinos de que Colombia no tiene una intenci?n agresiva", sostuvo el ex presidente C?sar Gaviria (1990-1994). Para Guillermo Fern?ndez de Soto, canciller en el gobierno de Andr?s Pastrana (1998-2002), "es de una gran utilidad", sobre todo por el "contacto personal" que el Mandatario tendr? con otros jefes de Estado. ELN: PREPARAN INVASI?N El Ej?rcito de Liberaci?n Nacional (ELN) dijo ayer que EEUU prepara una invasi?n de Venezuela desde bases militares colombianas y llam? a las Farc a sumar fuerzas para impedirlo. El Comando Central del grupo rebelde indic? que Washington inicia un dispositivo militar de ataque a Venezuela, a trav?s del aumento de tropas y medios de guerra de EEUU en Colombia. Video Fuente: http://www.youtube.com/user/ComunicaBolivia From philip.ferguson at canterbury.ac.nz Thu Aug 6 15:33:20 2009 From: philip.ferguson at canterbury.ac.nz (Philip Ferguson) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 09:33:20 +1200 Subject: [Marxism] Nepal: Maoist deadline ends tomorrow: mass mobilisations and 'struggle programs' set to begin Message-ID: <6939483EA0E7574D9BE975D31D3E593701105AC7@ucexchange2.canterbury.ac.nz> From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Thu Aug 6 15:34:10 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 00:34:10 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] Hiroshima and Nagasaki In-Reply-To: References: <18d70e600908060720g488dba8r3877c4a8cc9049d6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: And on this link you can listen to Naz?m Hikmet reading out his peom and John Beaz singing the song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3I4OnAuZIo -- Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com Thu Aug 6 15:42:44 2009 From: dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com (Dogan Gocmen) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 00:42:44 +0300 Subject: [Marxism] Hiroshima and Nagasaki In-Reply-To: References: <18d70e600908060720g488dba8r3877c4a8cc9049d6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I am sorry for spaming you. This is my last post today. I finally found the English translation of the poem by Naz?m Hikmet: *The Dead Little Girl* - Nazim Hikmet It is me knocking at your door - at how many doors i've been But no one can see me Since the dead are invisible. I died at Hiroshima that was ten years ago I am a girl of seven Dead children do not grow. First my hair caught fire then my eyes burnt out I became a handful of ashes blown away by the wind. I don't wish anything for myself for a child who is burnt to cinders cannot even eat sweets. I'm knocking at your doors aunts and uncles, to get your signatures so that never again children will burn and so they can eat sweets. -- Dogan G?cmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 From meisner at xs4all.nl Thu Aug 6 16:08:09 2009 From: meisner at xs4all.nl (Jeff) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:08:09 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] Rape is not necessarily a consequence of war In-Reply-To: <17D1A9C77B924BFF82E3F57E8561BB8D@MARV> References: <746939.84683.qm@web63103.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20090807000809.037f2234@pop.xs4all.nl> At 17:02 06/08/09 -0400, Marv Gandall wrote: > > suggests this >issue had very little if anything to do with the doctrinal divisions between >Trotskyists and Stalinists I don't think that was ever the issue. The issue was rewriting history and/or justifying rape in war, and THAT happened to touch on certain parties who have similarly defended or covered up policies promulgated by Stalin (who after all WAS in power during WWII). No one implied that a "Trotskyist army" (if there ever were one) would necessarily be pure, nor did the fact that the NLF might be described as "Stalinist" require them to repeat the bad behavior of the Red army in WWII. So it is YOU who are reading too much into this. >differences between >civil war and conventional war. Well I don't think so. And do I take that to mean that you saw the Vietnam war as a "civil war?" (= the fiction of "South Vietnam") I hope not. >The Bolsheviks, the PLA, the Vietnamese NLF, the Cubans, and others - fully >understanding that their civil wars could only be won by sharply >differentiating themselves Well I was sort of hoping they didn't tolerate rape because that's the RIGHT thing to do! >The epic conflict between the USSR and Nazi Germany, on the other hand, was >a conventional war between nations rather than classes I don't know about you, but I supported the fight against fascism as part of the class war, not because I like one of the nations better than the other! If Russians came to view it as a "war between nations," I would call that an ideological failure. And indeed one encouraged by Stalin, if we must name names! >By WWII, the Soviet army was composed mainly of conscripts who had not >experienced the Bolshevik revolution nor the conditions which gave rise to >it, and appeals to their social consciousness and internationalism would >have had, to say the least, a rather abstract character So what are you saying? That the "masses" are incapable of abstract thought? Incapable of appreciating socialism if they had been born into it? That is a very pessimistic view, and I hope you're wrong or we're all wasting our time. > any Soviet >command, Stalinist or otherwise, would have quickly discovered the efficacy >of mobilizing the population and armed forces on the basis of patriotism Would have RESORTED to that? I hope not. I hope not. >the kind of undisciplined >criminal behaviour displayed by the victorious and vengeful Soviet >detachments Well you can call the criminal behaviour "undisciplined," but the army itself WAS disciplined or it wouldn't have won the war! So if there was a SELECTIVE lack of discipline, then that implicates the command structure responsible for discipline...... YOU figure it out! - Jeff From sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com Thu Aug 6 16:09:12 2009 From: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com (sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:09:12 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Proletarian Defense for Democrats? Message-ID: <20090806220912.EFB56B006D@smtp.hushmail.com> Now that we have dispensed with who won WWII, the history of the RKKA/CA, and the sensational and still un- substantiated charges by Mark, it is time to move on to proletarian defense guards for Democrats, specifically Democratic congress members attempting to hold town hall meeting. It sounds wierd, true, but I was contacted today as part of a mobilization to confront the hysterical collection of Ron Paulites, birthers,and other associated stormtroops who will be attempting to shut down a discussion of health care tonight by our aging congressman. In other parts of the country liberal representatives have had to flee of be escorted out by the police. The UAW is also supposed to lend some rank and file militants to this so we shall see how things turn out. Does a proletarian defense guard for an aging Democratic hack make any sense to anyone here? It is true that the local right wing is particularly virulent and I noticed seveal "Death to communists" at the "tea party" tax protest. It brought to mind the fact that all the Obama signs/ stickers I saw on campus were defaced with a Soviet flag stickers. Given how incensed these people are one wonders what they would do if a real socialist were in any elected office. I am not going to agonize now over the popular front overtones about all this but I really hate these creeps and I can be as loud as these assholes any day of the week. The larger question remains is that what is the correct path in this era of political polarization and the increasing virulence of the neo-nazi faction of the Republican party. I would appreciate other comrades experience and thoughts on this issue. Lal salaam From nchamah at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 16:15:58 2009 From: nchamah at gmail.com (Nchamah Miller) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:15:58 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] ELN says US is preparing to Invade Venezuela In-Reply-To: <6e42edf00908061432q7124d7bu41e8440fb7c43f64@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Greg says For its part, the ELN says this is the first phase of a US plan to invade Venezuela. They call on unity with FARC to defeat the US invasion, by preventing the US consolidation of military bases in Colombian territory. End of quote FOR ONCE, FOR ONLY ONCE URIBE ON HIS WIRLWIND TOUR TO SOME COUNTRIES IN LATIN AMERICA IS GETTING CLOSE TO THE CRUX OF THE MATTER. The first and primary target are the insurgent groups and since there is only one currently on campaigns, because the ELN is not, then this leaves the FARC. Some sections, not all of both groups have had intense rivalry, and for this reason there are no accords between them. This call to arms by the ELN and a rapprochement with the FARC is surprising and more interesting than the content of its missive about attacks to Venezuela. Do not doubt that there will be intense bombing of the areas controlled by the insurgency, civil population notwithstanding. In short the air bases are not aimed at Venezuela the state, as countless analysts from have suggested. Their presence has initially negotiated with Bush, what has changed is the speed and brazenness with which they have announced an increase in the number of bases originally agreed to. Look the US could have invaded Cuba, if it chose to many years ago, but it did not. It would not seem even militarily expedient to attack Venezuela for what, militarily speaking of course? Venezuela still supplies the US with gold and both parties seem to be happy in this regard. This said, OIL may be another key factor, as it was on the war on Iraq. What is at stake is the protection of an intensification of the drilling and mining industries which happens to be on the Ecuadorean and Venezuelan border with Colombia. And these the US will fight