From Jscotlive at aol.com Thu Jan 1 01:52:55 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 03:52:55 EST Subject: [Marxism] Hamas is hoping for an IDF ground operation Message-ID: sobuadhaigh: What does a critical observation about the political leadrship of Hamas have to do with Puritans or Puritanism? Reply: This is not the time for any critical observation. It is a time for solidarity. Marx was critical of the Paris Commune when it began. When it came under siege he offered his unequivocal support for those struggling for their survival. Marxism, if it is about anything, is about praxis, saying and doing the right thing at the right time, and always in the knowledge that our enemy is at home. For those residing in imperial centres in the West this is doubly so and places an especial obligation on us to challenge our respective govt's support for Israel. sobuadhaigh: I agree this is no time for paternalism and it is definately not time for unqualified political support for Hamas. Reply: Here you manage to agree and disagree at the same time. The question is not unqualified support for Hamas. The question is unqualified support for the Palestinians. Hamas happen to be leading the resistance at present. To remind you, they were democratically elected precisely because of their uncompormising stance in resistance to Israeli ethnic cleansing and occupation. The secular resistance of which you speak no longer exists. It was defeated due to both the corruption and mistakes of its leadership and the efforts of Mossad. To criticise Hamas is to criticise the Palestinians' right to choose their own leadership. We lead by example not prescription. In the current period there are no good Palestinians or bad Palestininans, as the Israeli's and Western govts are trying to project. There are only Palestinians, a people currently struggling for their survival in the face of a settler colonialist project which fits into an imperialist project to colonise the entire region. We support the resistance not just out of moral outrage, however important, but out of material necessity, given that it is in the interests of the international working class to see this imperialist project defeated. Looking for a perfect secular, left leaning resistance at a time when it does not exist in Palestine is merely an exercise is paternalism on the part of those who would relegate Marxism to the status of dead theory, an excuse for inaction rather than a guide TO action. From sartesian at earthlink.net Thu Jan 1 03:58:08 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 11:58:08 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] Hamas is hoping for an IDF ground operation References: Message-ID: <4ABBA11D9C9A40B8AD5726CF4C2544E1@dmsthinkpad> I appreciate Jscot's passion here, but his analysis is dead wrong. First, Eric has probably attended just as many Gaza solidarity/anti-Zionist demonstrations as anyone on this list and so has demonstrated his solidarity. Secondly, if war is the continuation of politics and economics, why the suspension of criticism, if in fact an original position is one of critical support, or physical defense? Jscot's same argument has been, is, and will be made about every conflict. It was made during the Spanish Civil War-- this is no time for criticism of the popular front government, or the Spanish CP which was busy arresting and imprisoning militants of differing Marxist groups; this is no time for criticism of the USSR engaged in combat with Nazi Germany; this is even no time for criticism of France, suffering under the German occupation; this is no time for criticism of the US, allied with the Soviets against the Germans; this is no time for criticism of Isabel Peron in Argentina; this is no time for criticism of Allende in Chile; this is no time for criticism of Saddam in Iraq-- and on and on it goes. But suppose, just suppose Eric criticized Hamas before the assault, for its actions, its policies, its class, or lack of, programs? Suppose Eric predicted that as a result of these actions, the ability to deter an Israeli assault would be compromised? Now what does he say? "I told you so?" Or, after expressing his support for the defense of Gaza, against the assault, should he point out where and how the policies of Hamas, or the Spanish pop front govt., or Allende's popular unity government, or the Soviet's debilitation of international revolution, .... actually damaged the opportunity to prevent such assaults? When is the "right time" to criticize? Before an assault? How about after? How about after the Spanish pop front govt was defeated; Allende overthrown; the Soviets are rolled back to suburbs of Moscow; or Gaza is occupied by Israelis or an "international peace-keeping" force? Is it ok then? Or maybe after the Battle of Kursk, the battle that actually sealed the fate of Germany and turned the tide in WW2? After Pinochet is out of office? After Franco dies? After the US infantry roles into Baghdad? Is that a better time? Yes, Hamas was elected, based on the bankruptcy of the PLO policies; the PLO's complicity in the immiseration of the Palestinian people.. And all through that period of the PLO's complicity, those who criticized the PLO for its actions, policies, etc. heard exactly the same thing-- "This is no time for criticism." From Jscotlive at aol.com Thu Jan 1 04:54:05 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 06:54:05 EST Subject: [Marxism] Hamas is hoping for an IDF ground operation Message-ID: S.Artesian: Your attempt at patronisation aside, my post consists of an analysis which is vital to the present situation. What we write and say informs our practice in any given period. There has been some confusion on the left over how much solidarity we can offer the Iraqi, Afghan, and Palestinian resistance due to the fact that it comes with a religious integument. Such confusion has been responsible for the emergence of the Cruise Missile Left, the proponents of the Euston Manifesto, etc., and therefore must be challenged by all who understand Israel's settler-colonial project as part of an overarching imperialist strategy to colonise the entire region. I'm not saying that such a political degeneration is evident in Eric's post, but what it does is obfuscate the issue. It is in the interests of the international working class that this project is resisted and defeated. Therefore, at a time when those on the front lines of this resistance are struggling for their very survival it is the duty of Marxists to offer their unflinching solidarity with the resistance. Yes, those with whom we are in solidarity may become our enemies at a later date. But only when the material conditions change can our analysis change. Put it another way, when a brother with whom we have a deep disagreement is being strangled, this is not the time to continue the disagreement, it is the time to confront a common enemy. Furthermore, your comparison with the Popular Front during the Spanish Civil War is misleading in the extreme. Offering and demonstrating solidarity with the Palestinians of Gaza is precisely to challenge the attempts by Israel and the West to split the Palestinians into good (moderate, Fatah) and bad (Hamas and their supporters). We must challenge this. Attacks on Hamas only serve to give succour to Israeli and Western propaganda in its efforts to dehumanise all Muslims by promulgating the view that their religion and culture are retrograde. Political Islam has filled a vacuum left when secular forces in the region failed in their historic task. To call for such a resistance now when the conditions for it on the ground is clearly non-existent is to engage in paternalism of the most pernicious kind. The issue is not the form the resistance takes. The issue is that resistance is taking place. There is no moral equivalence between an oppressed and an oppressor people. In other words, the most committed proponent of an Islamic Caliphate in Palestine who is resisting Israel's onslaught is playing more of a progressive role in the international struggle against imperialism than the most modern, enlightened Israeli citizen who considers themselves a firm believer in democracy. From sartesian at earthlink.net Thu Jan 1 06:04:12 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 14:04:12 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] Hamas is hoping for an IDF ground operation References: Message-ID: <083D0937F5DE42F2AA63ADC191EE29CB@dmsthinkpad> Obfuscate the issue? That there is Zionist seizure of property, expulsion of the original occupiers of the property, immiseration of that population, then using it as a disposable labor force, and throughout using military force in the extreme to maintain these conditions are NOT the issues HERE. Those are the conditions. The issue is how best to reverse, defeat, overcome those conditions. That's where analysis and criticism come in-- and play a vital role as expressions of actual solidarity, rather than simple endorsement. As for patronisation-- better that than the attempts to confuse an attempt at real analysis ith obfuscation. The real obfuscation is in just that attempt to conflate critical analysis with "Cruise Missile Left," as if the former has anything to do with the latter. Certainly it is the interests of the international working class to defeat Israel. But how is that to be accomplished? 5-10 years ago when Fatah dominated the PLO (RC is correct in that, although other organizations in the PLO did subscribe to these policies), the same need to defeat Israel existed. Should criticisms have been made then? Certainly Palestinians made them. When Jenin was destroyed should criticisms have been made before or after that destruction? If so, how is that different from today? If not, how is the international working class to avoid repeating the same dismal experience? Thanks for cathechism about moral equivalency between oppressed and oppressor, and the balance sheet of progressivism regarding democratic Israelis and Islamic fundamentalists. That wasn't a bit patronising. However, nobody here is endorsing Israeli democrats or supporting Israel's actions against Islamic fundamentalists, just as nobody here is supporting US Democrats and their actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan. That doesn't mean that Islamic fundamentalists offer any prospect for overthrow of the actions of such "democrats." And THAT is the issue. It is in the interest of the international proletariat to say exactly those things-- no support for the "democrats," defend ALL Palestinians from Israeli attack, no illusions in an Islamic revolution. If the prospect of defeat doesn't demand critical analysis along with solidarity, then Marxism has been stripped of its concrete practicality. From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 04:51:09 2009 From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 06:51:09 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Hamas is hoping for an IDF ground operation In-Reply-To: <4ABBA11D9C9A40B8AD5726CF4C2544E1@dmsthinkpad> References: <4ABBA11D9C9A40B8AD5726CF4C2544E1@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: <908b689f0901010351p78f5f8f7rff69d7025c0f62be@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 5:58 AM, S. Artesian wrote: > Yes, Hamas was elected, based on the bankruptcy of the PLO policies; the > PLO's complicity in the immiseration of the Palestinian people.. And all > through that period of the PLO's complicity I think your criticism should be directed specifically at Fatah, not at the entirety of the PLO. Isn't it true that there are still other groups within the PLO in addition to Fatah? From dddrrr84 at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 06:52:45 2009 From: dddrrr84 at gmail.com (Daniel Rosenberg) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:52:45 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] Contours of Crisis - Bichler and Nitzan Message-ID: http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/1208bichlernitzan.html Contours of Crisis Plus ?a change, plus c'est pareil? By Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan This is the first in a series of short articles we plan to write on the current crisis. Our aim in this series is threefold: to outline some of the important contours of the crisis; to situate these patterns in historical context; and to reflect on their possible causes and implications. Since the crisis is still ongoing, such analysis can only be cursory and suggestive. But it is nonetheless useful to put our preliminary research and thoughts in writing. By spelling out what we do know (or think we know) about the crisis, we can better identify what we don't know and need to ask. This paper sets the stage for the series. It outlines the conventional wisdom about the cause of crisis; it describes the chronology of events; and it contrasts the pattern and magnitude of the current downturn with those of earlier episodes. The overall picture painted by this analysis is highly stylized: crises appear to come and go with remarkable regularity, their oscillations are fairly similar and they share the same order of magnitude. The whole process seems almost "automatic," and automaticity is reassuring: it suggests that the current crisis has run much of its course and that doom and gloom will soon give way to a new upswing. But what if this automaticity is a mirage? [clipped] From schaffer at optonline.net Thu Jan 1 07:00:27 2009 From: schaffer at optonline.net (Les Schaffer) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 09:00:27 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] (fwd) Present-day Russia needs a renewal of the feminist movement | Links Message-ID: <495CCC7B.7080303@optonline.net> [ fwd for glparramatta ] By *Anna Ochkina, *translated from Russian for /Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ by *Renfrey Clarke* The shift to market mechanisms did not relieve the problems of Russian women, but exacerbated them. Occupational and economic discrimination grew stronger with the problems with the economy, with the fall in the number of jobs that were well paid (or which even paid more than the subsistence minimum), and with increased competition between workers in the labour market. The sharp reduction in the financing of social welfare brought increases in the cost of health care and education at all levels, affecting women most of all. It also turned out that the years of occupational emancipation of women had not made men completely equal partners in marriage; instead, men had been freed of moral responsibility for the material and social wellbeing of their families. In post-Soviet Russia, the poverty and disempowerment of state-sector workers has been mainly a problem of women. In the USSR education, health care, social services and culture had already been extensively feminised. The marked decline of earnings and job prestige in these sectors thus affected women above all. It is perfectly justified to talk of economic discrimination against women in Russia. Statistical and sociological data show that in Russia, poverty is mainly a problem of women. Meanwhile, in 40 per cent of Russian families women are the main or sole breadwinners. Full article at http://links.org.au/node/829 Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Jan 1 07:02:57 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 09:02:57 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Sam Gindin on the auto crisis Message-ID: <20090101140258.0224110289@mailbackend.panix.com> The B u l l e t Socialist Project ? E-Bulletin No. 172 December 31, 2008 Saving the Detroit Three, Finishing Off the UAW: Learning From the Auto Crisis Sam Gindin At the end of 1979, President Carter offered loan guarantees to Chrysler to prevent the company's imminent bankruptcy. The loans were conditional on wage concessions of some 10% and the outsourcing of half of Chrysler's work. In August 1981 a newly elected President, Ronald Reagan, ended a strike of 13,000 air traffic controllers by firing the strikers en masse (the controllers' union had ironically been a supporter of Reagan in his 1980 presidential campaign). In these cases, the American state was not just following the private sector's bidding, though corporations of course cheered it on; rather, the state was leading the assault on workers' conditions and rights. The result was a redefinition of American labour relations for a generation to come, with implications for workers everywhere. The American labour movement proved incapable of mounting any resistance through that period and assumed it couldn't get much worse. It just did. It was expected that the economic crisis, like past crises, would intensify pressures for concessions from auto workers. And it was understood that in responding to the loan requests from General Motors (GM) and Chrysler, the American state would likely reinforce that pressure. But the U.S. Treasury and the Bush Administration went stunningly further. By formally linking UAW conditions to those in the Japanese transplants, the union ? whose independence had already been compromised through years of concessions ? was pushed to effectively act as an agency of the state. The loan conditions asserted that "By no later than February 17, 2009, the Company shall submit to the President's Designee ... [a] term sheet signed on behalf of the Company and the leadership of each major U.S. labor organization [essentially the UAW] that represents the employees." Over and above the elimination of any layoff benefits above customary severance pay ? something the union had already conceded ? the terms called for a reduction in workers' wages, benefits and working conditions to match "no later than December 31, 2009" levels that are "competitive with the average as certified by the Secretary of Labor" at the U.S. operations of Nissan, Toyota, and Honda. As well, the union had to accept that at least half of each company's obligations to the union administered health care plan would now include company stock (the full terms are available at www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/hp1333.htm). While American unions were waiting for the inauguration of a new president to bring them legislation that would make it easier to establish unions, the current administration (with no dissent to date from President-elect Obama) essentially declared, in a standard-setting industry, that: "You can have unions but you can only have non-union outcomes." There are a number of lessons to learn from this unfolding event and we raise a few of them here. full: http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/bullet172.html#continue From jonflanders at jflan.net Thu Jan 1 07:03:43 2009 From: jonflanders at jflan.net (Jon Flanders) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 09:03:43 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Over 1,000 hit the streets in SF for Gaza In-Reply-To: References: <495AE9B0.7090307@gmail.com> <908b689f0812301945o33ee563bl716ea2a4c6223e8d@mail.gmail.com> <908b689f0812310121q492928eag160ddd866939de97@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1230818623.5487.9.camel@localhost> Remarkable footage. Thanks Eli. I just checked Arab American population statistics, and San Francisco wasn't listed in the top twenty population areas of what the Arab American Institute claims 3 and a half million total. Of course, SF is SF. Still, an amazing turnout. Perhaps among other things, demographics are turning against the Israeli lobby. Jon Flanders On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 15:06 -0800, Eli Stephens wrote: > My videos of last night's San Francisco action (don't forget to click "watch in high quality" if you can for the best video) From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Jan 1 07:12:03 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 09:12:03 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] The rotten state of Egypt Message-ID: <20090101141203.DA1EC10510@mailbackend.panix.com> http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-rotten-state-of-egypt-is-too-powerless-and-corrupt-to-act-1220048.html Robert Fisk: The rotten state of Egypt is too powerless and corrupt to act Thursday, 1 January 2009 There was a day when we worried about the "Arab masses" ? the millions of "ordinary" Arabs on the streets of Cairo, Kuwait, Amman, Beirut ? and their reaction to the constant bloodbaths in the Middle East. Could Anwar Sadat restrain the anger of his people? And now ? after three decades of Hosni Mubarak ? can Mubarak (or "La Vache Qui Rit", as he is still called in Cairo) restrain the anger of his people? The answer, of course, is that Egyptians and Kuwaitis and Jordanians will be allowed to shout in the streets of their capitals ? but then they will be shut down, with the help of the tens of thousands of secret policemen and government militiamen who serve the princes and kings and elderly rulers of the Arab world. Egyptians demand that Mubarak open the Rafah crossing-point into Gaza, break off diplomatic relations with Israel, even send weapons to Hamas. And there is a kind of perverse beauty in listening to the response of the Egyptian government: why not complain about the three gates which the Israelis refuse to open? And anyway, the Rafah crossing-point is politically controlled by the four powers that produced the "road map" for peace, including Britain and the US. Why blame Mubarak? To admit that Egypt can't even open its sovereign border without permission from Washington tells you all you need to know about the powerlessness of the satraps that run the Middle East for us. Open the Rafah gate ? or break off relations with Israel ? and Egypt's economic foundations crumble. Any Arab leader who took that kind of step will find that the West's economic and military support is withdrawn. Without subventions, Egypt is bankrupt. Of course, it works both ways. Individual Arab leaders are no longer going to make emotional gestures for anyone. When Sadat flew to Jerusalem ? "I am tired of the dwarves," he said of his fellow Arab leaders ? he paid the price with his own blood at the Cairo reviewing-stand where one of his own soldiers called him a "Pharaoh" before shooting him dead. The true disgrace of Egypt, however, is not in its response to the slaughter in Gaza. It is the corruption that has become embedded in an Egyptian society where the idea of service ? health, education, genuine security for ordinary people ? has simply ceased to exist. It's a land where the first duty of the police is to protect the regime, where protesters are beaten up by the security police, where young women objecting to Mubarak's endless regime ? likely to be passed on caliph-like to his son Gamal, whatever we may be told ? are sexually molested by plain-clothes agents, where prisoners in the Tora-Tora complex are forced to rape each other by their guards. There has developed in Egypt a kind of religious facade in which the meaning of Islam has become effaced by its physical representation. Egyptian civil "servants" and government officials are often scrupulous in their religious observances ? yet they tolerate and connive in rigged elections, violations of the law and prison torture. A young American doctor described to me recently how in a Cairo hospital busy doctors merely blocked doors with plastic chairs to prevent access to patients. In November, the Egyptian newspaper Al-Masry al-Youm reported how doctors abandoned their patients to attend prayers during Ramadan. And amid all this, Egyptians have to live amid daily slaughter by their own shabby infrastructure. Alaa al-Aswani wrote eloquently in the Cairo paper Al-Dastour that the regime's "martyrs" outnumber all the dead of Egypt's wars against Israel ? victims of railway accidents, ferry sinkings, the collapse of city buildings, sickness, cancers and pesticide poisonings ? all victims, as Aswani says, "of the corruption and abuse of power". Opening the Rafah border-crossing for wounded Palestinians ? the Palestinian medical staff being pushed back into their Gaza prison once the bloodied survivors of air raids have been dumped on Egyptian territory ? is not going to change the midden in which Egyptians themselves live. Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizbollah secretary general in Lebanon, felt able to call on Egyptians to "rise in their millions" to open the border with Gaza, but they will not do so. Ahmed Aboul Gheit, the feeble Egyptian Foreign Minister, could only taunt the Hizbollah leaders by accusing them of trying to provoke "an anarchy similar to the one they created in their own country." But he is well-protected. So is President Mubarak. Egypt's malaise is in many ways as dark as that of the Palestinians. Its impotence in the face of Gaza's suffering is a symbol of its own political sickness. From pbond at mail.ngo.za Thu Jan 1 07:16:32 2009 From: pbond at mail.ngo.za (Patrick Bond) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:16:32 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] Dennis Brutus poetry (1/day in '09): "Still the sirens", 1/1/09 Message-ID: <495CD040.4040001@mail.ngo.za> (The Centre for Civil Society will circulate a Dennis Brutus poem every day in 2009, that's the New Year's resolution. Many will be new, but some old good ones are worthy of recall, too. Dennis provides a sentence of intro. If you want to continue to get these each day, please email me - pbond at mail.ngo.za - or subscribe to the 'debate' email listserve: http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate) INTRO: The Sirens of oppression I referred to in my first collection (1963) were still present in South Africa in 1989, as they seem to be as well in Gaza in 2009 thanks to Israel's bombing spree. Dennis Brutus, Durban 1/1/09 *** Still the sirens Still the sirens stitch the night air with terror? pierce hearing?s membranes with shrieks of pain and fear: still they weave the mesh that traps the heart in anguish, flash bright bars of power that cage memory in mourning and loss. Still sirens haunt the night air. Someday there will be peace someday the sirens will be still someday we will be free. 1989 From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Jan 1 07:19:45 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 09:19:45 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Worried German bourgeoisie Message-ID: <20090101141946.8FB0A1878@mailbackend.panix.com> (posted to LBO-talk by SA) [From an interview with Hasso Plattner, co-founder of SAP] http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,598945,00.html [...] SPIEGEL: Sometimes it's a nasty game. In 2005, Deutsche Bank CEO Josef Ackerman announced a 25 percent return for the company while at the same time saying it would lay off more than 6,000 employees. Plattner: Objectively speaking, he was completely right. His bank needed those returns in order to stay globally competitive. He just expressed it badly. It's something that's understood almost everywhere around the world, just not in Germany, where one sometimes comes across a confused social romanticism. SPIEGEL: What's utopian about people wanting a just society? Plattner: Is German society unjust, then? Ever since the economic miracle of Ludwig Erhard, we Germans have been entrenched in a capitalist business system, on top of which we have super-imposed the cloak of a "social market economy" SPIEGEL: which we find reasonable, because it softens the effects of extreme capitalism. Plattner: I completely agree. But there's a feeling in this country that we don't want capitalism any more, and instead want something different, something nicer. But nothing better exists, despite all the system's weaknesses and its dark sides. East Germany showed us where a communist planned economy would lead us. Some people have started talking fondly about those times. SPIEGEL: For example, the actor who played the police detective on the TV crime show Tatort, Peter Sodann, [now running for the largely ceremonial post of German president on behalf of the Left Party in an election next year] said: "I won't let the GDR be taken away from me." Plattner: For me, that's just curious. On the other hand, the man is a candidate for the office of president of the republic. SPIEGEL: In surveys, fewer and fewer Germans say they consider democracy to be the best political system, or capitalism to be the most sensible economic system. Plattner: That really bothers me too. The only thing to do is take a look at the world, Cuba for example. From PoliticNow at aol.com Thu Jan 1 09:09:03 2009 From: PoliticNow at aol.com (PoliticNow at aol.com) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 11:09:03 EST Subject: [Marxism] Ron Carey: Working Class Hero by Deepa Kumar Message-ID: Ron Carey: Working Class Hero by Deepa Kumar Ron Carey, who led the Teamsters in perhaps the most important strike of a generation -- _the 1997 UPS strike_ (http://books.google.com/books?id=VembBxx8qLwC) -- died of lung cancer on December 11, 2008 in New York city at age 72. Carey will be remembered by all the people he inspired with his courage and commitment. As a young UPS driver in the Queens UPS hub in 1955, Carey was infuriated by the way in which workers were treated by management. He said of that time: _I immediately found that the daily conditions at UPS were not good. _ (http://books.google.com/books?id=VembBxx8qLwC&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq="I+immediately+ found+that+the+daily+conditions+at+UPS+were+not+good.") It was very frustrating to me, the way they demeaned people, the way they talked to them in such a condescending way. . . . Many times I found myself biting my tongue not to strike out at the manager. I wasn't a shop steward at the time, and I felt like shouting out "Wait a minute! That's a human being you're talking to -- my God! Give the guy a chance to answer, and get out of his face." Carey then turned his anger into a commitment to spend the rest of his life fighting for workers' dignity. He first ran for shop steward, then trustee, recording secretary, and then president of _Teamsters local 804_ (http://www.teamsterslocal804.org/) . In his struggle for workers' rights he not only had to go up against UPS, but also the corrupt leadership of the Teamsters union. If workers faced humiliation and hardships on the job, they had little sympathy from union representatives. As _Carey_ (http://books.google.com/books?id=VembBxx8qLwC&pg=PA186) put it, "Union guys would come down, most of them were six-foot-two characters . . . why would you tell them about your problems, and did they really care? They never came to see the members. . . . It was the Hoffa years, it was a time of mobsters and good old boys." During these years, Carey developed a method that he would return to often: listen to and mobilize rank-and-file members, and speak out and organize against the company. Once in office, as President of Local 804, he carried through on his promises. He slashed the bloated salaries of union officers, he set up a system of 24-hour representation where at least one member of the union board was available at all times to listen and respond to workers' problems. He led the Local for 20 years, during which time he negotiated some of the best Teamsters contracts in the nation. After two decades as president of Local 804, Carey ran for president of the Teamsters with the support of the rank-and-file group, Teamsters for a _Democratic Union_ (http://www.tdu.org/) (TDU), His 1991 election victory against entrenched old guard candidates spoke to a desire for change within the union. Carey once again eliminated all the perks enjoyed by the old guard. As he explained, "_We got rid of the limousines, the luxuries, the union's private jet._ (http://books.google.com/books?id=VembBxx8qLwC&pg=PA189&dq="We+got+rid+of+the+limousines,+the+luxuries,+the+union's +private+jet") I cut my own salary from 225,000 to 150,000. We eliminated one of the layers of union bureaucracy . . . [and] put the IBT on a financially sound direction. . . . We expanded and strengthened the organizing department. We tried many different strategies to mobilize members, involve them in the union, [and] make the union stronger." He was able to win some gains for UPS Teamsters in 1993, but it was in 1997 that a real victory for the union movement was won. A full year before the contract with UPS expired in 1997, Carey and his organizing team had distributed surveys to rank and file members to determine what they wanted with the new contract. Members were then engaged in the process through the contract campaign strategy. Yet, UPS was determined not to give an inch to the Teamsters. On August 4, 1997 Carey called a national strike against UPS. 185,000 Teamsters walked off their jobs and ground the company to a halt. This was perhaps Carey's finest moment. As a union leader who had risen from the rank and file, who had experienced the frustrating and humiliating conditions of work at a giant corporation, and who had spent his entire life fighting for workers' dignity, he was able to give voice to the anger and aspirations of not only UPS workers but the US working class as well. By the mid-nineties, workers in the US had lived through over two decades of wage stagnation, job loss, lengthened working hours, greater stress, and a lower quality of life. Carey gave voice to these conditions and challenged the hubris of corporate America: _This is really a fight about good jobs._ (http://books.google.com/books?id=VembBxx8qLwC&pg=PA80&dq="This+is+really+a+fight+about+good+jobs.") This is not just a fight about Teamsters and their families, it is about working people in this country. You have big companies in this country that are shifting to part-time, low-wage, throwaway, disposable jobs, subcontracting the work out. Those are some of the vital issues. And as I say, it's a shame, and working people have said, "Enough is enough." I think this is a fight for good jobs in America. It's a fight that working families have been taking on the chin. The UPS strike shifted the terms of discussion around the economy and cast a spotlight on inequality. In a country founded on the myth of class mobility and the American dream, class polarization was exposed and the corporate media were forced to acknowledge this disparity. The UPS strike could have marked a turning point for the labor movement. The Teamsters won their best ever contract with UPS, and they had the support of the American people. The public supported the Teamsters 2-1 over UPS, indicating among other things a shift in favor of labor unions. This was the moment when the one-sided class war being waged against workers since the 1970s could have been turned into a two-sided war. Yet, the momentum was lost. Carey was expelled from the Teamsters union for supposedly violating campaign fundraising rules. The corporate elite heaved a collective sigh of relief that a militant union leader was punished for daring to stand up to them. And instead of defending Carey, the labor movement stood by and let him fall. In September 2001, Carey was cleared of all charges against him in a federal court. Yet, he still remained banned from the Teamsters union. The Teamsters under the leadership of Jimmy Hoffa Jr. sought to erase Carey from the union's history. Rather than remember the lessons of the UPS strike, and learn from Carey's successes, the Teamsters leadership wanted to bury his memory. It was in this context that I met Ron Carey. While working on my book on media coverage of the UPS strike I was amazed to read everything that Carey had said and done. I had to record his life and his experiences and so set up an interview with him. When I went to meet him at his lawyer's office in Washington DC, I expected to meet a person who bore the scars of a witch hunt that drove him out of the union, as well as the weight of a life spent fighting an uphill battle both against powerful companies and corrupt union officials. Yet, Carey was not worn down; instead, he was enthusiastic, lively and animated. And it dawned on me that it would take that kind of fighting spirit to lead the life he had. I will never forget this encounter. And when Carey came out of ten years of being out of public life to speak at my book launch in 2007, I was humbled and grateful to this kind man for his gesture. His speech was fiery and inspiring, as if not a moment had passed since the strike. Rather than dwell on the injustices done to him, Carey spoke to the potential of ordinary working people to fight against corporate greed. To the end, he had faith in the rank-and-file. As he put it, "I am very proud of all the members who fought and who sacrificed to win respect and dignity, not just for themselves, but for their co-workers and for their union and for workers all over the world. . . . It was an honor and a privilege for me to serve the Teamster membership." Ron Carey inspired and touched the lives of thousands of union members and activists. In my conversations with Teamsters around the country, I have heard a range of stories that exemplify Carey's compassion, his courage, and his dedication to fighting the good fight. He showed through example that it is possible to reform a corrupt union, to mobilize rank and file workers, and to stand up against a powerful multinational company like UPS and win. These are important lessons to leave behind as the US economy grinds deeper into recession. Ron Carey will not, and should not, be forgotten. ____________________________________ Deepa Kumar is the author of _Outside the Box: Corporate Media, Globalization, and the UPS Strike_ (http://books.google.com/books?id=VembBxx8qLwC) , which includes a lengthy interview with Ron Carey. Carey's speech at the book launch in 2007 remembering the UPS strike can be found on YouTube at <_youtube.com/watch?v=Q_-upPC7E7k_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_-upPC7E7k) >. _http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/kumar161208.html_ (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/kumar161208.html) **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From mikedf at amnh.org Thu Jan 1 09:12:58 2009 From: mikedf at amnh.org (Michael Friedman) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 11:12:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Marxism] Marxism Digest, Vol 63, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49217.68.173.199.129.1230826378.squirrel@webmail.amnh.org> Only in the general sense that it would be a labor party. But, we saw which way British Labour went... > Message: 10 > Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:04:57 -0500 > From: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com > Subject: Re: [Marxism] In Defense of Harrington and American > By this standard a true American Menshevism would be an improvement > on what we currently have now. From mikedf at amnh.org Thu Jan 1 09:13:37 2009 From: mikedf at amnh.org (Michael Friedman) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 11:13:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Marxism] In Defense of Harrington and American Message-ID: <49223.68.173.199.129.1230826417.squirrel@webmail.amnh.org> Only in the general sense that it would be a labor party. But, we saw which way British Labour went... > Message: 10 > Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:04:57 -0500 > From: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com > Subject: Re: [Marxism] In Defense of Harrington and American > By this standard a true American Menshevism would be an improvement on what we currently have now. -- Michael Friedman Ph.D. in Biology City University of New York Institute for Comparative Genomics Department of Invertebrate Zoology American Museum of Natural History 79th Street and Central Park West New York, NY 10024 Office: 212-313-8721 -------------------- "Cree el aldeano vanidoso que el mundo es su aldea?, mientras andan "los gigantes de siete leguas y los cometas engullendo mundos". Jos? Mart? Nuestra Am?rica From Jscotlive at aol.com Thu Jan 1 09:34:19 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 11:34:19 EST Subject: [Marxism] Hamas is hoping for an IDF ground operation Message-ID: S.Artesian Obfuscate the issue? That there is Zionist seizure of property, expulsion of the original occupiers of the property, immiseration of that population, then using it as a disposable labor force, and throughout using military force in the extreme to maintain these conditions are NOT the issues HERE. Those are the conditions. Reply: And so what's your point? The issue for Marxists living in the West and elsewhere is how to be as effective as possible in providing solidarity with those on the front lines, for reasons as I stated of material necessity not moral outrage. S.Artesian: The issue is how best to reverse, defeat, overcome those conditions. That's where analysis and criticism come in-- and play a vital role as expressions of actual solidarity, rather than simple endorsement. Reply: Endorsement? What the fuck do you think this is, some sort of game the Palestinians are playing? Let's get this straight - under conditions in which a people's actual existence is under threat, where their culture and history is being murdered, and where they are resisting such an onslaught with home made rockets and suicide attacks, tactics which reflect not their depravity but their desperation, they do not need our approval. On the contrary, it is us who requires their approval for what we do in solidarity, especially those of us living in the US or EU, whose governments actively support Israel and are complicit in its policy of ethnic cleansing. S.Artesian: If the prospect of defeat doesn't demand critical analysis along with solidarity, then Marxism has been stripped of its concrete practicality Reply: Smug and self aggrandizing are the words that spring to mind reading this. As if either the PLO or Hamas can be blamed for the failure of the Palestinian cause, as if the courage and indomitability of the Palestinians can but only last so long in the face of one of the most sustained and barbaric projects of ethnic cleansing in human history. Perhaps too the fact that Israel has a per capita GDP of $26,000 compared to a Palestinian equivalent of just $800 is signficant. The above remark by you suffers from a complete lack of knowledge of conditions on the ground. Ask any member of the ISM why it is, with two notable exceptions, they are able to operate with relative impunity in the West Bank and they will tell you it is simply because they are not Palestinian, who in a very real sense are viewed and treated as untermenschen by the Israelis. With the West Bank and Gaza split, and the Fatah leadership currently playing a collaborationist role, how could a general strike even be considered? Also, Israel no longer requires Arab labour in the numbers it used to. It has succeeded in importing its cheap labour from other parts of the world. The point is that the Palestinians can do no more. It is not a case of criticising those being slaughtered, it is a case of what we do in solidarity. Imagine criticising the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto as the Nazis were razing it to the ground; imagine criticising the vicims of Guernica? It is paternalism masquerading as solidarity. We recruit more people to our politics with our practice than any amount of Marxist posturing. The call has gone out from Palestinian civil society for a boycott. This is the only effective and long term means by which we as internationalists can bring pressure to bear on the state of Israel. The resistance _http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3241_ (http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3241) _http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3222_ (http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3222) From markalause at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 09:34:35 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 11:34:35 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] In Defense of Harrington and American In-Reply-To: <49223.68.173.199.129.1230826417.squirrel@webmail.amnh.org> References: <49223.68.173.199.129.1230826417.squirrel@webmail.amnh.org> Message-ID: The entire notion that you can generalize one "solution" from its defining historical, material context to some broadly applicable formula is flawed. More so if you're talking about something from a century ago. Still more so so, it it's something that failed at that time, as did Menshevism. Let us take Harrington and his admirers at their word, though, in that his Democratic Party strategy represented their version of Menshevism applied to the US. Let their strategy stand or fall on its own merits. In the interests of a fair trial, let's start with the heyday of Harrington's current and ask whether the self-dissolution of that current of American socialism into the Democratic Party has moved the Democrats farther left? This is at least the third time I've posed this question, but it's proponents have pretended that the question's not been asked and doesn't need to be addressed. This is because, by any materialist measure, the most prevalent feature in the history of the Democratic Party since the 1970s has been its steady march to the right. ML From farmelantj at juno.com Thu Jan 1 10:02:57 2009 From: farmelantj at juno.com (Jim Farmelant) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:02:57 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] In Defense of Harrington and American Message-ID: <20090101.120300.6036.1.farmelantj@juno.com> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 11:34:35 -0500 "Mark Lause" writes: > Let us take Harrington and his admirers at their word, though, in > that > his Democratic Party strategy represented their version of > Menshevism > applied to the US. Let their strategy stand or fall on its own > merits. In the interests of a fair trial, let's start with the > heyday > of Harrington's current and ask whether the self-dissolution of > that > current of American socialism into the Democratic Party has moved > the > Democrats farther left? There is an even longer history to this and just Michael Harrington and the DSA. Back in the 1890s, the Populists, after having formed, what was for a time, a quite successful third-party, were largely absorbed into the Democratic Party with the William Jennings Bryan campaign of 1896. While some of their more moderate demands (i.e. a progressive income tax) were eventually adopted by the Democrats, their more radicals demands such as the demands for the nationalization of the railroads, and the telegraph and telephone companies were certainly not. And while the Populists tended to emphasize the formation of coalitions between poor whites and blacks, the Democratic Party would remain the party of segregationism for at least several more decades. On balance, the absorption of the Populists into the DP was not a very progressive move. And for most of the past seventy years, the CPUSA has emphasized working within the DP, and what have they to show for this? The DP, after the Second World War eagerly took up red baiting. It was the Truman Administration, after all, that started the imposition of loyalty oaths on Federal employees. Then the Republicans began to red bait the Democrats, who responded by trying to show that they were more anticommunist then the Republicans. Little gratitude was shown by the Democrats to the Communists despite the work that they had done in the 1930s and during the Second World War for helping to build and maintain support for FDR and his administration's policies. And of course more recently, despite the efforts of the DSA, the CPUSA, the Committees for Correspondence, the remnants of the "new communist" movements from the 1970s etc,. the Democratic Party has continued shifting more and more to the right. Of course the Democrats have from time to time rewarded some of these people with jobs, but that is quite a different thing from these people actually being able to make a difference on matters of public policy. > > This is at least the third time I've posed this question, but it's > proponents have pretended that the question's not been asked and > doesn't need to be addressed. > > This is because, by any materialist measure, the most prevalent > feature in the history of the Democratic Party since the 1970s has > been its steady march to the right. > > ML > > ____________________________________________________________ Get a life insurance quote online. Click to compare rates and save. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw35BZnZ10AHFLJbaPFZVc164XuvJfVQ8GpWwlvi9jSAq27i3/ From sartesian at earthlink.net Thu Jan 1 10:03:49 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 18:03:49 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] Hamas is hoping for an IDF ground operation References: Message-ID: <1805678D96B644D1A848295FA9016CAF@dmsthinkpad> No, I don't think it's a fucking game and I sure do know what a death grapple is like. You certainly are an expert at avoiding concrete answers to concrete questions and waving the bloody shirt in response. Nobody has argued that the Palestinian people need our approval, but you collapse everything, Hamas, nationalism, Islamic fundamentalism into an immediate, and permanent identity, with Palestinian people, and then you toss in the old shibboleths about " those living in imperial centers," -- guilty liberalism are the words that spring to my mind-- wrapping the package up with the bow of - well, more guilty liberalism. Nobody is criticizing the Palestinians for not doing more. Just as nobody criticized the victims of Guernica. But, since now you bring up the Spanish Civil War, after you stated my raising it was disingenuous in the extreme-- if Guernica was only an event at the culmination of a process-- that saw a retreat from revolutionary transformation, including removal of the officer corps from their commands, radical reorganization of agricultural labor, etc.