for. Another factor, strategically speaking the US had no land base for the flights of the aircraft of the fourth fleet which was launched into the Caribbean a year ago. So now the US has a land base and the necessary naval force in the Caribbean and there is no count on how many mercenaries are in Colombia. I seem to recall that Venezuela closed its airspace to the US military quite a long time ago, but it still allows Colombian air force, following the usual protocols, to fly over its territory, however, what happens next in this regard, in the sense of an increase in flights will indicate whether in fact Venezuela believes that the bases, now fully operated by Colombian mercenaries have their sights on Venezuela. On 06/08/09 5:32 PM, "Greg McDonald" wrote: > Uribe makes his first stop in Bolivia, part of a Latin American tour > to drum up support for the gringo base expansion. Morales expresses > his opposition to the plan, and in general to the presence of US > military forces in Latin America. A threat to democracy, he said. > UNASUR plans to meet. Uribe said he will not attend. > > For its part, the ELN says this is the first phase of a US plan to > invade Venezuela. They call on unity with FARC to defeat the US > invasion, by preventing the US consolidation of military bases in > Colombian territory. > > Greg McD > > > (VIDEO) ELN afirma que EEUU prepara invasi?n a Venezuela: Instalaci?n > de 7 bases militares gringas confirma Uribe > Por: Agencias / Aporrea.org > Fecha de publicaci?n: 05/08/09 > http://www.aporrea.org/imprime/n139940.html > > > Agosto 5 de 2009.- El presidente colombiano ?lvaro Uribe inici? ayer > una gira por pa?ses de Suram?rica con el fin de despejar inquietudes > acerca del acuerdo militar que negocia con EEUU, que considera > "positivo" > > Seg?n altos jefes militares de EEUU y de Colombia, la instalaci?n de > las bases s?lo debe ser temida por "terroristas y narcotraficantes". > > El Mandatario, que est? acompa?ado de su canciller, Jaime Berm?dez, > visit? ayer mismo Per? y Bolivia. Su hom?logo Alan Garc?a se > solidariz? ante lo que defini? como "situaciones enojosas que > presentan a Colombia lamentablemente como v?ctima de algunos hechos > que no deber?an ocurrir". > > Por su parte, Evo Morales ratific? a Uribe su rechazo. > > "Como v?ctima le dije que me siento agredido por la presencia de > militares estadounidenses en Colombia", dijo. > > El Presidente colombiano estar? hoy en Chile y Paraguay, y ma?ana > continuar? su periplo por Uruguay, Argentina y Brasil, seg?n la agenda > preliminar que ha sido difundida, para explicarles los alcances del > acuerdo que negocia con Washington para que militares estadounidenses > puedan usar hasta siete bases en Colombia para operaciones contra el > narcotr?fico. > > Se trata de tres bases de la Fuerza A?rea: Malambo (norte), Palanquero > (centro) y Apiay (este); dos del Ej?rcito: en Tolemaida (centro) y > Larandia (sur); y dos navales: Cartagena (norte, sobre el Atl?ntico) y > M?laga (oeste, en el Pac?fico), seg?n el comandante general de las > Fuerzas Militares de Colombia, Freddy Padilla. > > "Nadie distinto a los terroristas y a los narcotraficantes debe temer > por este acuerdo transparente, respetuoso de soberan?as, de los > acuerdos internacionales", dijo Padilla. > > Varios pol?ticos colombianos aplaudieron la gira. "Me parece > conveniente. Tenemos que tratar de convencer a los vecinos de que > Colombia no tiene una intenci?n agresiva", sostuvo el ex presidente > C?sar Gaviria (1990-1994). Para Guillermo Fern?ndez de Soto, canciller > en el gobierno de Andr?s Pastrana (1998-2002), "es de una gran > utilidad", sobre todo por el "contacto personal" que el Mandatario > tendr? con otros jefes de Estado. > > ELN: PREPARAN INVASI?N > El Ej?rcito de Liberaci?n Nacional (ELN) dijo ayer que EEUU prepara > una invasi?n de Venezuela desde bases militares colombianas y llam? a > las Farc a sumar fuerzas para impedirlo. El Comando Central del grupo > rebelde indic? que Washington inicia un dispositivo militar de ataque > a Venezuela, a trav?s del aumento de tropas y medios de guerra de EEUU > en Colombia. > > Video Fuente: http://www.youtube.com/user/ComunicaBolivia > > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/nchamah%40gmail.com From jayclinton88 at yahoo.ie Thu Aug 6 16:34:36 2009 From: jayclinton88 at yahoo.ie (Jay Clinton) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 22:34:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Marxism] Proletarian Defense for Democrats? In-Reply-To: <20090806220912.EFB56B006D@smtp.hushmail.com> Message-ID: <816897.90501.qm@web24710.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Those are not 'town hall meetings.' They are corporate/imperial propaganda sessions. Go with your own contingent of pro-single payer people and let him have it good from the working class side. That's what happened to our nice, liberal, war-supporting, crackpot realist congressman who won't support single payer. --- On Thu, 6/8/09, sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com wrote: From: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com Subject: [Marxism] Proletarian Defense for Democrats? To: "jc" Date: Thursday, 6 August, 2009, 10:09 PM Now that we have dispensed with who won WWII, the history of the RKKA/CA, and the sensational and still un- substantiated charges by Mark, it is time to move on to proletarian defense guards for Democrats, specifically Democratic congress members attempting to hold town hall meeting. It sounds wierd, true, but I was contacted today as part of a mobilization to confront the hysterical collection of Ron Paulites, birthers,and other associated stormtroops who will be attempting to shut down a discussion of health care tonight by our aging congressman. In other parts of the country liberal representatives have had to flee of be escorted out by the police. The UAW is also supposed? to lend some rank and file militants to this so we shall see how things turn out. Does a proletarian defense guard for an aging Democratic hack make any sense to anyone here? It is true that the local right wing is particularly virulent and I noticed seveal "Death to communists" at the "tea party" tax protest. It brought to mind the fact that all the Obama signs/ stickers I saw on campus were defaced with a Soviet flag stickers. Given how incensed these people are one wonders what they would do if a real socialist were in any elected office. I am not going to agonize now over the popular front overtones about all this but I really hate these creeps and I can be as loud as these assholes any day of the week. The larger question remains is that what is the correct path in this era of political polarization and the increasing virulence of the neo-nazi faction of the Republican party. I would appreciate other comrades experience and thoughts on this issue. Lal salaam ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/jayclinton88%40yahoo.ie Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From suarsos at alphalink.com.au Thu Aug 6 17:02:40 2009 From: suarsos at alphalink.com.au (Tom O'Lincoln) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:02:40 +1000 Subject: [Marxism] Seeds of disaster: Australia's Whitlam Labor government Message-ID: <58D4C73606F94C2EBF930F2A458B26EA@gx270> Gough Whitlam's famous "It's Time" slogan was more than clever marketing. While many Labor Party supporters , didn't dare believe in victory until the very end, still there seemed to be something virtually inevitable about the 1972 Labor win. Australia had changed immensely since the days of Menzies. But Whitlam soon got into trouble ... I wrote a detailed analysis of the rise and decline of this reforming Australian Labor government, which is now available on line ere: http://redsites.alphalink.com.au/whitlam.htm From markalause at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 17:21:21 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 19:21:21 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Proletarian Defense for Democrats? In-Reply-To: <20090806220912.EFB56B006D@smtp.hushmail.com> References: <20090806220912.EFB56B006D@smtp.hushmail.com> Message-ID: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com> wrote: > Now that we have dispensed with ... > the sensational and still un- > substantiated charges by Mark, > Right! Books, studies, documents, interviews don't count. You really ARE a birther, aren't you? ML From intnsred at golgotha.net Thu Aug 6 18:07:12 2009 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 20:07:12 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Venezuelan National Assembly Discusses Combating Media Terrorism In-Reply-To: <4A7B060D.4020507@gmail.com> References: <4A7B060D.4020507@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200908062007.12375.intnsred@golgotha.net> > There are laws like this in [e]very state. But "dissementating false > information"? Isn't that common too? Doesn't the US FCC's "operating in the public interest" concept define purposely broadcasting false information as a reason a station could lose its license? To me, it would all depend on how such things are interpreted. > If I were in the U.S. Department, I would be very happy right about now. No doubt they are. But if one thing is clear, it's that the US is going to demonize Venezuela no matter what Venezuela does. -- There's no such thing as "Intellectual 'Property'". All ideas are owned by the public and are in the public domain. The creator of an idea is granted a temporary monopoly called a copyright (or patent) before the idea returns to the public. From nchamah at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 18:07:17 2009 From: nchamah at gmail.com (Nchamah Miller) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:07:17 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] COLOMBIA TODAY Message-ID: If anyone is interested in receiving more extensive coverage on the topic of Colombia re the airbases, the current government and the insurgency Please contact me personally at insumisos at rogers.com The articles are too long to post here, they are available both in English and in Spanish nchamah From pt_costello at yahoo.com Thu Aug 6 18:13:33 2009 From: pt_costello at yahoo.com (Pat Costello) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Marxism] Bacon as a Weapon of Mass Destruction Message-ID: <95134.44473.qm@web63101.mail.re1.yahoo.com> http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/3/arun_gupta_on_bacon_as_a From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Aug 6 18:22:50 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:22:50 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] More on Sacha Cohen's phony interview Message-ID: <4A7B73DA.4010002@panix.com> The Lede - New York Times Blog August 6, 2009, 4:22 pm Did a Fake Interview With a ?Real Terrorist? in ?Br?no? Cross a Line? By Robert Mackey No one expects comedians impersonating journalists to adhere to the tenets of real journalism, but reports suggesting that Sacha Baron Cohen misled audiences about several elements of a scene in his new film, ?Br?no,? in which his fictional alter-ego interviews ?a real terrorist,? make The Lede wonder if he might have violated an unwritten rule of pranksterism by pretending to have pulled off a prank that it seems he never even tried. As my colleague Dave Itzkoff pointed out last week on the ArtsBeat blog, a Palestinian man who was interviewed by Mr. Baron Cohen, in the guise of his fictional alter-ego, a gay Austrian journalist named Br?no, has threatened to sue the comedian for saying, in the film and in promotional interviews ? like the one with David Letterman embedded above ? that he is ?a terrorist.? The man, Ayman Abu Aita, identified in the film as a leader of the al-Aqsa Martys Brigade supposedly tricked into a meeting with Mr. Baron Cohen, told Agence France-Presse, The Guardian and Sky News last week that he was a member of the mainstream Palestinian Fatah political movement, and a Christian who works with a charity promoting nonviolence, but not a militant. According to both The Guardian and Sky News, Mr. Baron Cohen?s prank on Mr. Abu Aita was carried off by mixing fact and fiction in the film and in later descriptions of how it was made. In his interview with Mr. Letterman last month, Mr. Baron Cohen ? speaking not as his character, but as himself ? said that a contact at the C.I.A. had helped him look for a terrorist to interview and that, after several months, the film crew arranged to interview Mr. Abu Aita.* Mr. Baron Cohen said the interview had taken place at ?a secret location,? in the presence of bodyguards. According to Mr. Abu Aita, the interview actually took place at a hotel near Bethlehem, directly across from an Israeli military compound, and he was accompanied only by the Palestinian journalist who put the film crew in touch with him. The Guardian notes that the hotel is ?popular with tourists.? In the Sky News video report embedded below, Mr. Abu Aita adds that he is hardly considered a terrorist by the Israeli government, since he has been allowed to travel abroad, through Israeli passport control, several times. He also told The Guardian, ?My file is clear with the Americans. I was in the States twice and I travel all the time.? Mr. Abu Aita serves on the board of a charity, the Holy Land Trust, which was co-founded by American Christians. The report also shows a moment in the film in which Mr. Abu Aita?s words are apparently mistranslated. When he asks, in Arabic, for a question about Osama bin Laden to be repeated, his response is rendered in English as a veiled threat against Mr. Baron Cohen. The Guardian reports that ?A spokesman for Baron Cohen declined to comment? on Mr. Abu Aita?s allegations. Sky?s Tim Marshall adds that the Palestinian journalist, Awni Jubran, told him that when researchers for the film contacted him, ?they asked him to find someone to represent Palestinian views, but never mentioned terrorism. He dutifully delivered the easy-to-find Abu Aita.? If the moments that make viewers squirm in Mr. Baron Cohen?s film were just fiction inspired by fact ? like those in ?The Office? or ?Curb Your Enthusiasm? ? then none of the elements that appear to have been fictionalized in ?Br?no? would matter. But in his interview with Mr. Letterman, Mr. Baron Cohen insisted that he had actually played a prank on a terrorist. He said that when he presented the idea for this scene ? ?a comedian interviewing a terrorist? ? to his film studio, executives asked him, ?Who?s going to play the terrorist?? He says he replied, ?No, we?re going to find a real terrorist.? If, as Mr. Abu Aita claims, Mr. Baron Cohen decided instead to simply pretend that the man he interviewed was a terrorist, it makes you wonder what he gained by not just hiring an actor. *An earlier version of this post mistakenly said that Mr. Baron Cohen told Mr. Letterman that a contact at the C.I.A. had helped arrange this interview with the man he called a terrorist. Mr. Baron Cohen was not that explicit about how much help his intelligence contact was in this From stuartmunckton at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 18:32:18 2009 From: stuartmunckton at gmail.com (Stuart Munckton) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:32:18 +1000 Subject: [Marxism] Venezuelan National Assembly Discusses Combating Media Terrorism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2c6145850908061732l7981e0bam1c84347fe882858c@mail.gmail.com> If you want to discuss this, then it needs to be placed in its context. This is not an abstract discussion occuring in a vacuum. it is occuring in the context of a hostile class controlling the overwhelming majority of the media and using it to destablise the country. It is in the context of an uneven, developing struggle to democratise the media. Without mentioning the the second part, the actual *extenion* of freedom of speech to those who have never enjoyed it except as an abstract right, you cannot have any serious discussion about the pros and cons of the policy towards the media of the Venezuelan gvoernment. Like everyting else in Venezuela the interrelated (but not identical) struggle to break the media monopoly of a hostile class on one hand and democratise the media to the dispoosed classes on the other is shot through with the contradictions marking the process. That is, the class struggle exists within the revolution itself, between elements tied to the state bureaucracy and layers enriching themselves (or, possibly without ties but whose proposals coincide with those layers needs) and those pushing to make Chavez's propsals for a socialism of the 21st century based on revolutionary democracy a reality. Both these forces are in varying degrees of conflict with imperialism and with the hostile class forces in Venezuela entirely bound to imperialism. However, the more right-wing sections would be happier to replace the corporate media dictatorship with a tightly controlled bureacratically run from the top down state media, with perhaps a subordinated extension of community media. However there are also those pushing to go much further to democratise the media. Recent debates over the role of criticism within the revolution are also part of this, after state TV channel VTV hosted a live discussion with pro-revolution intellectuals that included a number of criticisms. This contradiction cuts into the government and national assembly. It is a living contradiction within a living process that is still pushing forwards, that still has at its heart the dynamic intervention into politics of hte oppressed, struggling to advance their itnerests, to increase their organisation. Chavez's role within this is still to encourage and push this while some o the forces around him undermine it. (The recent battles over workers' conhtrol is a perfect example of this.) The content of the battles around the media needs to be understood - the law exists in a context of a hostile media monopoly determined to destroy the process by whatever means necessary. The decision to hand the licences of a number of pro-coup corporate radio stations to community media indicates that the struggle against the corporate media is being pushed by and large hand in hand with the stuggle to democractise the media, to grant freedom of speech in reality to the oppressed. This is the class content of the media battles. Any law can be interpreted in different ways and used or abused according to varying interpretations. We could dissect written law till the cows come home and come up with a thousand different ways they might be used. It would a pointless exercise because the starting point has to be the actual context fo the laws and their relationship to a very intense, and growing more intense, class struggle. Stuart . From ian at ianpace.com Thu Aug 6 12:39:31 2009 From: ian at ianpace.com (Ian Pace) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 19:39:31 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] Red Army and rape In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.20090805192524.031ce898@pop.xs4all.nl> References: <3.0.3.32.20090805192524.031ce898@pop.