-- IF that, then criticism of the Spanis Popular Front govt. for how Guernica could occur MUST be made. If in fact program and policy of the organizations of an oppressed class, an oppressed people have nothing to do with the course of the struggle, asssume no responsibility for the course of that struggle-- then, well, then uncritical support is all that is required-- of you. But if that's the case, then no programs, actions, policies matter; class has nothing to do with anything, and well-- we have more guilty liberalism where all that counts is expressing solidarity with those who suffer, and will continue to suffer since there is no program, policy, action, organization that can produce anything that matters. That's some solidarity. I said "disposable labor supply." That's what the Palestinians were to the Israelis-- disposable. I also said "defend all Palestinians" but that, of course, doesn't matter, because it doesn't come with just the right amount of, well, guilty liberalism. Certainly we draw people with our practice-- that's what defend all Palestinians means-- that's what opposition to two-states, and support of the right of return means. Bearing moral witness against barbarism is a noble gesture. But there are those in imperial centers, non-imperial centers, imperial peripheries, non-imperial peripheries, with keyboards and armchairs, without keyboard and armchairs, who think there is, must be, a way to overthrow the terms of barbarism rather than just witness them. Always a pleasure, never a chore. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 5:34 PM Subject: [Marxism] Hamas is hoping for an IDF ground operation From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Jan 1 10:36:54 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 12:36:54 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Israel's true intentions Message-ID: <495CFF36.1050109@panix.com> Counterpunch, January 1 , 2009 Israel Has No Intention of Granting a Palestinian State If Hamas Did Not Exist By JENNIFER LOEWENSTEIN Let us get one thing perfectly straight. If the wholesale mutilation and degradation of the Gaza Strip is going to continue; if Israel?s will is at one with that of the United States; if the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and all the international legal agencies and organizations spread across the globe are going to continue to sit by like hollow mannequins doing nothing but making repeated ?calls? for a ?ceasefire? on ?both sides?; if the cowardly, obsequious and supine Arab States are going to stand by watching their brethren get slaughtered by the hour while the world?s bullying Superpower eyes them threateningly from Washington lest they say something a little to their disliking; then let us at least tell the truth why this hell on earth is taking place. The state terror unleashed from the skies and on the ground against the Gaza Strip as we speak has nothing to do with Hamas. It has nothing to do with ?Terror?. It has nothing to do with the long-term ?security? of the Jewish State or with Hizbullah or Syria or Iran except insofar as it is aggravating the conditions that have led up to this crisis today. It has nothing to do with some conjured-up ?war? ? a cynical and overused euphemism that amounts to little more the wholesale enslavement of any nation that dares claim its sovereign rights; that dares assert that its resources are its own; that doesn?t want one of the Empire?s obscene military bases sitting on its cherished land. This crisis has nothing to do with freedom, democracy, justice or peace. It is not about Mahmoud Zahhar or Khalid Mash?al or Ismail Haniyeh. It is not about Hassan Nasrallah or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. These are all circumstantial players who have gained a role in the current tempest only now that the situation has been allowed for 61 years to develop into the catastrophe that it is today. The Islamist factor has colored and will continue to color the atmosphere of the crisis; it has enlisted the current leaders and mobilized wide sectors of the world?s population. The primary symbols today are Islamic ? the mosques, the Qur?an, the references to the Prophet Muhammad and to Jihad. But these symbols could disappear and the impasse would continue. There was a time when Fatah and the PFLP held the day; when few Palestinians wanted anything to do with Islamist policies and politics. Such politics have nothing to do with primitive rockets being fired over the border, or smuggling tunnels and black-market weapons; just as Arafat?s Fatah had little to do with stones and suicide bombings. The associations are coincidental; the creations of a given political environment. They are the result of something entirely different than what the lying politicians and their analysts are telling you. They have become part of the landscape of human events in the modern Middle East today; but incidentals wholly as lethal, or as recalcitrant, deadly, angry or incorrigible could just as soon have been in their places. Strip away the clich?s and the vacuous newspeak blaring out across the servile media and its pathetic corps of voluntary state servants in the Western world and what you will find is the naked desire for hegemony; for power over the weak and dominion over the world?s wealth. Worse yet you will find that the selfishness, the hatred and indifference, the racism and bigotry, the egotism and hedonism that we try so hard to cover up with our sophisticated jargon, our refined academic theories and models actually help to guide our basest and ugliest desires. The callousness with which we in indulge in them all are endemic to our very culture; thriving here like flies on a corpse. Strip away the current symbols and language of the victims of our selfish and devastating whims and you will find the simple, impassioned and unaffected cries of the downtrodden; of the ?wretched of the earth? begging you to cease your cold aggression against their children and their homes; their families and their villages; begging you to leave them alone to have their fish and their bread, their oranges, their olives and their thyme; asking you first politely and then with increasing disbelief why you cannot let them live undisturbed on the land of their ancestors; unexploited, free of the fear of expulsion; of ravishment and devastation; free of permits and roadblocks and checkpoints and crossings; of monstrous concrete walls, guard towers, concrete bunkers, and barbed wire; of tanks and prisons and torture and death. Why is life without these policies and instruments of hell impossible? The answer is because Israel has no intention of allowing a viable, sovereign Palestinian state on its borders. It had no intention of allowing it in 1948 when it grabbed 24 per cent more land than what it was allotted legally, if unfairly, by UN Resolution 181. It had no intention of allowing it throughout the massacres and ploys of the 1950s. It had no intention of allowing two states when it conquered the remaining 22 per cent of historic Palestine in 1967 and reinterpreted UN Security Council Resolution 248 to its own liking despite the overwhelming international consensus stating that Israel would receive full international recognition within secure and recognized borders if it withdrew from the lands it had only recently occupied. It had no intention of acknowledging Palestinian national rights at the United Nations in 1974, when ?alone with the United States?it voted against a two-state solution. It had no intention of allowing a comprehensive peace settlement when Egypt stood ready to deliver but received, and obediently accepted, a separate peace exclusive of the rights of Palestinians and the remaining peoples of the region. It had no intention of working toward a just two-state solution in 1978 or 1982 when it invaded, fire-bombed, blasted and bulldozed Beirut so that it might annex the West Bank without hassle. It had no intention of granting a Palestinian state in 1987 when the first Intifada spread across occupied Palestine, into the Diaspora and the into the spirits of the global dispossessed, or when Israel deliberately aided the newly formed Hamas movement so that it might undermine the strength of the more secular-nationalist factions. Israel had no intention of granting a Palestinian state at Madrid or at Oslo where the PLO was superseded by the quivering, quisling Palestinian Authority, too many of whose cronies grasped at the wealth and prestige it gave them at the expense of their own kin. As Israel beamed into the world?s satellites and microphones its desire for peace and a two-state solution, it more than doubled the number of illegal Jewish settlements on the ground in the West Bank and around East Jerusalem, annexing them as it built and continues to build a superstructure of bypass roads and highways over the remaining, severed cities and villages of earthly Palestine. It has annexed the Jordan valley, the international border of Jordan, expelling any ?locals? inhabiting that land. It speaks with a viper?s tongue over the multiple amputee of Palestine whose head shall soon be severed from its body in the name of justice, peace and security. Through the home demolitions, the assaults on civil society that attempted to cast Palestinian history and culture into a chasm of oblivion; through the unspeakable destruction of the refugee camp sieges and infrastructure bombardments of the second Intifada, through assassinations and summary executions, past the grandiose farce of disengagement and up to the nullification of free, fair and democratic Palestinian elections Israel has made its view known again and again in the strongest possible language, the language of military might, of threats, intimidation, harassment, defamation and degradation. Israel, with the unconditional and approving support of the United States, has made it dramatically clear to the entire world over and over and over again, repeating in action after action that it will accept no viable Palestinian state next to its borders. What will it take for the rest of us to hear? What will it take to end the criminal silence of the ?international community?? What will it take to see past the lies and indoctrination to what is taking place before us day after day in full view of the eyes of the world? The more horrific the actions on the ground, the more insistent are the words of peace. To listen and watch without hearing or seeing allows the indifference, the ignorance and complicity to continue and deepens with each grave our collective shame. The destruction of Gaza has nothing to do with Hamas. Israel will accept no authority in the Palestinian territories that it does not ultimately control. Any individual, leader, faction or movement that fails to accede to Israel?s demands or that seeks genuine sovereignty and the equality of all nations in the region; any government or popular movement that demands the applicability of international humanitarian law and of the universal declaration of human rights for its own people will be unacceptable for the Jewish State. Those dreaming of one state must be forced to ask themselves what Israel would do to a population of 4 million Palestinians within its borders when it commits on a daily, if not hourly basis, crimes against their collective humanity while they live alongside its borders? What will suddenly make the raison d?etre, the self-proclaimed purpose of Israel?s reason for being change if the Palestinian territories are annexed to it outright? The lifeblood of the Palestinian National Movement flows through the streets of Gaza today. Every drop that falls waters the soil of vengeance, bitterness and hatred not only in Palestine but across the Middle East and much of the world. We do have a choice over whether or not this should continue. Now is the time to make it. Jennifer Loewenstein is the Associate Director of the Middle East Studies Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She can be reached at amadea311 at earthlink.net From tcod at hotmail.com Thu Jan 1 10:52:41 2009 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:52:41 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Blacks versus the New Deal In-Reply-To: References: <422661.52771.qm@web54603.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Now, a certain historical figure has recently been getting some reference as the last person who faced denial of his Senate seat, in this case upon his re-election, that figure being the buffoonish Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi (1877-1947), who previously as governor fired much of the faculties of the state's universities in order to replace them with his own cronies, the Dean of medical school having the qualification that "he once took a course in dentistry". This individual, who brings to mind Phil Ochs lyric, "and the speeches of the Governor are the ravings of a clown." Below is an example of how far Bilbo, an admitted Klan member ("once a Ku Kluxer, always a Ku Kluxer"), was willing to go in suspending his anti-Catholicism during the 1928 presidential election: "During the 1928 presidential election, Bilbo helped Al Smith carry the state despite an overwhelming anti-Catholic sentiment, by claiming that Herbert Hoover had met with a black member of the Republican National Committee and danced with her. In a speech in Memphis on October 17, Bilbo asserted that during a visit to Mississippi in 1927, 'Hoover insisted that his train be routed through Mount Bayou... in order that he might visit Mrs. Mary Booze, a negress, socially,' and added, 'Mary Booze is as black as the ace of spades. And Hoover danced with her.' Though widely reported, and although an anonymous political flyer featuring a doctored photo supposedly showing Hoover and Mrs. Booze dancing together was circulated throughout the South, the odd story did not prevent Hoover from being elected President of the United States the following month.[without carrying MS and the Solid South obviously]-Wikipedia > As to the 1920s, I doubt the KKK ever suspended its virulent > anti-Catholicism to accommodate the locals. _________________________________________________________________ Life on your PC is safer, easier, and more enjoyable with Windows Vista?. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032870/direct/01/ From dwaltersMIA at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 10:58:14 2009 From: dwaltersMIA at gmail.com (nada) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 09:58:14 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Israel's true intentions Message-ID: <495D0436.8040501@gmail.com> I totally disagree with Lowenstein from Counterpunch. He is wrong. It is in fact the opposite of what he postulates. The Israelis' would LOVE to have a 'stable Palestinian state' in Gaza and the West Bank. Where is this guy coming from? "Stability" can have many relative meanings. The Zionists actually DO want a Bantustan, a hamstrung, but *prosperous* Palestinian state. Why in the world wouldn't they? I elite middle-class, tied to Israeli financial capital, a week police force, border controlled completely by the IDF...a place to drive Israeli Arabs too when their numbers get too big. The last thing they will ever do is try to annex these areas, despite historic plans in the bottom draw for a "Greater Israel" and other pipe dreams of Zionists on LSD. David From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Jan 1 11:01:49 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:01:49 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Israel's true intentions In-Reply-To: <495D0436.8040501@gmail.com> References: <495D0436.8040501@gmail.com> Message-ID: <495D050D.40401@panix.com> nada wrote: > I totally disagree with Lowenstein from Counterpunch. He is wrong. It is > in fact the opposite of what he postulates. Isn't Jennifer an unusual name for a man? Do you think this is something like Johnny Cash's "A Boy Named Sue"? > The Israelis' would LOVE to have a 'stable Palestinian state' in Gaza > and the West Bank. Where is this guy coming from? "Stability" can have > many relative meanings. The Zionists actually DO want a Bantustan, a > hamstrung, but *prosperous* Palestinian state. A prosperous bantustan? Is that like an imperialist colony? From sartesian at earthlink.net Thu Jan 1 11:41:22 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 19:41:22 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] Israel's true intentions References: <495D0436.8040501@gmail.com> Message-ID: Think you're positively, wrong David. Israel is the true heir to Boers, to Verwoerd, de Klerk, Botha. Bantustans on its borders? Not hardly. Concentration camps? Definitely. This destruction has a purpose, and its purpose is the destruction. It's as direct, immediate, and barbaric as that. ----- Original Message ----- From: "nada" To: Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 6:58 PM Subject: [Marxism] Israel's true intentions >I totally disagree with Lowenstein from Counterpunch. He is wrong. It is > in fact the opposite of what he postulates. > > The Israelis' would LOVE to have a 'stable Palestinian state' in Gaza > and the West Bank. Where is this guy coming from? "Stability" can have > many relative meanings. The Zionists actually DO want a Bantustan, a > hamstrung, but *prosperous* Palestinian state. Why in the world wouldn't > they? I elite middle-class, tied to Israeli financial capital, a week > police force, border controlled completely by the IDF...a place to drive > Israeli Arabs too when their numbers get too big. The last thing they > will ever do is try to annex these areas, despite historic plans in the > bottom draw for a "Greater Israel" and other pipe dreams of Zionists on > LSD. > > David > > ________________________________________________ > 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/sartesian%40earthlink.net From mullah_omar at email.it Thu Jan 1 11:45:41 2009 From: mullah_omar at email.it (double bluff) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:45:41 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] 2009 should be interesting in the US In-Reply-To: <495D0436.8040501@gmail.com> References: <495D0436.8040501@gmail.com> Message-ID: <495D0F55.9030809@email.it> Hi there. It seems 2009 should be interesting in the US. See for ex. here: Bob Moriarty: ?We will have riots starting in the first quarter of next year; we will default by the summer of 2009? here: Would They Be Planning to Use Troops Against Americans If They WEREN?T Stealing Our Money? and here: Civil war will break out in the US next year, in 2010 the country will break into six pieces Any opinion / forecast /wishes from you? -- Caselle da 1GB, trasmetti allegati fino a 3GB e in piu' IMAP, POP3 e SMTP autenticato? GRATIS solo con Email.it http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Innammorarsi ? facile con Meetic, milioni di single si sono iscritti, si sono conosciuti e hanno riscoperto l'amore. Tutto con Meetic, prova anche tu! Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=8292&d=1-1 From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Jan 1 11:57:11 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:57:11 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] 2009 should be interesting in the US In-Reply-To: <495D0F55.9030809@email.it> References: <495D0436.8040501@gmail.com> <495D0F55.9030809@email.it> Message-ID: <495D1207.20401@panix.com> double bluff wrote: > Civil war will break out in the US next year, in 2010 the country will > break into six pieces > > > Any opinion / forecast /wishes from you? I wish that you would not waste our time with this kind of drivel. From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Jan 1 12:04:41 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:04:41 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Long article on Iran Message-ID: <495D13C9.9010602@panix.com> (This is posted in its entirety because it is only available to NY Review of Books subscribers. In the guise of a book review, it explores the possibilities of rapprochement with Iran.) NY Review, Volume 56, Number 1 ? January 15, 2009 The Iran Mystery Case By Max Rodenbeck BOOKS REFERRED TO IN THIS ARTICLE Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the US, and the Twisted Path to Confrontation by Barbara Slavin St. Martin's, 258 pp., $24.95 Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States by Trita Parsi Yale University Press, 361 pp., $28.00; $17.00 (paper) Ahmadinejad: The Secret History of Iran's Radical Leader by Kasra Naji University of California Press, 298 pp., $24.95 Reading Khamenei: The World View of Iran's Most Powerful Leader by Karim Sadjadpour Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 35 pp., available at www.carnegieendowment.org The Struggle for Iran by Christopher de Bellaigue New York Review Books, 230 pp., $22.95 The Ayatollah Begs to Differ: The Paradox of Modern Iran by Hooman Majd Doubleday, 272 pp., $24.95 The governance of religion and morals and resurgence of Islamic values is that heightened peak to which the defiled hands of those given to debauchery and whims does not reach, and which the diplomacy of gold and might fails to entrap. ?Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, from a speech quoted in his Web site biography at www.leader.ir Throughout the Bush years in Washington, the issue of what to do about Iran was often reduced to a question of whether or not to talk to the Iranian regime. Those who insisted on silence saw Iran starkly as a "state sponsor of terrorism," controlled by fanatics grimly bent on making atom bombs. Only the threat of force, they claimed, could persuade Iran to change its ways or, better yet, to change its nature as an Islamic republic. An opposing camp declared that America would be wiser to accept Iran as a regional power and to encourage pragmatic elements within its leadership. Their hope was to build trust through diplomacy so that Iran would not feel the need for a nuclear deterrent. The ideal outcome would be a Grand Bargain based on the common interest of forging a more secure Middle East. By last spring, the argument between these camps had escalated to the point where some conservatives, including President Bush and the Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, insinuated that Barack Obama's declared willingness to talk to Iran amounted to "appeasement," a term loaded with the shame of Britain's capitulation to Hitler at Munich. Although the US Treasury has recently tightened economic sanctions on Iran, such shrillness has now subsided. In its waning months the Bush administration has broken with its previous policy by sending William Burns, a senior State Department official, to multiparty talks on the Iranian nuclear issue. It has even made preliminary plans to open a "US interests section," or low-level diplomatic office, within the Swiss embassy in the Iranian capital, Tehran?an initiative that is typically a first step toward restoring normal relations. US officials are also understood to have counseled Israel, the country that feels most threatened by the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, to refrain from preemptive action. These moves have come partly in response to expert advice, much of which warns that the military option is too risky: air strikes cannot guarantee to stop Iran from getting the bomb, yet would likely ignite a cataclysmic regional backlash, particularly in Iraq. The fragility of the global economy has cooled tempers, too, since any threat to oil supplies from the Persian Gulf could destroy chances of a recovery. Bitter experience has also shown that shunning Iran, and brandishing sticks without accommodating legitimate Iranian concerns, have merely served to entrench Tehran's own hard-liners. Not only has Iran defiantly accelerated its nuclear program, it has also made embarrassing strategic inroads, via such ideological allies as Hezbollah and Hamas, against American interests in Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq. The Democrats' crushing electoral sweep in November has made likely a further shift toward engagement, although the incoming team has added caveats to Barack Obama's declared preference for diplomacy, such as saying that any meetings with Iranian leaders would have to be well prepared and timely, reiterating that it would be "unacceptable" for Iran to go nuclear, and insisting that the military option remains "on the table." Meanwhile, the more bellicose parts of America's foreign policy establishment appear to be regrouping so as to maintain subtler, less overtly partisan pressure against "appeasement." Even relative hawks such as Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft now say that diplomacy must be given a chance, if only to build international legitimacy for eventual, stronger US action. In other words, there is a growing consensus among both conservative and liberal policy analysts in Washington around a strategy of robust engagement with Iran. It is not yet clear how ambitious this approach will be?whether the objective is simply to stop Iran from building a bomb or to aim for the elusive Grand Bargain covering such issues as Gulf security, the future of Iraq and Afghanistan, and Arab?Israeli peace. It is certain that Iran will prove to be an extremely difficult negotiating partner, if indeed it is willing to put its cards on the table. But at least a stronger effort will be made to coax, cajole, and persuade Iran's leadership that it has much to gain through compromise, and much to lose without it. Troublingly, however, there remains at both ends of the Iran policy spectrum a certain vagueness about exactly whom America might be engaging. This is not merely a confusion about whom to address within the Iranian regime's complex hierarchy. It extends to a broader lack of clarity about where these people come from, what shapes their views, what they really fear, and what they really want. This vagueness entails a danger that the underlying assumptions on which future policy will be based could prove inaccurate or misleading. Often, in the past, it has been precisely such misapprehensions that have undermined attempts at rapprochement, or perhaps more accurately, enabled saboteurs in both countries to undermine them. In her lucid and enlightening account of Iranian?American relations, Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies, Barbara Slavin, a longtime diplomatic correspondent for USA Today who recently became a managing editor of The Washington Times and has long been one of the most astute American reporters on Iran, chronicles a sad litany of missed opportunities for improved relations, most of them derailed by the ill-timed intervention of hard-liners on either side. This could even be described as the defining dynamic of the troubled relationship. In both countries, opponents of rapprochement have seized on any hint of hostility to score points against domestic political rivals by raising the tone of nationalist rhetoric. Alternatively, they have brushed off friendly signals as evidence of weakness, and as proof that only hardball tactics produce results. This does not mean that the achievement of an American?Iranian d?tente would have been certain had such opportunities been pursued, but rather that the delicate machinery needed to produce such a result was never properly constructed, and so never set in motion. A typical example of this occurred in 2002, when the popular, reformist administration of President Mohammad Khatami sorely needed some friendly signal from America to counter its increasingly aggressive conservative critics. But instead of being rewarded for its condemnation of the September 11 attacks or its vital assistance in ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan?Iran supported the Northern Alliance and provided intelligence to US forces about Taliban forces?Iran found itself melodramatically branded by George Bush, in a State of the Union speech, as a member of an "axis of evil." The sudden, sharp escalation of rhetoric shocked Iranians profoundly, leaving proponents of warmer ties dangerously exposed. This logical result was apparently unanticipated in Washington. Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, admitted as much. "What is funny about it is that [the phrase] didn't really catch my eye," she told Barbara Slavin, in a stunning admission of diplomatic insensitivity. Chastened, but still keen to improve relations, Iranian diplomats put out feelers at the time of the Iraq invasion some months later, only to be rebuffed again. Neoconservatives within the Bush administration, it seems, were convinced that the blitzkrieg in Iraq would frighten neighboring Iran into submission, with no need for diplomacy. "We don't speak to evil" was the blunt retort from Vice President Dick Cheney, supported by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when presented with Iranian proposals for broad negotiations that would address Iran's nuclear program, Iraq, and Iranian-supported groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, in exchange for full diplomatic recognition and an end to US economic sanctions. As Trita Parsi recounts in his meticulously researched book Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States, the brusque rejection prompted not an Iranian surrender, but a circling of wagons by revolutionary hard-liners, who subsequently made a determined push to purge the relative liberals who had prospered under Khatami, thus putting an end to hopes for internal reform, let alone for a broader accommodation with the US. Needless to say, for its part revolutionary Iran has proven even more inept at judging the Great Satan's moods and responses. The extraordinary obtuseness of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's current president, in questioning the historical reality of the Holocaust is a case in point. Such antics are, understandably, seen by Americans in the context of more overtly provocative acts, beginning with the 1979?1980 hostage crisis, extending through such ugly policies as the assassination of dissidents, and including Iran's association with groups, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which official America deems terrorist. And while the chant of "Death to America" may no longer resonate much with ordinary Iranians, it has remained a touchstone for politicians, a reflexive reaffirmation of revolutionary values, rather as the blasting of communism was for American politicians during the cold war. Yet in the American case, tin-eared diplomacy cannot be explained away as the product of sheer ignorance or as a matter of ritual adherence to a strident ideology. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has been the subject of intense American scrutiny. A simple search under "Iran Politics" at Amazon.com produces nearly four thousand titles, evidence not only of a national fascination with one of the very few countries still to proclaim opposition to American power, but also of the abiding interest that Iranian ?migr?s, who number nearly 400,000 in the United States, take in their homeland. Sadly, much of America's intellectual output on the subject of Iran, and particularly since the eruption of the nuclear issue, has been marked by panic-mongering cant. Some of this is generated by disgruntled exiles, including many linked to royalist and leftist parties that have as little resonance inside Iran as did the well-heeled Iraqi expatriates who lobbied for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; and some by a chorus of foreign policy "experts" in Washington, many of them familiar as cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq, such as the columnist Max Boot, the former CIA head James Woolsey, and the right-wing scholar Michael Ledeen. "IS THE WORLD READY FOR NUCLEAR JIHAD?" shrieks the back cover of one typical product, Showdown With Nuclear Iran, a book coauthored by Jerome Corsi, a serial ranter whose muck-splattering "biography" of Barack Obama won brief notoriety this fall. Wiser minds have also been at work, and the past year's crop of serious and useful books about Iran has been unusually rich. Barbara Slavin's look at Iranian?American relations should be indispensable to policymakers, as should Trita Parsi's seminal work, which argues, persuasively, that America's aims in the Middle East will continue to be thwarted until it addresses more pragmatically the core underlying problem of Israeli?Iranian rivalry.[1] Kasra Naji, a seasoned Iranian journalist, has written a critical and revealing biography of Iran's controversial president. Tracing his rise through the revolutionary nomenclatura, Naji explains the shadowy links that tie Ahmadinejad to an inner network of radical conservatives. The President's popularity has now eroded to the point that he may well fail to secure a second term in next summer's elections, but Naji's description of Iran's quirky political mechanics remains essential to understanding how the clash between the country's theocratic and democratic tendencies, with the former increasingly dominant, can still produce unexpected results. The more enigmatic, far more powerful figure of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Islamic Republic's sixty-nine-year-old Supreme Leader, is the subject of an extremely timely and thorough, albeit concise, investigation by Karim Sadjadpour, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Sadjadpour observes that Khamenei's contempt for America has proven to be "remarkably consistent and enduring" throughout a career that has spanned two terms as president of the Islamic Republic (1981?1989), followed by nearly two decades as Supreme Leader. Yet he also notes that Khamenei has shown flexibility at times. "The day that relations with America prove beneficial to the Iranian nation I will be the first to approve of that," declared the Supreme Leader earlier this year. For a broader and deeper exploration of contemporary Iran, Christopher de Bellaigue's The Struggle for Iran offers both fine sensibility and a keen critical eye. A fluent Farsi speaker and frequent contributor to these pages, de Bellaigue experienced firsthand both the heady rise of the reformists under Khatami and their subsequent, depressing fall. His collection of essays, though observed over several years, illuminates his subject all the more because its eclectic parts reflect the kind of slow, subtle shifts in mood that instant reporting inevitably fails to capture. Three years before Ahmadinejad's surprise electoral triumph in 2005, de Bellaigue judged presciently that unless reformers can muster allies in the conservative establishment, or find new ways to bring public pressure on it, Iran seems fated to an unyielding form of Islamic rule. More lighthearted but equally profound in insight is Hooman Majd's delightfully unclassifiable book, The Ayatollah Begs to Differ. Part travelogue, part reminiscence, and shifting between bemusement, grudging respect, and despair, this digressive essay in cultural interpretation reflects the unique perspective of a thoroughly cosmopolitan Westerner who also happens to be the grandson of a turbaned senior cleric. While blithely exposing hypocrisies and paradoxes, Majd does not spare the Islamic Republic's critics, either. Happening on a gaggle of New Yorkers demonstrating against a visit by Ahmadinejad, he discovers that at least one has been lured from the Bowery Mission with the promise of $15 and a T-shirt. This book is a vital antidote to both the wishful thinking of exiles who declare the Islamic Revolution's inevitable doom and to the exaggerated alarm of those who see it as an existential threat to the world order. It also provides some very American clues to understanding the Iranian experience. "It is in some ways as if evangelical Christians had had their way in the White House, in Congress, in state governments, on the Supreme Court, and in the schools for a generation," Majd writes. "Perhaps not a perfect analogy, for America is far more diverse than Iran and the majority probably less religious, but an analogy of sorts nonetheless." Given the legacy of mistrust and the range of prickly issues that separate America and Iran, the Obama administration faces immense obstacles in trying to steer toward less troubled waters. But at least some excellent charts are at hand for gaining a better fix on Iran's tides, reefs, and shoals. Persia's many empires, starting with the Achaemenid dynasty in the sixth century BC, have come and gone. Its modern avatar seems far removed from the benign overlordship for which ancient Persia was known, although behind the Islamic Republic's drearily monochrome fa?ade the country remains an amalgam of tribes, ethnicities, and faiths, spread across a continental range of climates and topographies. Yet there does linger something haughtily imperial in the Iranian worldview. It is an attitude that should be familiar to present-day Americans, or to Britons of recent generations: a certain defiant insularity, combined with a sense of national entitlement to respect as a great and morally superior power. Perhaps this is not surprising. Even in its reduced state, Iran looks out over a wider sphere that includes numerous kinsmen. Links of language tie it closely to speakers of Dari (a form of Persian that is the main language of Afghanistan) and Tajik, as well as more distantly to Pashtuns, Kurds, Baluchis, and even Ossetians. The state religion of the Islamic Republic, the Jaafari or Twelver form of Shiism professed by nine out of ten Iranians, happens also to be the majority faith in neighboring Azerbaijan, Iraq, and Bahrain. Twelver Shia minorities in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Pakistan also regard Iran as a pole of their religious identity. And then there is the wider Muslim world: it is overwhelmingly Sunni in sectarian terms and so rejects the claim of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, to the supplementary title of Commander of the Muslims. Yet Muslims admire Iran both as a wellspring of Islamic civilization and as a unique political experiment. There are other reasons for the self-importance of Iran's rulers. They hold what may be the world's second-largest reserves of both liquid oil and natural gas. For Europe this makes Iran a potential counterweight to Vladimir Putin's Russia, which currently, to Europe's considerable anxiety, supplies most of the continent's imported gas. Asian countries, particularly the booming giants India and China, also thirst for Iran's poorly exploited hydrocarbons. So does America, yet the global superpower's main contribution to inflating the Iranian ego has been the chorus of Bush administration officials, right-wing think tanks, and, most recently, a "bipartisan" panel,[2] all proclaiming the Islamic Republic to be the most significant single threat to America's interests. The revolutionary regime can cause trouble, as when it attempts, quite successfully, to thwart American ambitions in places such as Lebanon and Iraq, where it has been able to exert influence through its ties to several of the leading Shiite parties and clerics and through its financial support for Shiite holy sites. Or when it threatens to seal the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow bottleneck through which vast volumes of oil pour forth from the Persian Gulf. The very real possibility of Iran achieving nuclear status is cited as a terrible peril, too. Fearful of the bombast of Iranian leaders who have said that the Jewish state will be "erased from the pages of history" and of Iran's development of long-range missiles that could reach Israeli cities, Israelis have raised the specter of a new Holocaust. Others fear an accelerated arms race in the region, with powers such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt rushing to balance Iran's strength with their own nuclear weapons. Much cited is the possibility that Iranian nuclear weapons could be acquired by foreign terrorists. Yet for all its bluster Iran remains a strategic featherweight. In the event of any real conflict, the Islamic Republic would prove decisively outmatched. A glance at the map of forces arrayed around the region, which includes not merely a ring of US bases and facilities in nearly every neighboring country, but also such nearby, nuclear-armed powers as India, Israel, Pakistan, and Russia, suffices to make clear Iran's strategic isolation. The country is also poor, starved of foreign investment, clumsily managed, and wholly dependent on energy exports. Its universities are good but far from outstanding, and Iran has suffered a crippling, two- generation-long drain of much of its best talent. It is notable, too, that until the Bush administration opened unexpected opportunities for Iran to do so, the Islamic Republic had proved remarkably incapable of extending its political or ideological influence, except perhaps among Shia Lebanese and the Iraqi Shiites with whom it continues to have relations. As Christopher de Bellaigue notes: The revolutionaries found it hard to sell a political philosophy that is based on Shia exclusiveness and informed, despite Iran's claims to be advocating supranational ideas, by Persian chauvinism. Indeed, it is precisely the mismatch between revolutionary Iran's vaulting ambitions and its modest achievements that underpins other important aspects of its leaders' behavior. In attempting to explain why their theodemocratic experiment has failed to produce either worldly or spiritual greatness, the mullahs and militants who are currently ascendant harp repeatedly on two perceived causes, one internal, the other external. The first excuse is that the Islamic project remains incomplete because it has been insufficiently revolutionary. This, as Kasra Naji reminds us in his biography of Ahmadinejad, is a standard trope for regimes suffering from public disenchantment. Much as Stalin, Mao, or Castro sought to reinvigorate their aging revolutions with varied, often brutal forms of mass mobilization, Iran's true believers have tried to recharge theirs. Hence we find Ahmadinejad promising voters before his election somehow to extract every policy, project, and method "from the heart of Islam." "If we return to the culture of Islam," de Bellaigue quotes him as saying, "you'll see tomorrow what kind of heaven this place becomes." Predictably, along with the heightened rhetoric came increased attention to revolutionary symbols such as "Islamic" dress, a silencing of dissent that included a fierce clampdown on the press and sweeping purges of personnel, and a reconcentration of power in the hands of a trusted "vanguard." The Revolutionary Guards, or Sepah, the parallel military force created at the time of the revolution to counterbalance the national army, came to function, in the words of Hooman Majd, rather as an Iranian version of the ?cole Nationale d'Administration, the school that supplies France's managerial caste. Barbara Slavin estimates that during Ahmadinejad's term, Sepah alumni have come to fill half the cabinet, two thirds of the provincial governorships, a third of parliamentary seats, and much of the top management in the religious foundations, or bonyads, that control a giant slice of Iran's economy.[3] Ahmadinejad also reintroduced an element of class animosity that harked back to the 1980s. His modest style, rumpled suits, shaggy haircuts, and preference for his own house over a grand official residence served as a reprimand to political rivals guilty of backsliding from revolutionary austerity. Hooman Majd tells the amusing tale of seeking out the President's chief press adviser and finding the important official, after some effort, in a dingy unmarked office wearing plastic sandals. Conversely, he discovers that the rich, hedonistic Iranians who bemoan such things from behind high walls seem to resent their leaders less because of their policies than because of their lowly origins. The alternative excuse for the Islamic Republic's failings is that foreign enemies are to blame. Because they are fearful that Iran's Islamic model will emerge triumphant over ideologies such as capitalism or socialism, the sermon-like argument goes, foreign governments have plotted at every turn to undermine the Islamic regime. It is Iran's noble fate to struggle for justice against such global tyranny, just as the Iranian people fought to overthrow their Shah. In particular, and to an exaggerated extent, Iran's revolutionaries have actually come to define themselves by their opposition to America, which they see as the force of international arrogance that personifies worldly injustice. Religious imagery infuses such ideas. "Shias are always Davids," says Hooman Majd, using the oft-cited biblical tale mentioned in the Koran. To them, there is no Goliath today greater than the United States. The Ayatollahs and all their little Davids are determined to stand up to it whenever necessary, whenever the cause is just, and to never lose, even if, or maybe because, they can't win outright. In a typical speech quoted by Sadjadpour, Ayatollah Khamenei asserts that what America expects from Iran is nothing less than submission and surrender to its hegemony. "This is the real motive for US claims regarding weapons of mass destruction, human rights or democracy," the Supreme Leader adds. Sadly, recent history provides plenty of reinforcement for this self-image as the perpetual underdog. True, Iran avoided outright colonization by the West, unlike most of its neighbors. Yet Britain and America did conspire, in the 1950s, to overthrow the liberal, nationalist government of Mohammad Mossadegh and reinstate the Shah, mainly in order to secure better terms for Iranian oil.[4] (Ironically, the coup plotters' allies included senior mullahs who disliked the liberals' secular tendencies.) America and its many allies also, shamefully, supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq during the appalling carnage of its 1980?1988 war against the Islamic Republic, one of whose many ugly chapters included the shooting down of a scheduled civilian Iranian airliner by the US Navy. Understandably, many Iranians saw the war as a cynical attempt to bleed their revolution dry. In fact, its main results were to provide nationalist cover to Ayatollah Khomeini as he went about crushing internal opposition to his Islamist project; to enshrine the Islamic revolution within a national myth of martyrdom; and to generate the embittered class of veterans, united by memories of wartime sacrifice and camaraderie, that gave rise to such figures as Ahmadinejad. Even so, the xenophobia of the revolutionary elite does seem to verge on the pathological. Hooman Majd notes with some amusement that one of Ahmadinejad's closest advisers, Mojtaba Hashemi-Samareh, actually wrote a guidebook for Iranian diplomats titled The Psychology of the Infidels. It advises, among other things, that representatives of the Islamic Republic should never wear lace-up shoes or sharply creased trousers, since these might be taken as telltale signs of their having neglected prayers. The removal of dozens of experienced ambassadors under Ahmadinejad, and their replacement with firmer ideologues, may have been the work of Hashemi-Samareh. This would go some way to explaining why Iran's hectoring style of diplomacy over the past few years has won so few friends. We cannot know to what degree such a figure as Ayatollah Khamenei shares this mix of extreme paranoia regarding the outside world and quiet dread that the Iranian masses no longer believe in the revolution's utopian promise. Yet it is highly likely that such insecurities contribute to his regime's tenacious determination to master the uranium enrichment process needed to build a bomb. To a foreign observer, Iran's pursuit of a costly nuclear program can only be seen as quixotic or threatening, considering such factors as the country's vast but underexploited conventional energy supplies, its record of hiding atomic research, its development of long-range missiles, and its expansion of the program into uranium enrichment with the excuse that this will make Iran energy-independent, even though the country has limited uranium reserves and no functioning reactors to consume the enriched fuel. But to Iran's revolutionary elite the nuclear program has come to be seen as crucial for its symbolism far more than for its practical utility. In their view, it addresses internal and external troubles at once. The nuclear breakthrough is meant to inspire jaded citizens, providing much-needed proof of Iran's return to glory, as well as evidence that technology and theocracy, Islam and modernity, can fruitfully coexist. Official propaganda, referring to statements by Ayatollah Khamenei that abjure use of atomic weapons by Muslims, insists that the program is purely aimed at producing nuclear energy for Iran's civilian needs. Ordinary Iranians may be skeptical of this, but even so demand to know why their ancient and proud country should be denied atomic bombs, if such dangerous parvenus as Israel and Pakistan can have them. As for the foreign menace, Iran's nuclear prowess is meant to announce its reemergence as a power to be reckoned with. This does not necessitate actual building and deployment of weapons, but merely showing the ability to do so. Obviously, because they profess peaceful intent, Iran's leaders have not articulated a military rationale for a weapons program. To the outside observer, however, it seems clear that should Iran develop nuclear weapons, they could only serve as a deterrent rather than as offensive weapons, since their use would invite annihilation. The scenario of Iran passing nukes to terrorists sounds fanciful, too. Its ayatollahs are certain to remain sharply at odds with the Sunni jihadists who abhor Shiism. And much as Iran's leaders dote on Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite party's own pragmatic commanders are well aware that any Iranian gift of nonconventional weapons would invite their instant ostracism from Lebanese politics, let alone the full destructive wrath of Israel. In other words, the nuclear project is most likely conceived not so much as a means for projecting power as it is part of a strategy for regime survival. Trying simply to prise this toy from Iran's leadership, then, is likely to prove futile. The current alternative, of piling on trade sanctions that make clear to ordinary Iranians their diplomatic isolation, as well as the burdensome cost of pursuing the nuclear option, is not much better. Iran's more extreme elements thrive on such punishment, while those worst affected are private businessmen whom many Iranians regard as sharks and profiteers anyway. The fact is that despite the weariness of many Iranians with their regime, the combination of innate nationalism, political fatigue, and fears for personal livelihoods have rendered the Iranian public relatively quiescent. In the view of Hooman Majd: the Ayatollahs may from time to time silence dissent at home, they may rule autocratically and with their infuriating manners they may annoy and even repulse many in the West, but they rule for now with the confidence that they do not face a population that seeks to overthrow them. To deal with such leaders will require diplomatic skills of the highest order, including understanding, careful coordination with allies, and, above all, patience. Current trends within Iran, although difficult to read, suggest a slight swing of the power pendulum away from hard-liners. Elections last year to the council that will eventually choose a Supreme Leader to succeed Ayatollah Khamenei produced a centrist majority. President Ahmadinejad faces growing challenges from both conservative pragmatists and reformers, and may not survive beyond next June's elections. Yet even should the ebullient radical remain in office, some analysts assert that he would be better placed to make diplomatic concessions than a more conciliatory politician, who would be exposed to attacks from the nationalist right. Inklings of a more positive American? Iranian dialogue are already emerging over Iraq. Following initial, fierce resistance to any deal that would legitimize a continued US military presence, Iran has proved surprisingly supportive now that Iraq's government has ratified a status-of-forces agreement. This reflects not only relief that America is committed to eventual withdrawal, but also tacit recognition that Washington and Tehran share some common strategic goals in Iraq, such as reducing the level of violence, strengthening state institutions, curbing Kurdish separatist ambitions, and preserving a semblance of democracy in which the Shiite majority is likely to remain dominant. Issues such as Iran's opposition to American peacemaking efforts in the Arab?Israeli conflict, defining an Iranian role in Gulf security that is acceptable to its smaller neighbors, and Iran's nuclear program, could each prove far trickier. Useful quid pro quos do exist for all these questions, but arranging for exchanges of concessions by multiple parties, in a sequence that enhances mutual confidence, is no easy task. While a large-scale agreement on all the issues is obviously unlikely, it would still be wise for American policymakers to keep the big picture in mind, and to focus on the positive allure of a region-wide peace rather than to fret over lurking dangers.