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: From: "Jeff" > When hearing this I cannot help but remembering the (almost surely) > widespread use of rape (apparently organized as a systematic policy) in > the > Bosnian war of the early 90's, when some "Marxists" (i.e. Stalinists) > found > themselves (for reasons I still cannot fathom) in alliance with the > Serbian > state and with the Bosnian Serbs. They had a similar blind spot to the > incidence of rape. When questioned they would cringe and fall back on > "there's human rights abuses by ALL sides, but we have to concentrate on > opposing imperialism which is ultimately responsible......" etc. etc. > If I remember rightly, the story of 50 000 Bosnian Muslim women being raped by Bosnian Serbs, as part of an organised policy, was nothing more than propaganda designed to give a 'liberal' justification for American imperial intervention. Louis knows more about this, I think (I remember some post from him about the subject quite some time ago) - can you clarify? If we can find it amongst ourselves to understand (which is NOT the same as justify - to equate the two is just right-wing rhetoric) how some might be led to commit suicide bombings or large scale murder (which I'm sure many here would try and understand in certain contexts), then the same applies to rape. None of this is in any sense apologetics for the actions of the Red Army in Berlin. Solidarity, Ian From Waistline2 at aol.com Thu Aug 6 19:14:05 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 21:14:05 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Proletarian Defense for Democrats? Message-ID: >> Does a proletarian defense guard for an aging Democratic hack make any sense to anyone here? It is true that the local right wing is particularly virulent and I noticed several "Death to communists" at the "tea party" tax protest. I am not going to agonize now over the popular front overtones about all this but I really hate these creeps and I can be as loud as these assholes any day of the week. The larger question remains is that what is the correct path in this era of political polarization and the increasing virulence of the neo-Nazi faction of the Republican party. I would appreciate other comrades experience and thoughts on this issue. << Reply First of all be careful. Six months ago we faced powerful resistance to raising the single payer system as health care reform. Specially the resistance came from local officers at local union meeting and meeting of the union retired workers. The propaganda aspect of this work was under the banner of Conyers Health Care Bill - 676. Three months ago a rally was held in Lansing Michigan - the state capital, or rather capitol, with notable like Conyers and Jesse Jackson both stating everyone should NOT PUSH 676, BUT SUPPORT Obama. A couple of folks gave our 676 signs the eye but no big thing. Two months ago a subtle shift was detected with some of the local hacks calling us about the health care issue. 7 days ago there was a rally demanding a single payer health care system. About 25 people showed up, outside the offices of a state senate representative for the 13th district in Detroit. Of the 25 people two were younger than myself and I will be 57 next month. We need some young people and students and they are waiting for US. Not to pass out literature just on campus but in negiborhoods. This is where matters stand. If it were me, I would go to the meeting as an observer, if the meeting could not be run in an orderly manner. Orderly manner means ?Roberts Rules? and sergeant arms to escort individuals out of the meting who feel compelled to bring the meeting to an end. If maybe 10 - 15 of my personal friends were to be present and IF there was the political space to distribute literature about a single payer health care system I would go to the meeting with that purpose. You indicate that some UAW members will be present and this seems sufficient for a somewhat orderly and safe meeting. Events are speeding up very very fast. The purpose of these meeting should serve as contact points, networking, recruitment of people. I believe we have arrived at a point for the development of popular literature of a communist character that speaks of concrete issues rather than ideology or theory. For instance, ?Health Care Must become a right.? Today we can speak of tearing health care out of the free market relations. I most certainly do not mean theoretical articles proclaiming Marx or trying to condense capital into a leaflet. If it is safe go and get a sense of things. Our job is not to defend hacks but the message. If in fighting to get the message out and defend it this entails defending a Democratic Party hack so be it. We can only judge our efforts by collecting phone numbers and contacts. There is no need to label this work popular or united front. Our goal is not to just establish contact with the hacks and union leaders but real individuals really interested in what is taking place. Let?s see what happens. People are ready for meeting again. The meetings are about real issues and held for no longer than an hour. After the meeting is officially closed out, we end up discussing political issues for another hour or two and reading from a couple of communist newspapers. The papers are ?Peoples Tribune? and ?Rally Comrades.? I like both papers but would gladly distribute a joint paper embracing 2,3 - 6 organizations with the capacity to put to the side ideological questions and international analysis?s - ?should we support the democratic movement in Iraq,? and focus on the issue that allows one to build solidarity and organization. I am not opposed to article about Iraq and US relations, but I am in an area with perhaps the largest concentration of Iraqi in America. You can find on-line editions by these names. I am discovering that hard copies do better and deliver the warmth of one on one human contact. Plus, folks have the freedom to read the paper in the kitchen, on the couch and in the bathroom. At the end of our meetings - held weekly and sometimes bi-weekly, we assign another article to be discussed. ****** Then there was the Detroit City Council election two days ago. My candidate lost coming in 34 out of a field of 166. His candidacy and that of a couple other UAW members shifted the upper layer of the union bureaucracy but I am not yet sure why. A section wanted badly to engage the process and did with money, members at polling places and a phone bank. Did get a chance to go door to door and it felt great. I did not talk about socialism or communism. I talked about health care, city taxes and a strong focus on the need for an expanded public sector of the economy. The housing crisis as an issue of our neighborhoods, crime and the need to pull together in block clubs and militant groups like in the 1960s. Without the militant group for young people are children becomes victims of crime and criminals and stupid. I do use the word working class people. In Detroit a politically thinking layer of folks believe Obama is a one term President. When speaking about Obama, which everyone is talking about, I try and focus on what his elelction indicates as shifts in the traditionally conservate republic workers who bolted from the Republican Party. These same workers can easily swing backwards. Thus, we have to do something. I think that a shift may have already taken place but I always judge real time matter wrong. I just try and not be the last one to catch up. Maybe the thread should have been called "Proletarian Defense for A Democrat?" The way it reads someone is going to say, "See he support the Democratic Party," which is not my read on what you wrote. The other course of action is to do nothing. WL From magnoliabloomberg at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 19:40:14 2009 From: magnoliabloomberg at gmail.com (oscardelabosca thecatholiccat) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 11:40:14 +1000 Subject: [Marxism] Blogger has closed Sibel Edmonds blog. Please protest and spread word. Message-ID: Sibel Edmonds just emailed me saying that she has been blocked from her Blog account by Google. The timing is suspicious given her two recent explosive radio interviews and having just been subpoenaed as well. She wants support from anyone to disseminate this information. I have deleted her personal email but the below is in its entirety from her website http://www.justacitizen.com/Press_Releases/URGENTGoogle%27s%20Blogger-Aug6.htm URGENT: GOOGLE BLOCKS MY SITE DURING SENSITIVE PERIOD WE NEED YOUR HELP My Blog Site http://123realchange.blogspot.com is now blocked by Google?s Blogger. They will not let me post during this most sensitive period, when I am about to provide deposition on Foreign US government illegal operations in the United States! A few weeks ago I started receiving ?Google & Blogger warnings? from my technologically savvy friends and well-wishers, who encouraged me to have a mirror site as a back up and or cease using Google?s Blogger all together. I did take these warnings seriously and started looking at alternatives and other options. Well, this is what I got from Blogger yesterday: *From: **Blogger** Date: Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:19 AM Subject: http://123realchange.blogspot.com/ - ACTION REQUIRED To: XXXXXXXXXXXX Hello, Your blog at: http://123realchange.blogspot.com/ has been identified as a potential spam blog. To correct this, please request a review by filling out the form at http://www.blogger.com/unlock-blog.g?lockedBlogID=6542765284440328864 Your blog will be deleted in 20 days if it isn't reviewed, and your readers will see a warning page during this time. After we receive your request, we'll review your blog and unlock it within two business days. Once we have reviewed and determined your blog is not spam, the blog will be unlocked and the message in your Blogger dashboard will no longer be displayed. If this blog doesn't belong to you, you don't have to do anything, and any other blogs you may have won't be affected. We find spam by using an automated classifier. Automatic spam detection is inherently fuzzy, and occasionally a blog like yours is flagged incorrectly. We sincerely apologize for this error. By using this kind of system, however, we can dedicate more storage, bandwidth, and engineering resources to bloggers like you instead of to spammers. For more information, please see Blogger Help: http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=42577 Thank you for your understanding and for your help with our spam-fighting efforts. Sincerely, The Blogger Team P.S. Just one more reminder: Unless you request a review, your blog will be deleted in 20 days. Click this link to request the review: http://www.blogger.com/unlock-blog.g?lockedBlogID=6542765284440328864 * I am still looking into it and will be corresponding with them to find out what the heck is going on, but I must say the timing of this is extremely troubling: Is it coincidence that this comes up when I am subpoenaedto provide sworn deposition on matters that have sent our government scrambling and certain high-level criminal entities sweating big time? Is this due to my latest interviews for my Boiling Frogs Show on explosive issues such as AIPAC, Iran, Central Asia, and Pakistan? We know big brother NSA has been listening, and my guests have really been talking. We just wrapped up our phone interviews with Phil Giraldi (on AIPAC & Israel and more), Richard Barlow (on Pakistan and what our government didn?t want its people to know), Joe Trento (on Iran, Brzezinski, and more), Sandalio Gonzalez (on our phony War on Drugs, House of Death, Kent Memo, and more)?You see what I am getting at here? Or is it the fact that this blog is becoming more popular, the visitors? number has been going up rapidly, and its content getting picked up by many, nationally and internationally? And I am talking about content and topics that are blacklisted by the US Mainstream Media. I don?t know the answer. I may never know. However, what I know is this: I better find a different or multiple different, blog sites and keep this forum alive. I also want to warn others who may become subject to this kind of notice, or maybe get terminated without any notice! Please help me, thus all of us, resolve this blockage immediately, since in the next few days this blog may prove to be extremely crucial to report developing news and cases which will not be covered by MSM. Thank you, Sibel Edmonds -- An online community shining light into the dark reaches of deep political structures. www.deeppoliticsforum.com From amit.k.singh at gmx.com Thu Aug 6 20:25:15 2009 From: amit.k.singh at gmx.com (Amit Singh) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 22:25:15 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Neoliberalization of IIT Kanpur (India) and some recent worker deaths Message-ID: <20090807022515.84740@gmx.com> From amit.k.singh at gmx.com Thu Aug 6 20:29:41 2009 From: amit.k.singh at gmx.com (Amit Singh) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 22:29:41 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] test Message-ID: <20090807022941.84720@gmx.com> From fred.fuentes at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 20:31:44 2009 From: fred.fuentes at gmail.com (Fred Fuentes) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 22:31:44 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Chavez on current situation, rev org and militias Message-ID: Ch?vez's Lines Ideas and militias: What a creation! Too many crucial events have unfolded in the last months and the fate of the people in this continent has been put at risk. These events are not casual, they have been hatched for so long and far from here. This is the same 200-year-old struggle: On this side, freedom, peace, sovereignty and dignity to forge our fate; on the other side, dependency, war, slavery, and the dark path of colonial period. When these two options are clearly manifested, like it is happening, it would be a shameful irresponsibility if we did not do anything, if we let it happen, if we kept a submissive silence. it is fair and just to raise our voice and remain loyal to the commitment to the change of time beating deep in the hearts of the peoples of Our America and the Caribbean. We are not willing - to paraphrase our Liberator Sim?n Bol?var - to pass on a new colonial period to posterity. An posterity is no other thing but the generations of sons and daughters that have already started to raise by millions throughout this land. It is necessary to recall and clear up the most recent Latin American events and put them into context to uncover their hidden plot. On June 3, after 47 years and an intense diplomatic struggle, that unusual resolution condemning Cuba, from an OAS submitted to the US imperial power, is eliminated in San Pedro de Sula. There, it is fair to say it, the ALBA countries were determining. 21 days later, in Maracay, Venezuela, the ALBA changed its name and got stronger with the incorporation of Ecuador, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Antigua and Barbuda. Now we are nine peoples united by an effort of liberating solidarity with an own presence and voice in the continental concert. It became the Bolivarian alliance in Maracay. Though President Rafael Correa had already announced it, on Friday, July 17, the US operations at the Manta military base finished. This sovereign decision made by Ecuador raised the alarm at the Pentagon, which would not rest until it relocated its base in a new strategic space according to their continental domination interests. June 28, coup d' ?tat in Honduras. An ignominious attack against the people's will, unanimously condemned by the international community. Today, the brave Honduran people are in the streets and the fields claiming their rights and demanding the return of Manuel Zelaya to the President's Office. Meanwhile, the gorillas try to extend the days of their usurpation and turn their back on the world. Within this context, it is clear that the alleged mediation of President Arias just reflect the preservation of the US interests: The plan he proposed, beyond his function, is aimed at the return of Zelaya to the President's Office, but with his hands and feet tied up. And now the Plan Colombia enters a new phase: the United States arranges five new military bases in Colombian territory. Who are President Uribe and the Colombian oligarchy trying to deceive by making it look like the increase of the US military presence, through these new bases, does not pose a direct threat against Venezuela? Uribe's obsession with an Free Trade Agreement with the United States makes him be capable of everything. Colombia is, unfortunately, the beachhead of the US retaining strategy in South America and, of course, its operation base. As a matter of fact, these new military bases are a real and concrete danger against the sovereignty ansd stability of the South American region. They are spearheads of a new colonial period. The Plan Colombia, let's not forget this, was conceived by following a war domination strategy of the par excellence militarist state. The US meddling - to which we must add the presence of the state of Israel - in the Colombian domestic war makes it impossible to not trespass the borders of this fraternal an suffered homeland. They seek their expansion in the region and, first of all, to Venezuela. So, the Plan Colombia is not an exclusively Colombian issue; it affects and threatens us all. In this sense, I have spoke with some heads of state of our continent in order to warn them about the danger embodied by these US bases against Venezuela. It is evident that it will be a major topic at the nest Unasur meeting, to be held next August 10 in Quito, on the occasion of the inauguration of President Rafael Correa for a new presidential term and the constituent process of the Citizen's, Bolivarian and Alfaro's Revolution leaping forward in the Homeland of my general Manuela Saenz. In the name of the historical and fraternal bonds with the Colombian people, the Bolivarian government has been extremely patient with Uribe's government, but everything has its limits. Faced with a government that does not respect anything and serves the interests of the empire, we have to act as we have acted. We have been forced, in order to preserve our dignity, to withdraw our ambassador to Colombia and freeze relations. We are responding to a sustained line of aggression against Venezuela. A line of aggression reproduced here by private media. With no shame, they justify the new US military bases in the Colombian territory, and have the nerve to attack the Bolivarian government because it fully took a step to defend our sovereignty. By the way, today, Sunday, the prestigious R?mulo Gallegos Award will be granted to the Colombian writer William Ospina thanks to his novel El pa?s de la canela. Ospina embodies a great Colombian and South American conscience; he is one of the greatest voices of the other Colombia; that si to say, the real, worthy, and fraternal Colombia. We would like to recall one of his touching poems titled 9 de noviembre de 1948 (November 9, 1948), which embodies the best tribute to Gait?n. And we do it as a declaration of fraternal love to the Colombian people and as a reaffirmation of our solidarity with peace: "To understand this huge passion spread from chest to chest, from outcry to outcry, you must know about centuries of shame, about indigenous people educated by white people, about slaves that lived alone months of agony; you must know about falling living Gods, about dead wining Gods, about the infinite tiredness of living in a world without love for the world, about the stupidity of sad castes that intrigue, hurt and humiliate, but do not know about being worthy of their land and sky." Venezuela is not a threat to anybody, nor does it pretend to attack anybody, but it has the right to defend itself by increasing its defensive capability and military power. This explains the increase of the technical-military cooperation between Russia and Venezuela. The visit of the Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin has strengthened and expanded our military relations. Faced with a horizon riddled with foreign threats against our Bolivarian Revolution, our domestic strengthening is absolutely decisive, starting with our political strengthening. that is the reason why the reorganization phase of the PSUV members, is extremely important : the creation of socialist patrols will allow us to dynamize the party's presence everywhere. Especially, it is going to allow us to effectively put the socialist message on the map. I send an encouraging message to the patrol members of our United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), for Venezuela, and by Venezuela. The PSUV, the militias, the working class, the Bolivarian youth, the Bolivarian Armed Force, the peasantry, the students... Everything must be fully strengthened! And