[5] The key task will be to prove to the Iranians that the potential rewards for releasing Iran from its current dilemma are immense. To a purely rational observer this might seem easy, when we consider the country's enormous, unrealized economic and human potential, and its lack of real, as opposed to largely imaginary, enemies. But Iran's clerical rulers, whose job it is to chase demons, will surely find devils in every detail. The biggest of all may prove to be one spotted by Christopher de Bellaigue. "It is clear that Iran's leaders are trying to stem the tide of history," he says, "which tends, sooner or later, to submerge inflexible ideologies and their autocratic proponents." ?December 17, 2008 From ecosocialism at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 12:18:29 2009 From: ecosocialism at gmail.com (Ian Angus) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 14:18:29 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Kautsky Quote Needed Message-ID: <733b65360901011118g6375aa82hc1294aad07e19f9d@mail.gmail.com> For an article I'm writing, I am looking for a brief quotation from Karl Kautsky, which I saw once but now can't find. I think it was written in the first decade of the 1900s. In it, Kautsky said something to the effect that the fact that an idea comes from the ruling class or may serve ruling class interests doesn't mean that the idea is wrong. Can anyone help? Ian Angus Climate and Capitalism www.climateandcapitalism.com From cbcox at ilstu.edu Thu Jan 1 12:43:51 2009 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:43:51 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] 2009 should be interesting in the US References: <495D0436.8040501@gmail.com> <495D0F55.9030809@email.it> Message-ID: <495D1CF7.DDD60CCE@ilstu.edu> "Woe to those who live in interesting times." (From memory) I don't remember the source, but it goes back to the 16th century I think. Carrol From markalause at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 12:48:00 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 14:48:00 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Blacks versus the New Deal In-Reply-To: References: <422661.52771.qm@web54603.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Point taken, though getting votes for a Catholic on the national ticket isn't quite the same as drawing one's membership and local leadership from Catholics, as was suggested for Cincinnati. I'd be really surprised if someone could do the digging to show that. The book I've been working on has grown, in part, from a conference paper I gave a couple of years ago, one argument of which was that the original KKK grew from the earlier Knights of the Golden Circle. The KGC was an anti-Catholic, white supremacist, pro-expansionist organization that used disguised night riders to attempt to enforce their will on their neighbors. And their areas of documented activity wound up corresponding roughly to the later areas of strength for the KKK. ML From cbcox at ilstu.edu Thu Jan 1 12:48:46 2009 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:48:46 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] Israel's true intentions References: <495D0436.8040501@gmail.com> Message-ID: <495D1E1E.7CAC0FE4@ilstu.edu> "S. Artesian" wrote: > > > > This destruction has a purpose, and its purpose is the destruction. It's as > direct, immediate, and barbaric as that. Destruction is the means; the goalis the expulsion of all Arabs from what was once Palestine. The traditional name for this sort of thing is "The Final Solution of the ______ Question." It aims to confirm, after the act, the old Zionist lie that Palestine was a land without a people. Carrol From dwaltersMIA at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 12:51:19 2009 From: dwaltersMIA at gmail.com (nada) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 11:51:19 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Israel's true intentions Message-ID: <495D1EB7.2050600@gmail.com> Destruction for it's own sake is hardly the reason. Israel wants control over any Palestinian entity, regardless of it's form. The form, the Bantustan, is, after all, a form of concentration camp, just on a larger geographic division. The Zionists are faced with two of them. West Bank, were the collaborationist Palestinian Authority sits and Gaza, run by Hamas. What the Israeli gov't is doing is "simply" state terrorism to force a 'regime' change in Gaza and to terrorize the population that there is no hope for anything better except collaboration with the Zionist State, recognition of the Zionist State and, if they do so, things will be 'better' for them. (I would argue, parenthetically, that if Israel's real intent was "genocide". It wouldn't take 6 days and there wouldn't be any Palestinians left alive, period.) The Zionists have a goal, the want to see 'peace' on Zionisms playing field, they want to develop a controllable middle-class of Palestianian collaborators. They will do this by any means necessary. David From Dbachmozart at aol.com Thu Jan 1 12:52:56 2009 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 14:52:56 EST Subject: [Marxism] in the eternal war against anti Semitism, Palestinians = nazis Message-ID: [The psychology behind "Israel, right or wrong" that Zionists use to brow beat doubters into submission - DB] Israel's Actions Are Irrational, No Matter How Much U.S. Politicians Try to Cast Them As Normal By _Wallace Shawn_ (http://www.alternet.org/authors/10240/) , _The Nation_ (http://www.thenation.com/) . Posted _December 31, 2008_ (http://www.alternet.org/ts/archives/?date[F]=12&date[Y]=2008&date[d]=31&act=Go/) . It is not rational to think that the Palestinians will be terrorized by force, starvation or slaughter into a docile acceptance of the occupation. Jews, historically, have been irrationally feared, hated and killed. Given that background, it's not surprising that the irrationality which surrounded them for so long, the fire of irrationality in which they were almost extinguished, has jumped across and taken hold of the soul of many Jews and indeed dominates the thinking of today's Israeli leaders and their American supporters. Recent history shows that the Jews, as a people, have found few friends who are honest and true. During World War II, when Hitler's anti-Semitism was responsible for the murdering of the millions of Jews, the world and the United States expressed their own anti-Semitism by refusing to house and welcome the tortured race, preferring instead to let it be exterminated if need be. After the war, the world felt it owed the Jews something -- but then showed its lack of true regard for the tormented group by "giving" them a piece of land populated and surrounded by another people -- an act of European imperialism carried out exactly at the moment when non-European peoples all over the world were finally concluding that European imperialism was completely unacceptable and had to be resisted. And now we have the spectacle of American politicians encouraging and financing Israeli policies which will ultimately lead to more disaster and destruction for Jews. It is not rational to believe that the Palestinians in the occupied territories will be terrorized by force and violence, by cruelty, by starvation or by slaughter into a docile acceptance of the Israeli occupation. There is no evidence that that could possibly happen and mountains of evidence to the contrary. Many right-wing Israelis and American Jews clearly believe that Jews have always had enemies and always will have enemies -- and who can be shocked that certain Jews might think that? To these individuals, a Palestinian throwing stones at an Israeli soldier, even if his life has perhaps been destroyed by the Israeli occupation, is simply part of an eternal mob of anti-Semites, a mob made up principally of people to whom the Jews have done no harm at all, as they did no harm to Hitler. The logical consequence of this view of the world is that in the face of such massive and eternal opposition, Jews are morally justified in taking any measures they can think of to protect themselves. They are involved in one long eternal war, and a few hundred Palestinians killed today must be measured against many millions of Jews who were killed in the past. The agony the Israelis might inflict on a Palestinian family today must be seen in the perspective of Jewish families in agony all over the world in the past. It is irrational for the Israeli leaders to imagine that the Palestinians will understand this particular point of view -- will understand why Jews might find it appropriate, let us say, to retaliate for the death of one Jew by killing a hundred Palestinians. If a Palestinian killed a hundred Jews to retaliate for the killing of one Palestinian -- for that matter, if a Thai killed a hundred Cambodians to retaliate for the killing of one Thai -- which, from the point of view of the Israeli leaders, would of course be unjust, that would be racist, as if one Palestinian or one Thai were worth a hundred Israelis or a hundred Cambodians. But if a Jew does it, it's not unjust and it's not racist, because it's part of an eternal struggle in which the Jews have lost and lost and lost -- they've already lost more people than there are Palestinians. Well, it's not surprising that certain Jews would feel this way, but no Palestinian will ever share that feeling or be willing to accept it. What the Palestinians see is an implacable and heartless enemy, one that considers itself un-bound by any rules or principles, an enemy that can't be reasoned with but can only be feared, hated and, if possible, killed. As poor and oppressed people around the world are very well aware of the events in the occupied territories, and as they strongly identify with the Palestinian struggle and point of view, the future of the Jews looks increasingly dim. Consequently it is disgraceful and vile and no favor to the Jews for American politicians -- for narrow, short-term political advantage, for narrow, short-term global-strategic reasons and, yes, also in expiation of the residual guilt they feel over what happened to the Jews in the past -- to pander to the irrationality of the most irrational Jews. Actions based on irrational premises inevitably fail in their purposes -- they fail, and if the premises don't change, then the actions are inevitably repeated, in forms which are more and more grotesque. It is unbearable to think that the new American administration would begin with more American dollars being poured into what is unjustifiable. It is also unbearable to think that among the first words we would hear from our new, clearly rational president would be preposterous sentences trying to persuade us that Israeli policies which seem to be appalling are actually quite normal and acceptable. Certainly nothing our new president could do would be of greater value to the world -- and greater value to the Jews -- than to abruptly end the sickeningly patronizing habit of supporting an irrationality which was born in tragedy and will end in more tragedy. _http://www.alternet.org/rights/116386/_ (http://www.alternet.org/rights/116386/) **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From markalause at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 12:54:13 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 14:54:13 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] 2009 should be interesting in the US In-Reply-To: <495D1207.20401@panix.com> References: <495D0436.8040501@gmail.com> <495D0F55.9030809@email.it> <495D1207.20401@panix.com> Message-ID: double bluff wrote: > Civil war will break out in the US next year, in 2010 the country will break into six pieces > will-break-into-six-pieces/> > > Any opinion / forecast /wishes from you? to which Louis Proyect replied: > > I wish that you would not waste our time with this kind of drivel. > I don't think we should expect much from someone who has picked the moniker "double bluff" to contribute to a Marxism list. ML From mullah_omar at email.it Thu Jan 1 13:15:57 2009 From: mullah_omar at email.it (double bluff) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:15:57 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] 2009 should be interesting in the US In-Reply-To: <495D1207.20401@panix.com> References: <495D0436.8040501@gmail.com> <495D0F55.9030809@email.it> <495D1207.20401@panix.com> Message-ID: <495D247D.40504@email.it> Hey! I just posed a simple, relevant question. In my country ppl gives always the same advice to someone with a bad character like yours, wich means: "you should have more sexual intercourse" :-) Try to have a happy new year, notwithstanding everything Louis Proyect wrote: > double bluff wrote: > >> Civil war will break out in the US next year, in 2010 the country will >> break into six pieces >> >> >> Any opinion / forecast /wishes from you? >> > > I wish that you would not waste our time with this kind of drivel. > > ________________________________________________ > 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/mullah_omar%40email.it > > -- Caselle da 1GB, trasmetti allegati fino a 3GB e in piu' IMAP, POP3 e SMTP autenticato? GRATIS solo con Email.it http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Meetic: il leader italiano ed europeo per trovare l'anima gemella online. Provalo ora Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=8291&d=1-1 From cbcox at ilstu.edu Thu Jan 1 13:40:03 2009 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:40:03 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] Israel's true intentions References: <495D1EB7.2050600@gmail.com> Message-ID: <495D2A23.6C4F64A1@ilstu.edu> nada wrote: > > > (I would argue, parenthetically, that if Israel's real intent was > "genocide". It wouldn't take 6 days and there wouldn't be any > Palestinians left alive, period.) Mass lsaughter is not the only form of genocide -- according to _official_ definitions of it developed after WW2. Destroy a culture, destroy a people's national unity; drive them from their land (with more or less actual slaughter) and that is genocide. That kind of goal makes sense of the israeli policy over a 60 year period, and like some other poster, I reject categorically the suggestion that the Israeli policy is _irratonal_. It is rational in terms of a rational goal. The goal is simply not an acceptable one. Carrol From bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 13:55:49 2009 From: bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com (Bhaskar Sunkara) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:55:49 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] In Defense of Harrington and American In-Reply-To: References: <49223.68.173.199.129.1230826417.squirrel@webmail.amnh.org> Message-ID: The march to the right of the Democratic Party has to do with the march to the right of ALL parties after the 1970s and the collapse of keynesianism and the social democratic consensus. The strategy's focus isn't so much on realignment, but fostering a division along ideological lines. The weakness and failure of small numbers of socialists to do this, doesn't show us that this isnt a more probable way to build a mass party. Labor parties aren't built from nothing, mass socialist parties aren't built from nothing---- they are formed from where workers are. Die Linke came from SPD. During May in France 1968, workers went to the already established parties of the left-- same in Portugal in the 1970s, in Spain in the 1930s--- workers don't go over to a small sect that gets bigger over time. Revolutionary parties like the Bolkseviks come from a mass organization-- they aren't borne through slow and steady recruitment, a good line and a revolutionary newspaper (the ISO method, the SWP method) From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Jan 1 14:37:45 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:37:45 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] In Defense of Harrington and American In-Reply-To: References: <49223.68.173.199.129.1230826417.squirrel@webmail.amnh.org> Message-ID: <495D37A9.109@panix.com> Bhaskar Sunkara wrote: > Labor parties aren't built from nothing, mass socialist parties aren't built > from nothing---- they are formed from where workers are. Die Linke came > from SPD. During May in France 1968, workers went to the already > established parties of the left-- same in Portugal in the 1970s, in Spain in > the 1930s--- workers don't go over to a small sect that gets bigger over > time. Revolutionary parties like the Bolkseviks come from a mass > organization-- they aren't borne through slow and steady recruitment, a good > line and a revolutionary newspaper (the ISO method, the SWP method) Bhaksar, all of this is true but it has nothing to do with the Democratic Party. Every process described above takes place *within* the workers movement. The SPD was based on the German trade unions, for example. Just a couple of things have to be clarified, however. The Bolsheviks did not come from a mass organization. There was in fact *no* organization in Czarist Russia to speak of. There were just scattered pro-socialist intellectuals and workers, just as is the case in many countries today. Lenin's goal was to unite these activists through a national organization that communicated through Iskra. His opponents were against created a nation-wide organization. One thing you are saying is correct. You might expect some members of the DP to come over to the side of the workers movement as class polarization deepens in the U.S. The same phenomenon took place in the 1850s with the development of the Republican Party. Some politicians were formerly DP'ers, such as Abe Lincoln. My recommendation in 1850 would have been, however, to build the abolitionist movement and not join a pro-slavery party like the Democrats in order to woo some people to an anti-slavery perspective. That is the position that Marxists are in today. We are trying to provide the advance guard of a movement opposed to wage slavery today. If you think that some purpose is served by working in the DP, there's not much we can do to persuade you otherwise. I would remind you, however, that this mailing list is fairly hostile to that perspective. I say that as someone who founded it and has been moderating it since 1998. Perhaps you are trying to solidify your thinking around these questions by going into the lion's den. If that's the case, please feel free to do so but as is always the case with Marxmail interminable debate is frowned on. From lueko.willms at t-online.de Thu Jan 1 14:52:49 2009 From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:52:49 +0100 (MEZ) Subject: [Marxism] in the eternal war against anti Semitism, Palestinians = nazis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002-313b5d49-36402.135@lws-media.de> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 14:52:56 EST, Dbachmozart at aol.com wrote: > It is not rational to think that the Palestinians will be terrorized by > force, starvation or slaughter into a docile acceptance of the occupation. I know, you know, but do THEY know? No, they think that they got away with all the brutal oppression up to now and they see that there is no effective leadership and effective struggle, and they know that the empire is on their side. So they think that they can get away with it for some hundreds years more, as Dan Schueftan said. Comradely yours, L?ko Willms Frankfurt, Germany -------------------------------- From lueko.willms at t-online.de Thu Jan 1 14:50:24 2009 From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:50:24 +0100 (MEZ) Subject: [Marxism] Israel's true intentions Message-ID: <002-a03a5d49-35936.134@lws-media.de> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 19:41:22 +0100, S. Artesian wrote: > Think you're positively, wrong David. Israel is the true heir to Boers, to > Verwoerd, de Klerk, Botha. Bantustans on its borders? Not hardly. > Concentration camps? Definitely. A paddock or corral, a tightly controlled enclosure. The Bantustans would not have its own borders with other countries; Israel wants to keep the Jordan valley under its control, isolating the West Bank for Jordan, and -- as we know -- Gaza's border to Egypt is controlled by EU forces and the Egyptian police and army. > This destruction has a purpose, and its purpose is the destruction. It's as > direct, immediate, and barbaric as that. Well, no, the destruction is aimed at bombing the Arab Palestinians into submission. Sure, the destruction of the education ministry in Gaza as before in Ramallah is also aimed at preventing educated people. I recommend to read the pieces of this rascal Dan Schueftan to which I had posted before the links (URL). Cheers, L?ko Willms Frankfurt, Germany -------------------------------- visit http://www.mlwerke.de Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotzki in German From farmelantj at juno.com Thu Jan 1 15:02:32 2009 From: farmelantj at juno.com (Jim Farmelant) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:02:32 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] In Defense of Harrington and American Message-ID: <20090101.170234.6084.1.farmelantj@juno.com> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:37:45 -0500 Louis Proyect writes: > > One thing you are saying is correct. You might expect some members > of > the DP to come over to the side of the workers movement as class > polarization deepens in the U.S. The same phenomenon took place in > the > 1850s with the development of the Republican Party. Some politicians > > were formerly DP'ers, such as Abe Lincoln. A small correction. Lincoln was a Whig, he was never a DP'er. The Whigs, during the 1850s split over the issue of slavery. These differences, especially between the northern Whigs and the southern Whigs proved irreconcilable and the party disintegrated, with the many of the southern Whigs going over to the Democrats, while many of the northern Whigs joined forces with the antislavery parties like the Free Soil Party to form a new party, the Republican Party. It was in the midst of this political transition that Lincoln was able to secure the Republican's nomination for the presidency in 1860, and Lincoln went on to win the election with something like 40% of the vote. All this, I think, supports the point that you were making. > My recommendation in 1850 > > would have been, however, to build the abolitionist movement and not > > join a pro-slavery party like the Democrats in order to woo some > people > o an anti-slavery perspective. That is the position that Marxists are > > in today. We are trying to provide the advance guard of a movement > opposed to wage slavery today. > > ____________________________________________________________ Get the sign you need for the impact you want. Click now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw3YeCl24yyzv0jZRsWALytzqT2qYJpYAPmuyT5yLyLKNWJzx/ From farmelantj at juno.com Thu Jan 1 14:57:33 2009 From: farmelantj at juno.com (Jim Farmelant) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 16:57:33 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] In Defense of Harrington and American Message-ID: <20090101.170234.6084.0.farmelantj@juno.com> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:55:49 -0500 "Bhaskar Sunkara" writes: > The march to the right of the Democratic Party has to do with the > march to > the right of ALL parties after the 1970s and the collapse of > keynesianism > and the social democratic consensus. I think that everyone here is agreed on that point. But the strategy that you are arguing for has in no way arrested or even slowed down this trend. > > The strategy's focus isn't so much on realignment, but fostering a > division > along ideological lines. The weakness and failure of small numbers > of > socialists to do this, doesn't show us that this isnt a more > probable way to > build a mass party. I think that you are assuming that the Democrats are a membership party in much the same sense that European political parties. Actually, (and I think lots of political scientists would agree with me on this), the US is lacking political parties in that sense. As Lou explained earlier, when Americans say that they are Democrats or Republicans, they are really just expressing for Brand X over Brand Y, and nothing more. Nobody belongs to the Democrats, in the same sense that a Brit might belong to the Labour Party (although that party has gone a long way towards becoming like the DP in the US) or a German might belong to the SPD. Those parties are membership organizations. People actually join up and pay dues. As members they can join all sorts of local organizations and can actually play some sort of role in the selection of candidates and the drafting and adoption of platforms. Both the Labour Party in Britain and the SPD in Germany grew directly out of the workers movement, and for many years, both parties were rooted directly in the trade unions. The same cannot be said for the Democrats. For the Democrats, the unions are just another interest group among others; no more and no less. > > Labor parties aren't built from nothing, mass socialist parties > aren't built > from nothing---- they are formed from where workers are. Die Linke > came > from SPD. During May in France 1968, workers went to the already > established parties of the left-- same in Portugal in the 1970s, in > Spain in > the 1930s--- workers don't go over to a small sect that gets bigger > over > time. Revolutionary parties like the Bolkseviks come from a mass > organization-- they aren't borne through slow and steady > recruitment, a good > line and a revolutionary newspaper (the ISO method, the SWP method) > ____________________________________________________________ Click here for free info on Graduate Degrees. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2jyvuZDNoERajDL0iWCbS1K5NPZ10WB98E5cGXajAB8YN0j/ From bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 15:36:46 2009 From: bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com (Bhaskar Sunkara) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:36:46 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] In Defense of Harrington and American In-Reply-To: <20090101.170234.6084.0.farmelantj@juno.com> References: <20090101.170234.6084.0.farmelantj@juno.com> Message-ID: I brought up that point in my original post "U.S. parties are not like modern European parties. In Europe, the parties of the Left tend to name leaders on the basis of a political viewpoint and, in any case, only dues-paying members of the party have the right to elect delegates, who in turn select that leader. But in the United States anyone who declares himself or herself a member of a party can, without the payment of dues or the affirmation of a single political principle, help determine the leadership, program, and policies of the party." What do you think of the example of the Christian Right's movement into the Republican Party? Would their nefarious cause been better suited in the Constitution Party? Is this example at all relevant for progressive and socialist forces? These aren't rhetorical statements, but actual questions. --- As far as agreements, I think we would agree that the 99 percent of efforts need to be in build social movements and heightening the level of class consciousness and polarization in the United States. If these efforts led to "independent political action" in the electoral sphere, I would be proven wrong, and of course I would join such efforts. I just wouldnt throw any of my time into the Green Party, or even organizations I symphatize with like fringe unions like the IWW. As far as anti-imperialism and "the Harrington's of the world" not being allowed to quote Marx--- I myself follow Lenin's traditional of anti-imperialism and Leninism's tradition of third world struggles. Marx himself was said to not mind and to SUPPORT the USA's imperialist aggression in Mexico in the 1840s, because it would only led to the building up of productive forces and hasten the end of the bourgeois era. Marx himself and Engles when he supported imperialist efforts in North Africa, showed that they were prone to lapses as well. From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 15:43:06 2009 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 14:43:06 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Israel's true intentions In-Reply-To: <002-a03a5d49-35936.134@lws-media.de> References: <002-a03a5d49-35936.134@lws-media.de> Message-ID: I will be attending the demonstration scheduled for tomorrow here in Brisbane. Hopefully it will large and militant. What is happening in Palestine is something beyond horror. Such are the dimensions of what Israel is doing that we cannot come to a consensus as to their intentions. Part of the confusion on our side is due to the fact that what Israel intends is so evil that we doubt the evidence. there is of course a pall of lies and misinformation over everything. Thus unbelievably I read of the "peace process" being suspended or of being in jeopardy. One of the best bits of teaching I did last year was to bring a headline into a class and ask them to critique it. The headline was "Financial crisis puts war on poverty on hold". The class were largely stumped about what to say except for speculation about how deep the crisis was going to be. Interestingly when I pointed out that the headline also claimed there was a "war on poverty" very few in the class actually believed that there was any such "war". However the really best part of the lesson was when I got them to acknowledge that they had simply read a lie and had not commented on it. So they were not "mindful" of the lies which surround them and indeed all of us. Partly of course this is a defense mechanism. Mindfulness comes with a price tag - the end of one's comfort zone. Similarly with what is happening in Palestine. There is of course no peace process at all. There never has been. There is simply the drive towards a Greater Israel (drang nach osten) and the conquest of more and yet more Palestinaian land (lebens raum). So Carroll is right if we are mindful of what is actually happening it is indeed logical - but it is the logic of empire and conquest that is at work. There are of course constraints on what Israel intends. Above all their Arab allies - Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan must be kept safe. A revolution in any of those three countries would immediately place the entire Zionist project in danger. For Israel cannot simply leave the conquest of Palestine to the IAF. Politics like the dialectic never dies. The capacity of Israel for killing Arabs is of course horrifically daunting but a political defeat for Israel cannot be ruled out. Nor indeed is a military reverse out of the question as Hizbollah showed two years ago. For the moment however it looks like the Israelis have tested the waters with their initial blitz and discovered that Mubarak and the royal families of Jordan and Saudi Arabia are still safe. So they will move to another level. There will be incursions into Gaza to test Hamas' military capacity and to flush out and kill as many militants as possible. If they get away with that escalation they will then move to stage three - a full invasion with the aim of eliminating the Hamas leadership and again killing militants. I doubt if they have planned much beyond that. As'ad Abu Khalil (< angryarab.blogspot.com>) seems to believe that Israel seeks to enthrone Mohammed Dahlan back in Gaza. That of course is a project close to their hearts - the degeneration of Gaza into Dahlanistan would be like a return to the days when Myer Lansky and the Mob ran Cuba. However the outcome of none of this is assured. I think much of the analysis and the response to what is happening is overly governed by a belief in Israeli invincibility. But as I have said previously it is the advent of popular revolution in one of the key Arab countries that will determine the outcome. And I suspect that the events of the last week have done more to hasten that eventuality, than any one of us dares hope. comradely Gary From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Jan 1 15:51:46 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:51:46 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] In Defense of Harrington and American In-Reply-To: References: <20090101.170234.6084.0.farmelantj@juno.com> Message-ID: <495D4902.7010700@panix.com> Bhaskar Sunkara wrote: > What do you think of the example of the Christian Right's movement into the > Republican Party? Would their nefarious cause been better suited in the > Constitution Party? Is this example at all relevant for progressive and > socialist forces? These aren't rhetorical statements, but actual questions. Bhaskar, I think you over-emphasize the ideological aspects of politics as if categories such as liberal and conservative take priority over bourgeoisie and proletarian, the more important criteria for Marxists. I would say that in the U.S. you have a single bourgeois political party with 2 open factions. In the 19th century the party structures mapped to class composition much more than they do today. I think that the 2-party system is set up to thwart challenges to the capitalist system, although this was not consciously set up that way--it just evolved. > As far as anti-imperialism and "the Harrington's of the world" not being > allowed to quote Marx--- I myself follow Lenin's traditional of > anti-imperialism and Leninism's tradition of third world struggles. Marx > himself was said to not mind and to SUPPORT the USA's imperialist aggression > in Mexico in the 1840s, because it would only led to the building up of > productive forces and hasten the end of the bourgeois era. Marx himself and > Engles when he supported imperialist efforts in North Africa, showed that > they were prone to lapses as well. Marx and Engels did not live in a time when imperialism had fully evolved. You are much better off taking somebody like Rosa Luxemburg or E. Belfort Bax as representative of Marxist thinking on Empire. Here's Bax in an 1886 article on Morocco: We call the attention of our readers to the fact which some of them may have overlooked that Morocco is at the present time the elect morsel of the capitalist harpies of Europe. All the ?powers? are simultaneously negotiating treaties of commerce with the Moorish potentate, and it is rumoured that Germany has been pressing for permission for a syndicate of her capitalists to ?open up? the country in approved fashion, though, it is, said, as yet without success. The most, ominous sign of all however, is the appearance in the field of the capitalist?s right hand man; the professional ?philanthropist?. For a long time past the press has presented us with periodical fragments of intelligence from Tangiers all tending to impress the virtuous British public with the terrible wickedness of the Moorish authorities; and above all inculcate a due sense of horror at the domestic slavery which exists there as in all Oriental civilisations. full: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bax/1886/01/morocco.htm From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 15:54:08 2009 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 14:54:08 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] in the eternal war against anti Semitism, Palestinians = nazis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wallace Shawn wrote: It is not rational to believe that the Palestinians in the occupied territories will be terrorized by force and violence, by cruelty, by starvation or by slaughter into a docile acceptance of the Israeli occupation. There is no evidence that that could possibly happen and mountains of evidence to the contrary. My comment: Shawn should try telling that to the Sioux or the Apache or the Maya. Conquest is possible, Militants can be crushed and "moderates" will then emerge. The project of conquest of course it has its own rationality or logic. I really think that calling what Israel is doing "irrational" really functions to prevent us from analysing and acknowledging properly what is going on. regards Gary From markalause at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 16:08:42 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 18:08:42 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] In Defense of Harrington and American In-Reply-To: <495D37A9.109@panix.com> References: <49223.68.173.199.129.1230826417.squirrel@webmail.amnh.org> <495D37A9.109@panix.com> Message-ID: Bhaskar Sunkara wrote:"The strategy's focus isn't so much on realignment, but fostering a division along ideological lines." And, on this basis, the current ideological division is no more clear than it was in the 1970s. Further, "The weakness and failure of small numbers of socialists to do this, doesn't show us that this isnt a more probable way to build a mass party." Nobody in their right mind expects a mass party to come out of the sectlets. It will come out of mass movements. ML From markalause at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 16:10:40 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 18:10:40 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] In Defense of Harrington and American In-Reply-To: <495D4902.7010700@panix.com> References: <20090101.170234.6084.0.farmelantj@juno.com> <495D4902.7010700@panix.com> Message-ID: The Christian Right has contributed votes to the Republican Party and has helped shape that party's rhetoric. In terms of actually affecting policies, it has not been very relevant at all. Because these are NOT MEMBERSHIP PARTIES. ML From mikedf at amnh.org Thu Jan 1 16:12:03 2009 From: mikedf at amnh.org (Michael Friedman) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 18:12:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Marxism] In Defense of Harrington and American In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54094.68.173.199.129.1230851523.squirrel@webmail.amnh.org> So, essentially, you want to turn the reason for NOT supporting, nor having illusions in the Democrat Party into a reason for immersing ourselves in them, were such even possible. Yes, the bourgeois parties, the so-called "Washington consensus," shifted to the right. All the more reason NOT to have illusions in our ability to work within and "reform" those "parties" (either of them). > Message: 11 > Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:55:49 -0500 > From: "Bhaskar Sunkara" > Subject: Re: [Marxism] In Defense of Harrington and American > The march to the right of the Democratic Party has to do with the march to > the right of ALL parties after the 1970s and the collapse of keynesianism > and the social democratic consensus. From arthur.kunkin at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 16:16:08 2009 From: arthur.kunkin at gmail.com (Art Kunkin) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:16:08 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Kautsky Quote Needed In-Reply-To: <733b65360901011118g6375aa82hc1294aad07e19f9d@mail.gmail.com> References: <733b65360901011118g6375aa82hc1294aad07e19f9d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Ian, Just for the fun of it I googled "Kautsky idea ruling class" and came up with the following that may well contain what you are looking for. http://faculty.goucher.edu/history231/kautsky.htm Cordially, Art Kunkin On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Ian Angus wrote: > For an article I'm writing, I am looking for a brief quotation from Karl > Kautsky, which I saw once but now can't find. > > I think it was written in the first decade of the 1900s. In it, Kautsky > said > something to the effect that the fact that an idea comes from the ruling > class or may serve ruling class interests doesn't mean that the idea is > wrong. > Can anyone help? > > Ian Angus > Climate and Capitalism > www.climateandcapitalism.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/artkunkin%40gmail.com > -- Aging is really, really bad for you. It shortens your life. So please look at my website today for a promising solution to end aging, www.alchemyrevealed.com. Also I can use help in establishing ALL, the Association for Living Longer. To "see" me, "roll-over" my name on top) From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 16:28:32 2009 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:28:32 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] The rotten state of Egypt In-Reply-To: <20090101141203.DA1EC10510@mailbackend.panix.com> References: <20090101141203.DA1EC10510@mailbackend.panix.com> Message-ID: Well we shall see. But let me acknowledge that Fisk, when he is not writing on Lebanon, has produced much good material. But this piece is part of the dominant discourse of the impossibility of revolution. Such a discourse of course suits those who rule us. It is worth pointing out though that the rulers themselves do not feel as safe as Fisk thinks they should. Thus the Jordan king was forced to sack his head of security and Mubarak placed his guards on high alert. No one has ever predicted a revolution and no one knows where "the old mole" will emerge. But looking at the world failry objectively would give one to believe, surely, that some rupture in the status quo is coming. regards Gary From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 16:28:48 2009 From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 18:28:48 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] in the eternal war against anti Semitism, Palestinians = nazis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <908b689f0901011528v6eec223bwc4f20f3c5529749a@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Gary MacLennan wrote: > Wallace Shawn wrote: > > It is not rational to believe that the Palestinians in the occupied > territories will be terrorized by force and violence, by cruelty, by > starvation or by > slaughter into a docile acceptance of the Israeli occupation. There is no > evidence that that could possibly happen and mountains of evidence to the > contrary. > > My comment: > > Shawn should try telling that to the Sioux or the Apache or the Maya. > Conquest is possible, It was possible up to the eighteenth and nineteenth (and even twentieth) centuries, but will it be possible today, especially with a US in decline and fast losing international clout? I don't think so. For one thing, there is the risk of popular uprising in Egypt (and possibly in Jordan and even other Arab countries). Can the US afford to risk that? From ectoren at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 1 16:39:59 2009 From: ectoren at sbcglobal.net (Erik Carlos Toren) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:39:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] In Defense of Harrington and American Message-ID: <76846.93261.qm@web81806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> And I might add that at a county level, at least in my experience in Texas, the DP and the RP do **not** even exist as political parties between elections. They only come "back to life" once the group of self-identified party members political elite put the money back in the machine. ? Por el Socialismo? ??Erik?? ----- Original Message ---- From: Mark Lause The Christian Right has contributed votes to the Republican Party and has helped shape that party's rhetoric. In terms of actually affecting policies, it has not been very relevant at all. Because these are NOT MEMBERSHIP PARTIES. From butt_michael at hotmail.com Thu Jan 1 17:01:41 2009 From: butt_michael at hotmail.com (Michael Butt) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 18:01:41 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] Kautsky Quote Needed In-Reply-To: References: <733b65360901011118g6375aa82hc1294aad07e19f9d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Just for fun for a couple hours I also skimmed a copy of Kautsky's, The Class Struggle... No luck there on the exact quote. However, about 10-12 paragraphs into chapt #5 "V. The Class Struggle. 1. Socialism and the Property-Holding Classes." it is kind of implied that some members of the upper classes might have worthwhile (or usable ideas). They are referred to as for the most part a small group of idealists etc., with courage.... Michael Butt > Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:16:08 -0800> From: arthur.kunkin at gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Kautsky Quote Needed> To: butt_michael at hotmail.com> > Dear Ian,> > Just for the fun of it I googled "Kautsky idea ruling class" and came up> with the following that may well contain what you are looking for.> > http://faculty.goucher.edu/history231/kautsky.htm> > Cordially, Art Kunkin> > On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Ian Angus wrote:> > > For an article I'm writing, I am looking for a brief quotation from Karl> > Kautsky, which I saw once but now can't find.> >> > I think it was written in the first decade of the 1900s. In it, Kautsky> > said> > something to the effect that the fact that an idea comes from the ruling> > class or may serve ruling class interests doesn't mean that the idea is> > wrong.> > Can anyone help?> >> > Ian Angus> > Climate and Capitalism> > www.climateandcapitalism.