let the Patriotic, Bolivarian and Socialist ideology to be the fuel lighting us, the cement hardening us, the poetry wining our hearts. I will say it along with Sim?n Rodr?guez; "Ideas and militias. What a creation! From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Aug 6 20:39:08 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 22:39:08 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Forwarded post on India labor struggles Message-ID: <4A7B93CC.4080002@panix.com> (Amit Singh, a new subscriber, had problems posting this to the list.) Hi all, This is my first post on this list. IIT Kanpur is an elite Science & Technology institute in India. For many years the institute has been violating the labor rights and has completely failed to ensure the 'minimum wages' for the contract workers inside the campus. A group of comrades have been involved in the labor movement, but the issue hasn't attracted the attention of popular media as well as many other left activists. For a better appreciation of the issue of minimum wages in the campus, please read this: http://sanhati.com/articles/1692/ There have also occurred several worker deaths; the most recent one is Fifth such incident. The institute is also celebrating its Golden Jubilee on Aug 8th ( it will be webcasted here: http://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/users/gj/new/webcast/ ), but its at best Nero?s guests (P. Sainath's phrase) celebrating the deaths and exploitation of workers. There is also going to be pan-IIT conference this October in Chicago, where Mr. Bill Clinton would address the neoliberal minds: http://business.rediff.com/report/2009/aug/03/bill-clinton-to-speak-at-pan-iit-global-meet.htm Is it possible to bring this issue in that conference? In a personal exchange this is what the activists over there have written about the recent death: ?Another death in the campus ? the FIFTH such occurrence (not including 20-year old Tinku who fell down from the under ? construction Core Lab building, broke his back, and the last we know he had become a quadriplegic) in the last two years. The Institute authorities have not issued a formal communiqu? yet. But the sketchy details which we have got from two official sources, the IWD and the Security Office, are as follows: The death occurred on 26th July, 2009 (Sunday) between 9-10 pm in the night. The person, one Mr. Shafiq Ahmad, fell down from the under-construction IME (inside academic area, in front of Aero) building. Apparently he was not working on the site and had come prospecting for work on that day itself and was told to start work from the next day. He was asked to stay on the site itself and while he was going to sleep on the roof he fell down. He was found by the SIS guard on duty and was taken to the health centre (HC). He was declared dead and yet was referred to Hallett hospital, where he was declared brought dead. The body was then handed over for post mortem and a police FIR was also lodged. And on Monday it was arranged for the body to be sent back to his native place. He hailed from a village in Bihar. Several issues of concern emerge from this official version. They are: ? What was a person not employed in the Institute in any capacity doing in the campus on a site under construction? According to point 12 of the Office Order issued by the Director on the 16th September, 2007: No worker, or the family members, shall be allowed to stay on the campus without proper authorization. Contractors shall declare the names of such workers (and their family members, if any) who wishes to stay back at the work site on the request, and personal risk and liability of the contractor(s) shall have to obtain prior permission from the Institute through the administrative in-charge of the project/contract. ? The second issue which emerges immediately from this official version is the completely arbitrary hiring (and firing) policy followed in the Institute by the contractors. There seems to be no procedure in place in spite of the detailed office order (referred above) on this issue. Any person, even a migrant labour, can walk into a site and seek employment and may be allowed to stay overnight on the site. It follows that the person can be fired too without any procedure, completely compromising all norms of the legal hiring and firing procedures. ? The third issue which emerges from the account is that of safety. There have been several deaths in the campus at work site due to lack of basic safety procedures and equipments and still work continues in all spheres without any concern for safety. We have seen that on all the construction sites in the campus at present (the IME building, Hall X, the construction in front of the swimming pool), work going on till late in the night, at least till 8 pm. The workers including women and underage children work without any helmets, gloves, or any other equipment, often at dangerous heights. This death may have occurred after work hours, but the practices indicate that accidents, including fatal accidents, are merely waiting to happen. After 16 Sep. office order, safety committee gave a detailed 50 page report in December 2007, but the administration seems to have not even read it, let alone implementing it. We have some information from various unofficial, unconfirmed sources - SIS guards, workers at the site and health centre, other individuals who knew the worker personally, ? the key thing which seems to be emerging is that most likely Shafiq has been working in the Institute for some time and had only taken a break for a few days for some reason, and had again joined (or was going to join the next day) back work. There seem to have been serious lapses elsewhere too, including at the health centre. But the primary issue is how many more deaths will it take for the community to take notice? Or would another well worded office order on paper suffice on the eve of the grand Golden Jubilee celebrations? ? Please email me if anyone is interested in knowing further about this whole movement. amit.k.singh at gmx.com From sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com Thu Aug 6 21:43:55 2009 From: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com (sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:43:55 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Proletarian Defense II Message-ID: <20090807034355.B2CDBB807F@smtp.hushmail.com> Comrades, I haven't had time to read all the denunciations of "Proletarian Defense for Democrats?" yet as I am just back from the scene of battle. I am not sure about the vaunted reach of the Daily Kos or MoveOn or the Obama groups, but I saw precious little of their mobilizing ability tonight. To be fair I never actually made it inside the "town hall" meeting as over 400 people had already lined up an hour and a half before the event. The room only held 175 so I was stuck on the outside surrounded by a bitter sea of right wing fanatics. I reminded myself that being a communist is never easy. This flash mob was diverse but will organized with people handing out publications and overseerers with clipboards stopping chants like "Kill the Bill" because the kill part might not sound good on the evening news. The LaRouchies were there with a huge poster of Obama with a Hitler mustache that lots of people had their picture taken in front of. The LaRouche folks were quit clear that Obama was a fascist and not a socialist and this provoked some consternation among the Obama is a socialist faction and for those that couldn't decide wether these terms were interchageable or mutually exclusive concepts. Rather than initiating a screaming fight, as a handful of Obama supporters were then engaged in, I just piled on the questions and let them meander to their own illogical and unsupportable conclusions. In that way it was kind of like posting on Marxmail except people here are comrades after all, and they can only threaten to punch you in the face. As luck would have it a second shift of protestors was allowed inside and I almost made the cut but was stopped by security and now this group couldn't go in but didn't want to go back outside. They started to get loud and soon the aging congressman's wife shows up to try and calm the water. She has ambitions for this seat herself and she did her best to show what she could do to diffuse the situation. After promising another meeting in a larger space people started screaming again. A woman ranting about abortion was followed by an older guy mocking the way the aged congressman had lost his committee chairmanship to democratic caucus politics. She responded "I believe in democracy" and he shot back, "We don't." When she finally tired and left an organizer type jumped up to begin a harangue and at this point it was time to get loud,and profane, and the indignant right wing steamroller was stalled as security intervened and evicted everyone outside the building. The Republican Party is not fascist but there are fascists in it even though they are so muddled and incoherent in their thinking they could not even define the term much less recognize themselves. One lady told me how much she despised aged congressman except for all the great things he had done for veterans through improving service at the local VA hospital. When I told her I had served during two eras of war and was eligible for comprehensive government paid health care through the VA she told me that socialism was okay for veterans. From marvgandall at videotron.ca Thu Aug 6 21:44:01 2009 From: marvgandall at videotron.ca (Marv Gandall) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:44:01 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Rape is not necessarily a consequence of war References: <746939.84683.qm@web63103.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <3.0.3.32.20090807000809.037f2234@pop.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <1ED688DA825A45AC918B2BB8051ADABE@MARV> Jeff writes: > I don't know about you, but I supported the fight against fascism as part > of the class war, not because I like one of the nations better than the > other! If Russians came to view it as a "war between nations," I would > call > that an ideological failure. And indeed one encouraged by Stalin, if we > must name names! =================================== A military defeat would have been more catastrophic and far-reaching for the USSR and the global fight against fascism than the "ideological failure" which Jeff laments. We know the Soviet masses were successfully mobilized to throw themselves into a "Great Patriotic War" against German troops who invaded the country in the service of the Nazi regime. We don't know that defence of the USSR based on appeals to the Soviet masses to prosecute the war on behalf of socialism and international solidarity with the German working class - such propaganda was not entirely absent - would have had the same effect. Given the brutal character of the Wehrmacht's assault on the USSR and the lack of any mass antifascist sentiment or resistance apparent within Germany, I very much doubt it would have inspired the same sacrifice by the Soviet peoples. In the final analysis, defence of the USSR was more crucial than how it was defended, nothwithstanding that the Soviet wartime atrocities mentioned in this thread were not unrelated to the nationalist character of it's defence. From michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Thu Aug 6 21:44:43 2009 From: michael at ecst.csuchico.edu (michael perelman) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:44:43 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] Harberger Triangles, Okun Gaps, and X Efficiency Message-ID: <4A7BA32B.2080209@ecst.csuchico.edu> I have written a paper that uses two episodes to illustrate the nature of Chicago economics. It is being rewritten for a mainstream journal, so I have to pull my punches. I would appreciate any comments. Read more at: http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/harberger-triangles-okun-gaps-and-x-efficiency/ -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 530 898 5321 fax 530 898 5901 http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com From n.fredman.11 at scu.edu.au Thu Aug 6 21:51:27 2009 From: n.fredman.11 at scu.edu.au (n.fredman.11 at scu.edu.au) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:51:27 +1000 Subject: [Marxism] Audio interview with David Rovics on Australian tour Message-ID: David, along with Brisbane's Phil Monsour, still has shows in Brisbane and Lismore, see http://www.greenleft.org.au/palestine-solidarity-event.php Warwick Fry from community radio NIM-FM (based in Nimbin, near Lismore) talked to David recently about music, activism and Palestine. http://nimbinradiomedia.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=512483 From billyoc at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 22:02:35 2009 From: billyoc at gmail.com (Bill O'Connor) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:02:35 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Proletarian Defense II In-Reply-To: <20090807034355.B2CDBB807F@smtp.hushmail.com> (sobuadhaigh@hushmail.com's message of "Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:43:55 -0400") References: <20090807034355.B2CDBB807F@smtp.hushmail.com> Message-ID: <86r5votgo4.fsf@gmail.com> sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com writes: > The Republican Party is not fascist but there are fascists in it even > though they are so muddled and incoherent in their thinking they could > not even define the term much less recognize themselves. One lady > told me how much she despised aged congressman except for all the > great things he had done for veterans through improving service at the > local VA hospital. When I told her I had served during two eras of > war and was eligible for comprehensive government paid health care > through the VA she told me that socialism was okay for veterans. Well, there you go! We'll just run these wars for another 20 years, and everyone will be a veteran! > The will of the people, as they see it, is right wing, racially tinged > populism and there is a whiff of "by any means necessary" in their > rhetoric and demeanor. The question I asked in my last post remains: > what is the best most effective way to respond? If in the hall, I will shout down hecklers with "You'll get your turn", or "Let them speak" if the speaker hasn't finished yet. If it's during the Q&A period, I'll just laugh loudly. I look like(am) a big redneck construction worker, so sometimes that confuses them. -- In Solidarity, Billy O'Connor From fred.fuentes at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 22:06:30 2009 From: fred.fuentes at gmail.com (Fred Fuentes) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 00:06:30 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Bolivia will ask UNASUR to reject foreign military bases in Latin America Message-ID: The August 10 summit of the Union of South American Nations is setting up to be a big showdown. But not just between the ALBA forces such as Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador against Colombia, but also a political fight against the so-called "centre-left regimes". As Uribe continues on this 7 country whirlwind tour, both Brazil and Chile have come out saying that the issue of US military bases is question solely for Colombia, respecting its sovereignty. In response, Chavez said that no negotiation was possible and the only solution was for Colombia to not allow the establishment of US military bases. Uruguay has also supported this position. Uribe has said he will only send a low ranking diplomat to the meeting, noting its concern that Ecuador will assume the presidency of UNASUR, at the same time as maintain relations broken with Colombia Bolivia will ask UNASUR to reject foreign military bases in Latin America http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/ La Paz, 5 ago (PL) Bolivian President Evo Morales announced that he would ask the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) to reject the installation of foreign military bases in Latin America, following a meeting with his Colombian counterpart, Alvaro Uribe. ?We will take a proposed resolution to the UNASUR meeting rejecting the presence of any foreign armed military in the region,? said the head of state at the end of a brief conversation with Uribe in the Palacio Quemado. According to Morales, quoted in the newspaper Cambio, the Bolivian proposal will be presented by the delegation to the summit of the political and economic bloc, which will be held on August 10 in Quito, Ecuador. Uribe left the presidential palace in La Paz the same way he entered: with a meager greeting to the people and without emitting a single comment to the press that was present regarding the issues discussed with Morales. Colombia hopes to sign this month an extension of its military agreement with the US that would include the use of 7 military bases in this South American country by US soldiers. The head of state of Aymara origin, recalled that in Bolivia, armed foreigners persecuted the peasant movement and that he was victim of their abuse, which is why he considers the move as an act of aggression. ?We reject the presence of US soldiers in the region because the empire always has its objectives; to allow the presence of military bases is an attack on democracy,? he indicated. Morales also expressed his preoccupation to Uribe regarding the situation in Latin America, given that he felt that accusation were being made from Colombia against the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, and of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, just as the US use to do against the leader of the Cuban revolution, Fidel Castro. Furthermore, he stated that at the Quito meeting, the Bolivian government would request the creation of a Defense School and propose the regionalisation of the struggle against narcotrafficking. Moreover, the Bolivian head of state explained that the meeting with President Uribe was also held so that the Colombian could express his preoccupation over the differences that his government has with Venezuela and Ecuador. From amit.k.singh at gmx.com Thu Aug 6 22:05:56 2009 From: amit.k.singh at gmx.com (Amit Singh) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:05:56 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Murder In Plain Sight (Manipur, India) Message-ID: <20090807042209.84730@gmx.com> From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Thu Aug 6 23:50:15 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:50:15 +1000 Subject: [Marxism] South Korea: Class war in midst of economic crisis -- Ssangyong workers occupy plant, win partial victory | Links Message-ID: <4A7BC097.1040608@greenleft.org.au> By *Young-su Won* August 6, 2009 -- After days of harsh and inhumane assaults by riot police and company thugs on striking workers occupying the Ssangyong Motor plant in Pyeongtaek, near Seoul, the Korean Metal Workers Union (KMWU) and management reached an agreement: the union accepted part of the company?s redundancy proposal, saving about half the strikers? jobs, while the rest will apply for voluntary retirement or unpaid long-term leave, or accept another job with the spin-off company. Union leader Han Sang-gyun apologised to the striking comrades for not being able to block the Ssangyong?s whole redundancy plan. He solemnly said the scars of the struggle will not be easily forgotten. The strikers, including union leaders, were arrested by the police. More than 100 workers are expected to be put to a trial. However, the Ssangyong workers have done their best during the 77-day occupation. Though a full-scale victory has not been achieved, these heroic working-class warriors deserve the homage of workers across the globe. Full article at http://links.org.au/node/1187 Subscribe free to Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 You can also follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism From Jscotlive at aol.com Thu Aug 6 23:50:42 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 