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/artkunkin%40gmail.com> >> > > > -- > Aging is really, really bad for you. It shortens your life. So please look> at my website today for a promising solution to end aging,> www.alchemyrevealed.com. Also I can use help in establishing ALL, the> Association for Living Longer. To "see" me, "roll-over" my name on top)> ________________________________________________> 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/butt_michael%40hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ It?s the same Hotmail?. If by ?same? you mean up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad1_122008 From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Jan 1 17:07:37 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:07:37 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] In Defense of Harrington and American In-Reply-To: <76846.93261.qm@web81806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <76846.93261.qm@web81806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <495D5AC9.80200@panix.com> Erik Carlos Toren wrote: > And I might add that at a county level, at least in my experience in Texas, the DP and the RP do **not** even exist as political parties between elections. They only come "back to life" once the group of self-identified party members political elite put the money back in the machine. > > ? Por el Socialismo? > ??Erik?? > The closest you get to this sort of thing is something like the Upper West Side Reform Democrats Club that my friend Marty belonged to in the 1980s. Marty is about 5 years older than me and was a member of the RCP in the 1970s and a serious Stalinist. I don't mean that in my usual pejorative sense but am just referring to the fact that he had the Collected Stalin on his bookshelf. Around the time that Reagan was successful in pressuring Nicaragua to vote for the US-backed candidate, Marty got fed up with the club and quit. He told me that trying to get them to make the DP higher-up's more responsive to their opposition to Reagan's wars was an exercise in futility. As soon as the Green Party got off the ground, he hooked up with them and switched to the Nader campaign when the Greens started functioning like the Upper West Side Reform Democrats Club. My problem with working in the DP, speaking only for myself, is that under the best of circumstances like the Upper West Side club, you are dealing with a bunch of people who listen to NPR, watch PBS, take the NY Times op-ed page seriously, etc. I am afraid that I might lose control and kill one of them if I wasn't careful. From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 18:23:05 2009 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:23:05 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] in the eternal war against anti Semitism, Palestinians = nazis In-Reply-To: <908b689f0901011528v6eec223bwc4f20f3c5529749a@mail.gmail.com> References: <908b689f0901011528v6eec223bwc4f20f3c5529749a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > Ruthless wrote: > > > It was possible up to the eighteenth and nineteenth (and even > twentieth) centuries, but will it be possible today, especially with a > US in decline and fast losing international clout? I don't think so. > > For one thing, there is the risk of popular uprising in Egypt (and > possibly in Jordan and even other Arab countries). Can the US afford > to risk that? > My comment: Hi Ruthless, see my other posts where I say it is only a popular revolution in Egypt or Jordan or Saudi Arabia (& possibly the Yemen) that would place the Zionist project at risk. But what I am insisting on here is that what Israel is doing is understandable according to the logica of conquest. Of course the curent conjucture is such that it needs to deny that that is the aim and instead talks unceasingly of the "preace process". My point again is that there is no preace process. If there were then it would indeed be illogical and irrational to bomb Gaza etc, but what we are seeing is colonial conquest at work and the bombing of Gaza is logical and functional within that context. regards Gary From cbcox at ilstu.edu Thu Jan 1 18:28:24 2009 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:28:24 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] In Defense of Harrington and American References: <76846.93261.qm@web81806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <495D6DB8.E6A12FB1@ilstu.edu> Erik Carlos Toren wrote: > > And I might add that at a county level, at least in my experience in Texas, the DP and the RP do **not** even exist as political parties between elections. They only come "back to life" once the group of self-identified party members political elite put the money back in the machine. This is pretty much the case everywhere I believe. There simply is no such thing as "belonging" to the DP or the RP. *No* contacts are made by 'participating' in DP politics. Nothing happens. REALLY. Nothing happens when one tries to participate except one sits through a very boring monthly meeting with vbery boring people. One NEVER meets any of the "Rank-and-File" because there is NO SUCH THING as a Rank-and-File. There are only a few bureaucrats, some city or county officials of the party in 'power' in that county, and that is it. My dorect experience was om cpmmectopm with the 1988 Jackson campaign, which Jan & I launched inthis Congressional district. By accident (a friend wrote my name in) I got elected precinct captain or whatever in my precinct, but after the primary I attended one or two county meetings and let it go. What a yawn. Carrol From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 18:30:39 2009 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:30:39 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] In Defense of Harrington and American In-Reply-To: <495D5AC9.80200@panix.com> References: <76846.93261.qm@web81806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <495D5AC9.80200@panix.com> Message-ID: > Lou wrote: > My problem with working in the DP, speaking only for myself, is that > under the best of circumstances like the Upper West Side club, you are > dealing with a bunch of people who listen to NPR, watch PBS, take the NY > Times op-ed page seriously, etc. I am afraid that I might lose control > and kill one of them if I wasn't careful. My comment: Sounds like being in the Labor Party where the dominant opinion setters are Murdoch's The Australian and the Packer Family's Channel 9. Except in Australia those who run the Labor Party just know about and kow tow to other people who read The Australian and watch Channel 9. I doubt if the Labor Party apparatchiks bother to read or watch anything at all themsleves. regards Gary From markalause at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 20:43:35 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 22:43:35 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] 2009 should be interesting in the US In-Reply-To: <495D247D.40504@email.it> References: <495D0436.8040501@gmail.com> <495D0F55.9030809@email.it> <495D1207.20401@panix.com> <495D247D.40504@email.it> Message-ID: When people talk about civil war breaking out in the US in 2010 and its fragmentation a year later, I find it hard to take it seriously, much less as "a simple, relevant question." (Did you use a ouija board for those predictions or one of those black 8-ball things?) But I do certainly regret if any of my comments to doublebluff damaged his self-esteem. : - ) ML From sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com Thu Jan 1 21:28:10 2009 From: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com (sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:28:10 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Hamas is hoping for an IDF ground operation Message-ID: <20090102042810.6FFD520040@smtp.hushmail.com> Jscotlive wrote: >This is not the time for any critical observation. It is a time >for solidarity. Marx was critical of the Paris Commune when it began. >When it came under siege he offered his unequivocal support for those >struggling for their survival. This is definitely the time for historical analysis which is critical to find he way to the praxis that you seek. At the time Bakunin was the most hunted man in Europe and anarchists everywhere were under the gun, Marx never relented in his ongoing denunciation of Bakunin and anarchism. Marxists take positions for their own reasons and they should never surrender their duty to make an informed, critical analysis. Do I support the right of the Palestinian people to armed struggle for the defense of their communities against this murderous aggression? Of course I do just as I supported the right of Irish people to defend Catholic neighborhoods in Belfast against the Unionist bigots who attacked them in 1969. What?s more I supported the continuation of that armed struggle to fulfill the goal of a united Irish Republic. Do you think I ever gave unconditional support to the Provos and Sinn Fein? The answer is an emphatic no because if I did I would have been a nationalist cheerleader and not a communist. >The secular resistance of which you speak no longer exists. It was >defeated due to both the corruption and mistakes of its leadership >and the efforts of Mossad. Having conflated Hamas to equal Palestinian resistance you now try to limit those forces committed to the original secular, vision of the Palestinian Revolution to the corrupt functionaries of Fatah. You are wrong. Comrades of the Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades are still in the field now as they have been since the militants of the PFLP began their armed struggle in 1967. >Looking for a perfect secular, left leaning resistance at a time >when it does not exist in Palestine is merely an exercise is paternalism >on the part of those who would relegate Marxism to the status of dead theory, No resistance, and no revolutionary struggle is perfect and I don't waste time in the idealistic search for one. The Irish comrades who fought for a socialist program for a untied Ireland did so as the Irish Republican Socialist Party and the Irish National Liberation Army. Both in Ireland and in Palestine, revolutionaries made mistakes and left much to criticize. However, in both countries there were courageous, heroic comrades who refused to allow their national struggle to be controlled by religious prejudice. One of the enduring legacies of Marxism, and the left in general, is the refusal to allow religion serve as the organizing principle of political life. That ideal should not change from crises to crises, or election to election. Revolution until victory. -- Want fast fitness results? Click for free info, revolutionary product. http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/PnY6qxtfo39ZrzH40p7ef7NCmq3dYHzes2ZEnQWazIJaPG8R5VZM7/ From Dbachmozart at aol.com Thu Jan 1 22:30:47 2009 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 00:30:47 EST Subject: [Marxism] McKinney to Obama: "Say Something" About Gaza Humanitarian Crisis Message-ID: McKinney to Obama: "Say Something" About Gaza Humanitarian Crisis By BAR staff January "01, 2009 --"_BAR_ (http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=948&Itemid=1) " -- Former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has called upon President-Elect Barack Obama to "please, say something about the humanitarian crisis that is being experienced by the Palestinian people, by the people of Gaza." McKinney _spoke to CNN_ (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/12/30/am.lebanon.aid.b) news from the Lebanese city of Tyre, where she had debarked from the relief vessel Dignity after it was _rammed on the high seas_ (http://www.freegaza.org/index.php) by an Israeli patrol boat, early Tuesday morning. Passengers also report the Israelis fired machine guns into the water near their ship. McKinney was among the passengers on an attempted voyage from the island of Cyprus to Gaza, where Israeli bombs and missiles have killed hundreds of Palestinians, including many civilians, since Saturday. The Dignity carried three tons of medical supplies and a number of doctors prepared to treat the more than 1,000 Gazans wounded in the Israeli attacks. The 66-foot craft had made two previous humanitarian relief trips to Gaza since the summer. Israel has blocked food, medicines and other essentials from entering Gaza in a campaign of collective punishment against the 1.5 million Palestinians that live there under a Hamas Party administration. President-Elect Obama has been silent on the Israeli attacks, while President George Bush has supported Israel's actions. "I would like to ask my former colleagues in the United States Congress to stop sending weapons of mass destruction around the world," said McKinney, who was the Green Party's presidential candidate in November. "As we are about to celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's birthday, let us remember what he said. He said that the United States is the greatest purveyor of violence on the planet. And guess what: we experienced a little bit of that violence, because the weapons that are being used by Israel are weapons that were supplied by the United States government." A CNN reporter who accompanied the passengers and crew of the Dignity confirmed that the boat "was sailing with full lights" when "one of the Israeli patrol boats, with no lights on, rammed the Dignity, hard." Israel blames the collision on the relief vessel. Said McKinney: "Our boat was rammed three times, twice in the front, once on the side.... What the Israelis are saying is outright disinformation." McKinney compared the Israeli action against the Dignity to the _attack on a U.S. naval vessel_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident) dur ing the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. "I recall that there was another boat that was attacked by Israelis, and it was the U.S.S Liberty." Thirty-four crewmen died and 170 were wounded by fire from Israeli planes and torpedo boats. The Israelis claim it was a case of mistaken identity. "People would like to forget about the U.S.S. Liberty," said McKinney, "but I haven't forgotten about it and the people who were on that ship have not forgotten what happened to them." _http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21593.htm_ (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21593.htm) **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 22:52:09 2009 From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 00:52:09 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Hamas & apologies In-Reply-To: <20090102053633.C471820040@smtp.hushmail.com> References: <20090102053633.C471820040@smtp.hushmail.com> Message-ID: <908b689f0901012152q36378529s1ea0b6e5b4244684@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 12:36 AM, wrote: > > I am absolutely committed to secularism as a > fundamental > principle of revolutionary struggle. If this means to you that > I am betraying the Palestinian people then I strongly encourage > you to investigate more closely the variety of resistance forces in > Palestine today. Wikipedia says: "The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) is a Marxist-Leninist, secular, nationalist Palestinian political and paramilitary organization, founded in 1967. It has consistently been the second-largest of the groups forming the Palestine Liberation Organization (the largest being Fatah). It has generally taken a hard line on Palestinian national aspirations, opposing the more moderate stance of Fatah. It opposed the Oslo Accords and was for a long time opposed to the idea of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but in 1999 came to an agreement with the PLO leadership regarding negotiations with Israel. It has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, the European Union,[1] Canada,[2] and Israel. The military wing of the PFLP is called the Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades. "The PFLP grew out of the Harakat al-Qawmiyyin al-Arab, or Arab Nationalist Movement (ANM), founded in 1953 by Dr. George Habash, a Palestinian Christian, from Lydda. The 22-year-old Habash went to Lebanon to study medicine at the American University in Beirut, graduating in 1951.[3] "In an interview with American journalist John Cooley, Habash identified the Arab defeat by Israel as "the scientific society of Israel as against our own backwardness in the Arab world. This called for the total rebuilding of Arab society into a twentieth-century society." "After the eruption of the First Intifada and the subsequent Oslo Accords the PFLP had difficulty establishing itself in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The boycott of the 1996 elections gave many the impression that the PFLP was irrelevant to developments inside Palestine. At that time (1993?96) Hamas enjoyed rapidly rising popularity in the wake of their successful strategy of suicide bombings devised by Yahya Ayyash ("the Engineer"). Also, the fall of the Soviet Union together with the rise in the Arab world of Islamism?and particularly the increased popularity of the Islamist groups Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad?disoriented many left activists who looked towards the Soviet Union, and has marginalised the PFLP's role in Palestinian politics and armed resistance. However, the organization retains considerable political influence within the PLO, since no new elections have been held for the organisation's legislative body, the PNC. "As a result of its post-Oslo weakness, the PFLP has been forced to adapt slowly and find partners among politically active, preferably young, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, in order to compensate for their dependence on their aging commanders returning from or remaining in exile. The PFLP has therefore formed alliances with other leftist groups formed within the Palestinian Authority, including the Palestinian People's Party, the Popular Resistance Committees of Gaza." "The PFLP is powerful politically in the Ramallah area, the eastern districts and suburbs of Jerusalem and Bethlehem, the primarily Christian Refidyeh district of Nablus, but has far less strength in the rest of the West Bank, and is of little or no threat to the established Hamas and Fatah movements in Gaza. "The PFLP participated in the Palestinian legislative elections of 2006 as the "Martyr Abu Ali Mustafa List". It won 4.2% of the popular vote and took three of the 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council. Its deputies are Ahmad Sa'adat, Jamil Majdalawi, and Khalida Jarrar. In the lists, its best vote was 9.4% in Bethlehem, followed by 6.6% in Ramallah and al-Bireh, and 6.5% in North Gaza." From Dbachmozart at aol.com Thu Jan 1 23:09:14 2009 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 01:09:14 EST Subject: [Marxism] Satire - Israel Attacks US Message-ID: Reaction to the attacks on the US was swift. President Bush and President-Elect Obama both appealed for restraint, but stated emphatically, ?Israel has the right to defend itself.? _http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21598.htm_ (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001BSTvHOPEGj1qDRU8KDrzAp47fi0_vWKxee2rGV8b8V52oE6gnXIRqltd5cOIl_iAPB2k 3ED-iW5JMlwjX4NhNksjc8tW-pAend1nOWyQ9CEw87jUEWkII5cY5T6LwHUHkZe0AtvtZTTyTU5RQW 0sbpeQ2daujroe) **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From Jscotlive at aol.com Fri Jan 2 00:04:02 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 02:04:02 EST Subject: [Marxism] Hamas & apologies Message-ID: Ruthless Critic, on behalf of sobuad: I am absolutely committed to secularism as a > fundamental > principle of revolutionary struggle. If this means to you that > I am betraying the Palestinian people then I strongly encourage > you to investigate more closely the variety of resistance forces in > Palestine today. Reply: No, from your comments you are committed to a Palestinian resistance that you can approve of, that meets your Marxist criterion of a neat, secular movement that isn't hard to defend because, hey, those Hamas guys, if they would just desist from suicide bombings and homemade rocket attacks that make it difficult for me to defend when I'm out in the street handing out leaflets then life would be much easier. How about they take their lead from the ISM and just sit down and do nothing as Israeli tanks roll over them. This drivel is then augmented by the Wikiepedia insert of the PFLP, posted courtesy of the same individual with the ridiculous momiker, Ruthless Critic, regardless of the fact the PFLP is a shadow of the organisation it once was and a marginal force in the current period, more importantly non existent in Gaza, which Mr Ruthless may or may not be aware is currently the focus of Israel's attention. So this then begs the question: what is the purpose of this idoicy on the part of Mr Ruthless? To support the effort to split the Palestinians into his own definition of good and bad? What is the purpose of flagging up an organisation who are not involved in the resistance in Gaza? Mr Ruthless, have you ever been to Palestine? Have you ever met Palestinians on the ground? Now, let's see what drivel you regale us with next. Perhaps you could write those backward Palestinians a constitution. After all, in between lying out in the sun drinking cocktails, those Gazans don't seem to do much, do they? In fact, maybe the Zionists and their US backers have been right all along and the Arabs are a backward people who deserve to be sent into the night like the aborigines and indigenous peoples of N America? From Dbachmozart at aol.com Fri Jan 2 00:09:50 2009 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 02:09:50 EST Subject: [Marxism] Fact Sheet on Israel's War on Gaza Message-ID: _http://www.creative-i.info/?p=3402_ (http://www.creative-i.info/?p=3402) **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From spalmer999 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 2 00:46:10 2009 From: spalmer999 at yahoo.com (Steve Palmer) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 23:46:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] Already happened ... Re: Satire - Israel Attacks US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <198130.8014.qm@web82605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> See eg, attack on the USS Liberty by Israeli planes and ships which killed 34 and wounded more than 170 crew members: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6690425.stm ... and a very considerable volume of eye-witness testaments on the web. Espionage: The Pollard case, Pox News reports: http://100777.com/usa/israeli_spyring Numerous reports at Washington Report on Middle East Affairs: "Commercial and economic espionage by foreign countries including Israel cost U.S. companies an estimated $300 billion in 1997, according to a report prepared by the American Society for Industrial Security cited in the Jan. 12 Los Angeles Times. The report listed 1,100 documented incidents of economic espionage in 1997, and an additional 550 incidents that could not be fully documented. In an earlier article that appeared in the journal Public Administration Review, Federal Bureau of Investigation agent Edwin Fraumann named Israel as a major offender in attempts to collect economic intelligence in the United States. " http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0398/9803101.html "Despite Coverup, Israel Caught Spying in Washington Again By Richard H. Curtiss Israel has been caught spying in Washington again, this time on the White House and other sensitive telephone systems." http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/062000/0006006.html AIPAC/Likudnik Larry Franklin Arrested for Espionage on Behalf of Israel http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_2005/0507010.html etc etc. --- On Thu, 1/1/09, Dbachmozart at aol.com wrote: > From: Dbachmozart at aol.com > Subject: [Marxism] Satire - Israel Attacks US > To: "Steve Palmer" > Date: Thursday, January 1, 2009, 10:09 PM > Reaction to the attacks on the US was swift. President Bush > and > President-Elect Obama both appealed for restraint, but > stated emphatically, ?Israel has > the right to defend itself.? From lancemurdoch at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 00:58:28 2009 From: lancemurdoch at gmail.com (Lance Murdoch) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 02:58:28 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] GP entrails [In defense of Harrington and American Menshevism] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6d53f4100901012358g26c07e40r325e93cc7e16f7d0@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Bhaskar Sunkara wrote: > I'll be in the DSA, in the cess pool of the Democratic Party, in the > mainstream unions, where the working people are, until you comrades can > prove me wrong and build a viable alternative for working people and then > I'll apologize and happily join you. The mainstream unions? The unionization rate in the United States for non-government workers is 7.5%. 