01:50:42 EDT Subject: [Marxism] Rape is not necessarily a consequence of war Message-ID: Jeff: Rather than being revictimized by the sexist society around them, the POLITICAL understanding of the Vietnamese led them to openly denounce and portray rape as the war crime it is, not just "something that happens in war." Reply: The Vietnam War does bear comparison with the war fought between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The Russian Civil War, yes, but not what the Soviets referred to as The Great Patriotic War, a name which should give us a clue as what the consciousness driving it became. The Vietnam War was in large part a civil war. Victory was not defined by invading and occupying the nation of their invaders. It was driving the colonists out and unifying the country under Communism. In this your point about the politicisation of the Viet Cong is right. They were politicised, they did have a strong sense of who their enemy was and what they were fighting for. So did the Red Army. Their enemy became Germans in total. Whether you agree with this or not, the fact remains that the Soviet Union was fighting a war of survival. By the time they reached Berlin millions had been slaughtered, entire villages and towns laid waste, and mass graves were common. This would undoubtedly have had an impact on the troops. Add to that the propaganda of the Soviet leadership, which referred to the Germans as locusts and beasts and you had the ingredients for mass atrocities. This was not a civil war, it was a war between two ideologies sworn to destroy one another. Socialism in One Country had certainly chipped away at the internationalist consciousness assiduously cultivated by the party of Lenin and Trotsky, and the Red Army that plowed through Germany was motivated by patriotism and a nationalist consciousness as much if not more than internationalism. Rape is about dehumanisation and domination. By the stage in the war under discussion Soviet propaganda had successfully dehumanised an enemy which had committed some of the worst atrocities of any army in human history. Was the Soviet leadership right to dehumanise its enemy as it did? Looking back, it's easy to say no. But that's with hindsight and the knowledge that the Nazis were finally defeated. That the vast bulk of the Red Army, relative to its size, did not commit rape and other atrocities is a matter of record and suggests that such terror was not planned or orchestrated on a mass scale. But in the context of the war in question, the extent of the atrocities and the slaughter, the barbarity of the Nazis, I fail to see how it's so hard to imagine how such atrocites could have occurred. Repugnant, yes, bestial, yes, but those words describe the war in its entirety. From guycarlos at msn.com Fri Aug 7 00:45:22 2009 From: guycarlos at msn.com (Guy Miller) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 01:45:22 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Anita O'Day documentary In-Reply-To: <4A70DD11.70605@panix.com> References: <4A70DD11.70605@panix.com> Message-ID: You can see the footage on u-tube, try Jazz on a Summer Afternoon. The editing isn't as tight as in the movie, but it will do. She was a Chicago girl, Schurz Highschool. > Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:36:49 -0400 > From: lnp3 at panix.com > Subject: Re: [Marxism] Anita O'Day documentary > To: guycarlos at msn.com > > RicardoStarkey at aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 7/29/2009 12:03:03 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > sartesian at earthlink.net writes: > > > > Remember her performance of > > "Sweet Georgia Brown" at Newport? Unbelievable. > > > > Yes, I do remember it. Mostly because, if memory serves, it was included > > in this excellent film, which is also available from Netflix, that I saw a > > couple of years ago. > > Here it is: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuzWegDm2HY > > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/guycarlos%40msn.com From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net Fri Aug 7 01:11:51 2009 From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 03:11:51 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Krugman on rightist, racist mob actions around medical care Message-ID: <1BE1231A5BF449D9BFF6C52A210095AB@office1pc> I think Krugman is right to make the connection to the birthers, in my view an overtly racist operation. I think it is important to have in mind the fact that we do defend liberal politicians against repression and frame-ups from the right. The revolutionary stance is not hands off or allowing them to be race-baited or red-baited, but to stand against the right with our own methods of struggle. I think counter-moblization is beginning to be sorely needed. One thing we can safely predict is that Obama will not be taking the initiative on that. Resisting the rightist mobs may also be a way to create more support for and less confusion sbout single-payer. Fred Feldman August 7, 2009 Op-Ed Columnist The Town Hall Mob By PAUL KRUGMAN There's a famous Norman Rockwell painting titled "Freedom of Speech," depicting an idealized American town meeting. The painting, part of a series illustrating F.D.R.'s "Four Freedoms," shows an ordinary citizen expressing an unpopular opinion. His neighbors obviously don't like what he's saying, but they're letting him speak his mind. That's a far cry from what has been happening at recent town halls, where angry protesters - some of them, with no apparent sense of irony, shouting "This is America!" - have been drowning out, and in some cases threatening, members of Congress trying to talk about health reform. Some commentators have tried to play down the mob aspect of these scenes, likening the campaign against health reform to the campaign against Social Security privatization back in 2005. But there's no comparison. I've gone through many news reports from 2005, and while anti-privatization activists were sometimes raucous and rude, I can't find any examples of congressmen shouted down, congressmen hanged in effigy, congressmen surrounded and followed by taunting crowds. And I can't find any counterpart to the death threats at least one congressman has received. So this is something new and ugly. What's behind it? Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, has compared the scenes at health care town halls to the "Brooks Brothers riot" in 2000 - the demonstration that disrupted the vote count in Miami and arguably helped send George W. Bush to the White House. Portrayed at the time as local protesters, many of the rioters were actually G.O.P. staffers flown in from Washington. But Mr. Gibbs is probably only half right. Yes, well-heeled interest groups are helping to organize the town hall mobs. Key organizers include two Astroturf (fake grass-roots) organizations: FreedomWorks, run by the former House majority leader Dick Armey, and a new organization called Conservatives for Patients' Rights. The latter group, by the way, is run by Rick Scott, the former head of Columbia/HCA, a for-profit hospital chain. Mr. Scott was forced out of that job amid a fraud investigation; the company eventually pleaded guilty to charges of overbilling state and federal health plans, paying $1.7 billion - yes, that's "billion" - in fines. You can't make this stuff up. But while the organizers are as crass as they come, I haven't seen any evidence that the people disrupting those town halls are Florida-style rent-a-mobs. For the most part, the protesters appear to be genuinely angry. The question is, what are they angry about? There was a telling incident at a town hall held by Representative Gene Green, D-Tex. An activist turned to his fellow attendees and asked if they "oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care." Nearly all did. Then Representative Green asked how many of those present were on Medicare. Almost half raised their hands. Now, people who don't know that Medicare is a government program probably aren't reacting to what President Obama is actually proposing. They may believe some of the disinformation opponents of health care reform are spreading, like the claim that the Obama plan will lead to euthanasia for the elderly. (That particular claim is coming straight from House Republican leaders.) But they're probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what they've heard about what he's doing, than to who he is. That is, the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that's behind the "birther" movement, which denies Mr. Obama's citizenship. Senator Dick Durbin has suggested that the birthers and the health care protesters are one and the same; we don't know how many of the protesters are birthers, but it wouldn't be surprising if it's a substantial fraction. And cynical political operators are exploiting that anxiety to further the economic interests of their backers. Does this sound familiar? It should: it's a strategy that has played a central role in American politics ever since Richard Nixon realized that he could advance Republican fortunes by appealing to the racial fears of working-class whites. Many people hoped that last year's election would mark the end of the "angry white voter" era in America. Indeed, voters who can be swayed by appeals to cultural and racial fear are a declining share of the electorate. But right now Mr. Obama's backers seem to lack all conviction, perhaps because the prosaic reality of his administration isn't living up to their dreams of transformation. Meanwhile, the angry right is filled with a passionate intensity. And if Mr. Obama can't recapture some of the passion of 2008, can't inspire his supporters to stand up and be heard, health care reform may well fail. David Brooks is off today. From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net Fri Aug 7 03:03:14 2009 From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 05:03:14 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] Stratfor: Russia sees US sliding toward