92.5% of private workers are non-unionized ( http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm ). The "mainstream unions" are not where "the working people are". Who is being starry eyed here? From nmgoro at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 01:09:40 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 05:09:40 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] Israel's true intentions In-Reply-To: References: <002-a03a5d49-35936.134@lws-media.de> Message-ID: <2fa158550901020009w21f65944g1418a154943fcb7f@mail.gmail.com> I guess Gary hits the point when he states that we cannot understand what are the goals of the Israeli ruling (leading?) classes by the observation of their deeds. Those deeds are overwhelming. But the goals are rather to be understood by way of considering the concrete situation of Israel in the Middle East, the internal currents of the Arab world and, yes, the internal currents in Israel proper (by which I understand Israeli Jews, of course). In this sense, the general trend goes to the Bantustanization of the Palestinian state, the enclosure of Israeli Arabs (which are not to be forgotten in our analysis) into an ever decreasing fraction of Israeli land, and a state of permanent division, turmoil and confusion in the Arab world in general and in the Eastern fraction of the Arab world in particular. That is, the condition for a "pax Israelica" is permanent war in the area. A most unstable condition, as Talleyrand pointed out to Napoleon ("bayonets, Sire, are useful for many things, but they don?t provide comfortable seats") 2009/1/1, Gary MacLennan : > I will be attending the demonstration scheduled for tomorrow here in > Brisbane. Hopefully it will large and militant. What is happening in > Palestine is something beyond horror. Such are the dimensions of what Israel > is doing that we cannot come to a consensus as to their intentions. Part of > the confusion on our side is due to the fact that what Israel intends is so > evil that we doubt the evidence. there is of course a pall of lies and > misinformation over everything. Thus unbelievably I read of the "peace > process" being suspended or of being in jeopardy. > > One of the best bits of teaching I did last year was to bring a headline > into a class and ask them to critique it. The headline was "Financial > crisis puts war on poverty on hold". The class were largely stumped about > what to say except for speculation about how deep the crisis was going to > be. > > Interestingly when I pointed out that the headline also claimed there was a > "war on poverty" very few in the class actually believed that there was any > such "war". However the really best part of the lesson was when I got them > to acknowledge that they had simply read a lie and had not commented on it. > So they were not "mindful" of the lies which surround them and indeed all of > us. Partly of course this is a defense mechanism. Mindfulness comes with a > price tag - the end of one's comfort zone. > Similarly with what is happening in Palestine. There is of course no peace > process at all. There never has been. There is simply the drive towards a > Greater Israel (drang nach osten) and the conquest of more and yet more > Palestinaian land (lebens raum). > > So Carroll is right if we are mindful of what is actually happening it is > indeed logical - but it is the logic of empire and conquest that is at work. > > There are of course constraints on what Israel intends. Above all their > Arab allies - Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan must be kept safe. A > revolution in any of those three countries would immediately place the > entire Zionist project in danger. For Israel cannot simply leave the > conquest of Palestine to the IAF. Politics like the dialectic never dies. > The capacity of Israel for killing Arabs is of course horrifically daunting > but a political defeat for Israel cannot be ruled out. Nor indeed is a > military reverse out of the question as Hizbollah showed two years ago. > > For the moment however it looks like the Israelis have tested the waters > with their initial blitz and discovered that Mubarak and the royal families > of Jordan and Saudi Arabia are still safe. So they will move to another > level. There will be incursions into Gaza to test Hamas' military capacity > and to flush out and kill as many militants as possible. > > If they get away with that escalation they will then move to stage three - a > full invasion with the aim of eliminating the Hamas leadership and again > killing militants. > > I doubt if they have planned much beyond that. As'ad Abu Khalil (< > angryarab.blogspot.com>) seems to believe that Israel seeks to enthrone > Mohammed Dahlan back in Gaza. That of course is a project close to their > hearts - the degeneration of Gaza into Dahlanistan would be like a return > to the days when Myer Lansky and the Mob ran Cuba. > > However the outcome of none of this is assured. I think much of the > analysis and the response to what is happening is overly governed by a > belief in Israeli invincibility. But as I have said previously it is the > advent of popular revolution in one of the key Arab countries that will > determine the outcome. And I suspect that the events of the last week have > done more to hasten that eventuality, than any one of us dares hope. > > comradely > > Gary > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism en lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/nmgoro%40gmail.com > -- N?stor Gorojovsky El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a From nmgoro at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 01:13:01 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 05:13:01 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] The rotten state of Egypt In-Reply-To: References: <20090101141203.DA1EC10510@mailbackend.panix.com> Message-ID: <2fa158550901020013j60519afdx29cccc4e22d7d0ad@mail.gmail.com> 2009/1/1, Gary MacLennan : > No one has ever predicted a revolution and no one knows where "the old mole" > will emerge. But looking at the world failry objectively would give one to > believe, surely, that some rupture in the status quo is coming. > Which may, or may NOT, be a revolutionary rupture. But yes, I agree: in not too long a term, the current situation is untenable. From the POV of the ruling classes, too. Interesting times, these we are living through. -- N?stor Gorojovsky El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a From sartesian at earthlink.net Fri Jan 2 04:44:24 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:44:24 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] Census Bureau Economic Briefing Room Message-ID: <6848E152CF4443968D0006BB5E55FE90@dmsthinkpad> New Orders New orders for manufactured durable goods in November decreased $1.8 billion or 1.0 percent to $186.9 billion, the U.S. Census Bureau announced today. This was the fourth consecutive monthly decrease and followed an 8.4 percent October decrease. Excluding transportation, new orders increased 1.2 percent. Excluding defense, new orders decreased 0.9 percent. full at: http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/m3/adv/pdf/durgd.pdf No surpise-- inventories increased; unfilled orders decreased. Numbers for October were revised downward....except for inventories. For those interested, the Dept. of Commerce provides the most inclusive reports and statistics on economic trends, utilizing its Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Census Bureau, its Annual Survey of Manufacturing, and its Quarterly Financial Reports. From lueko.willms at t-online.de Thu Jan 1 17:10:57 2009 From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 01:10:57 +0100 (MEZ) Subject: [Marxism] Israel's true intentions In-Reply-To: References: <002-a03a5d49-35936.134@lws-media.de> <002-a03a5d49-35936.134@lws-media.de> Message-ID: <002-915b5d49-36410.137@lws-media.de> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 14:43:06 -0800, Gary MacLennan wrote: > There are of course constraints on what Israel intends. Above all their > Arab allies - Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan must be kept safe. A > revolution in any of those three countries would immediately place the > entire Zionist project in danger. Or to relate it to the Zionist cynical bragging about the lack of democracy in Arab countries -- democracy in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia is the worst thing which could happen to the state of Israel. I mean democracy as a regime where the will of the majority of the population prevails. Comradely yours, L?ko Willms Frankfurt, Germany -------------------------------- From nmgoro at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 05:39:59 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:39:59 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] Israel's true intentions In-Reply-To: <002-915b5d49-36410.137@lws-media.de> References: <002-a03a5d49-35936.134@lws-media.de> <002-915b5d49-36410.137@lws-media.de> Message-ID: <2fa158550901020439x58e38c25g155287631625d755@mail.gmail.com> 2009/1/1 L?ko Willms : > On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 14:43:06 -0800, Gary MacLennan wrote: > > I mean democracy as a regime where the will of the majority of the > population prevails. > That we have reached a point where this has to be explained shows a lot more on the character of imperialism than a ton of analytical reports. Of course, the blame is not on us who have to explain the ABC but on those who have turned it into ZYX instead. -- N?stor Gorojovsky El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net Fri Jan 2 06:02:27 2009 From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 08:02:27 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] New Year's message to friends and supporters of imprisoned Lori Berenson Message-ID: December 31, 2008 To Friends and Supporters of Lori Berenson END-OF-YEAR MESSAGE FROM MARK AND RHODA BERENSON Another year has elapsed and Lori is now in her 14th year of wrongful incarceration. Despite this, and the global economic crisis that affects us all, there is some good news to report. Lori informed us in mid September that she is pregnant. She was so elated - and we, of course, were thrilled over news we never anticipated hearing. Lori has always loved children and, at age 39, this is her first pregnancy. For the past three months she has been busy reading about pregnancy, childbirth and childcare. We are now excitedly busy knitting - Mark a blanket, Rhoda a matching sweater, cap and booties. In Peru, mothers are able to keep their babies with them in prison until age three. Lori's parole date is scheduled for November 2010, when the child will be 18 months old. Of course, we hope she is released sooner. Unfortunately, Lori's health remains delicate due to the very harsh conditions she endured during the early years of her incarceration. In July an MRI confirmed that Lori neede d back surgery for a disk problem that, without proper medical treatment, could result in permanent damage. The plans for back surgery have now been postponed until after the birth of her child. Because of her medical situation, Lori is awaiting transfer to a prison in Lima where she will be able to coordinate her prenatal care with the care for her back. We are hopeful that the Obama administration will make the needed foreign policy changes that will restore the image of the United States to the citizens of Latin America and around the globe. And in this light, we hope that renewed and even improved bilateral relations between the US and Peru will result in Lori's release on humanitarian grounds. We are now in the process of updating the www.freelori.org website. It will include new suggested letters to the Obama administration and members of Congress as well as other new material. We will keep you informed as these updates are completed. We know Lori has prepared an "end-of-year statement" that we will be posting but we won't receive it until our next visit to Peru in mid-January. We close this message with some sad reflections. In 2008 we learned of the passing of five individuals who truly cared about Lori, about us, and about human rights - long-time activists and champions of peace and social justice Bob Menard, Susan Blake, Bob Carpenter, Don White and Paul Warsett. Lori is saddened that she never had the opportunity to meet them and personally thank them. Once again, thank you for your continued support through all these years. May 2009 be one of health and happiness for you and your loved ones and may 2009 be a year of peace. Mark and Rhoda B. From christopher.hutch at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 06:50:15 2009 From: christopher.hutch at gmail.com (Christopher Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:50:15 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] General Strike: Defend Gaza... Message-ID: www.GeneralStrikecomicstrip.blogspot.com keep well, Christopher Hutchinson From rfls12802 at blueyonder.co.uk Fri Jan 2 07:34:36 2009 From: rfls12802 at blueyonder.co.uk (Paul Flewers) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:34:36 -0000 Subject: [Marxism] Israel's true intentions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002201c96ce7$3caa03b0$b5fe0b10$@co.uk> David W wrote: 'The Israelis' would LOVE to have a 'stable Palestinian state' in Gaza and the West Bank. Where is this guy coming from? "Stability" can have many relative meanings. The Zionists actually DO want a Bantustan, a hamstrung, but *prosperous* Palestinian state. Why in the world wouldn't they? I elite middle-class, tied to Israeli financial capital, a week police force, border controlled completely by the IDF...a place to drive Israeli Arabs too when their numbers get too big. The last thing they will ever do is try to annex these areas, despite historic plans in the bottom draw for a "Greater Israel" and other pipe dreams of Zionists on LSD.' Some Israelis would, but I think that the ones making the important moves today do not. Having the Palestinians as an angry, dispossessed people just over the border (or the Wall) lobbing the occasional rocket or sending the odd suicide bomber across to kill a few civilians, but unable to do anything else, is ideal in maintaining a siege mentality that will benefit the Zionist right at the expense of the more moderate Zionists or the Israelis who want a genuine settlement with the Palestinians. Israeli politics currently circle around who offers the hardest line against 'the other', the 'existential threat' over the Wall; the softer Zionists are drawn rightwards as they can't compete with the right-wingers in such an atmosphere on their own terms. I do not whether the elements in Israel who initially quietly sponsored Hamas against the more secular Palestinian groups had a long-term perspective on this basis, or whether they did it as a short-term tactic just to split the Palestinian leadership, but the end result -- boosting Hamas and getting it elected in Gaza -- has worked a treat for the hard-liners. They can present the Palestinians as a 'terrorist people' and therefore, in the atmosphere of the War on Terror, smite them in true Biblical style. That Hamas is a hard-line Islamicist organisation whose leaders have issued outright Jew-baiting statements, plays into the hands of the Israeli right: they love these guys, it's as if Central Casting had sent them along. What is the Israeli government hoping to get out of the current assault? It could be that it's taking advantage of the Presidential change-over in the USA, raise the stakes in the Middle East knowing that Bush won't oppose Israel's actions, and hoping that a poisoned chalice will be handed to O'Bama, forcing him to back Israel uncritically, choking off any hope that he'd change the US official line when he comes in. There's the political scene in Israel itself, ensuring the right wing keeps the political debate going on its terms: facing up to the 'existential threat'. However, short of expelling the population of Gaza -- a bit difficult, seeing that Egypt will keep the border sealed -- the problem (for the Israeli right) of Gaza will remain. Hamas leaders and activists will continue to be killed, but the organisation will almost certainly survive and revive; and the anger of the Palestinians will continue to boil. I get the feeling that this is just one in a series of episodes like this: accuse Hamas of bilking on agreements, get a few rockets fired into Israeli territory, stage a massive air assault on Gaza, maintain the siege mentality in Israel and keep Israeli politics firmly on the right. This could happen several times. There are powerful forces in Israel who do not want a lasting settlement with the Palestinians, not even a two-state solution based upon present borders (let alone 1967 ones). I do not believe that the Arab rulers want a lasting solution either: the Palestinian question is very useful in deflecting problems at home; when things get sticky for the Arab ?lites they just start mouthing off about Israel and the Palestinians, and hope that attention will be focussed there and not at them. That the Palestinians do not appear to have had any weaponry that could do real damage to invading tanks (armour-piercing rockets, mines), as opposed to glorified fireworks that merely play into the Israeli state's hands, confirms me in that view. Paul F From cpimllib at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 01:31:12 2009 From: cpimllib at gmail.com (CPIML Liberation) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:01:12 +0530 Subject: [Marxism] ML Update Vol. 12 No. 01 30 DEC 2008 - 05 JAN 2009 In-Reply-To: <000e01c96b72$c584ac60$0201a8c0@gsn> References: <000e01c96b72$c584ac60$0201a8c0@gsn> Message-ID: *ML Update* * A CPI(ML) Weekly News Magazine * Vol. 12 No. 0130 DEC 2008 - 05 JAN 2009 *Turn 2009 Into A Year of Bigger Struggles and Greater Victories* Eventful as the year has been, the main trend of times stood out in bold relief particularly in the closing months of 2008. If the worldwide financial tsunami and economic contraction generated by the collapse of the colossus on Wall Street showed up the moribund nature of parasitic capitalism, the political dimension was graphically captured in the most disgraceful exit of the most despised warlord of our time. After his policies and priorities were emphatically rejected by US voters, he was treated to a spectacular "Bye Bye Bush" (as the manufacturer of the shoes thrown at him renamed that particular model) ceremony -- an incident that symbolised the intense hatred of freedom loving people the world over. But the naked king is shameless: he continues to support the barbarous Israeli aggression on Gaza strip. Not surprisingly Barack Obama, a vociferous supporter of Israel who picked up pro- Israel hawk Rahm Emanuel as the chief of staff, has chosen to indirectly endorse the Israeli aggression. It is heartening to note that the Communist Party of Israel has condemned "these blatant war crimes." "Israel is exploiting the last moments of the Bush administration" to implement its imperialist policy, the CP of Israel said. Back home, the year started with a bloated ego of India Inc. expanding overseas, a soaring sensex, overflowing forex reserves and unprecedented growth rates. All these were used to cover up burning problems like price rise, peasant suicides and starvation deaths. Now it ends in a bleak economic scenario that promises to get darker in the approaching year. In between, from the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA) signed early in the year to the nuclear deal clinched later in the wake of the tainted trust vote in parliament, New Delhi slipped more and more into Washington's strategic embrace, with the self-appointed Left watchdog barking occasionally but refusing to bite before it was too late. And then in the wake of the Mumbai blasts the national scene has come to be dominated by the competitive anti-terrorist, anti-Pak and by implication anti-Muslim rhetoric of the Congress and the BJP. With the Lok Sabha elections only a few months away, the ruling Congress finds this convenient for diverting public attention away from the economic mess it has created. And the Sangh Parivar on its part is using the frenzied atmosphere to the hilt in advancing its communal-fascist agenda both in the electoral arena and in anti-minorities terror campaigns. While this strategy failed in Delhi assembly election, the party's recent advance in Jammu, like its Gujarat victory earlier in the past, calls for more concerted and effective action against the saffron brigade. The fascist networks run by this brigade, we now know, encompass not only known outfits like the VHP and Bajrang Dal but also sadhvis and sadhus, army officials, bodies like Abhinav Bharat, sangh academies providing military training and so on, which work clandestinely round-the-clock to spread terror and violence. Rather than taking the bull of Sanghi terror by the horn, the Congress- led government at the Centre is reintroducing the infamous POTA through the backdoors in the shape of amendments to the UAPA and inviting the notorious FBI through the front doors in the name of fighting terrorism. But surely it is not problems alone that 2008 has bequeathed to us. All over the world popular movements have surged ahead and in several cases -- as in Nepal and Latin America -- achieved impressive successes. Even in the US the masses have achieved a new opening in their fight against racism, neoliberalism and war. It will be interesting to watch how the great conflict between two trends -- the people's pressure on the new president to implement his platform of change and the ruling elite's crafty moves to carry forward its old anti-people, pro-corporate, militarist agenda under a new facade -- plays itself out in the approaching year. In India, the year we are leaving behind saw a rising tide of mass movements in all parts of the country. From struggles on specific local issues to all India movements on key questions like land and liberty, employment and wages, and dignity and democracy, 2008 was a year of struggles many of which attained a good degree of success. 2009 comes with an excellent opportunity for making new breakthroughs in all these areas. To take one instance, the groundswell of popular opposition to the US-India "strategic partnership", which we witnessed several times last year, can and must be revived in the context of the US itself looking like a troubled Titanic. With the economic crisis deepening by the day and the ruling Left getting discredited in their strongholds, 2009 calls on the forces of revolutionary Left and consistent democracy to provide bold leadership to people's struggles in the extra-parliamentary and parliamentary arenas. Let us rise to the occasion. Let us make 2009 a year of bigger struggles and greater victories. From lnp3 at panix.com Fri Jan 2 07:36:42 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:36:42 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] American steel industry needs $1 trillion bailout Message-ID: <495E267A.6070208@panix.com> NY Times, January 2, 2009 Steel Industry, in Slump, Looks to U.S. Stimulus By LOUIS UCHITELLE The steel industry, having entered the recession in the best of health, is emerging as a leading indicator of what lies ahead. As steel production goes ? and it is now in collapse ? so will go the national economy. That maxim once applied to Detroit?s Big Three car companies, when they dominated American manufacturing. Now they are losing ground in good times and bad, and steel has replaced autos as the industry to watch for an early sign that a severe recession is beginning to lift. The industry itself is turning to government for orders that, until the September collapse, had come from manufacturers and builders. Its executives are waiting anxiously for details of President-elect Barack Obama?s stimulus plan, and adding their voices to pleas for a huge public investment program ? up to $1 trillion over two years ? intended to lift demand for steel to build highways, bridges, electric power grids, schools, hospitals, water treatment plants and rapid transit. ?What we are asking,? said Daniel R. DiMicco, chairman and chief executive of the Nucor Corporation, a giant steel maker, ?is that our government deal with the worst economic slowdown in our lifetime through a recovery program that has in every provision a ?buy America? clause.? Economists in the Obama camp said the president-elect?s proposals to Congress will include significant infrastructure spending that draws on heavy industry. New spending should provide an immediate jolt to the steel business, which has already gone through the painful makeover now demanded of automakers. Steel mills were closed, companies were consolidated, hundreds of thousands lost their jobs and the survivors agreed to concessions. As a result, productivity shot up and so did profits, to record levels in the first nine months of this year. Even as the economy wobbled, steel held its own. But then the recession hit in force. Steel goes into nearly everything made in America, from homes and office buildings to cars, appliances and light bulb sockets, and as construction and manufacturing wound down, so did the output of steel, plunging 50 percent since September. The steel industry?s collapse closely tracks the alarming late-autumn swoon in the national economy, as the housing bust and the credit crisis converted a mild downturn into ?a severe one that has much further to run,? says Nigel Gault, chief domestic economist at IHS Global Insight, offering a view increasingly shared by forecasters. Through August, steel production was actually up slightly for the year. The decline came slowly at first, and then with a rush in November and December. By late December, output was down to 1.02 million tons a week from 2.1 million tons on Aug. 30, the American Iron and Steel Institute reported. The price of a ton of steel is also down by half since late summer. ?We are making our steel at four mills instead of six,? said John Armstrong, a spokesman for the United States Steel Corporation, adding that two mills were recently idled and the four still operating are running at less than full capacity. ?The third quarter was one of the best in U.S. Steel?s history,? Mr. Armstrong added. ?And it has been a very precipitous drop from there.? The cutback has been particularly hard on workers at the big integrated mills like those at U.S. Steel and Arcelor Mittal USA, with their blast furnaces and coke ovens converting iron ore and other materials into steel. Operated at less than full capacity, these mills are less efficient than the equally large ?minimills,? like Nucor, whose electric arc furnaces can be operated efficiently at lower speeds. So the plant closings have been mostly at the integrated mills, whose 50,000 workers ? roughly 40 percent of the nation?s steelworkers ? are represented by the United Steelworkers. The union says that early this year it expects 20,000 workers to be on furlough. Ten thousand already have been. Kathleen Loepker, a millwright and mechanic, is among the most recent to join their ranks. She was laid off on Dec. 19 from the U.S. Steel plant in Granite City, Ill., which shut, putting more than 2,000 employees out of work. With nearly 30 years seniority, Ms. Loepker, 48, has worked through bankruptcies, union concessions and consolidations during which her mill was acquired by U.S. Steel in 2003. Her income today is tied more to incentive bonuses than in the past. On layoff, she is collecting $20 an hour, which is 80 percent of her base pay of $25.12 an hour. That base pay, rather than rising significantly, is fattened by incentive bonuses tied to amounts of steel produced and to profits. It had been averaging an additional $7 an hour ? money now gone until the mill reopens. ?No one knows when that will happen,? said Ms. Loepker, who lives by herself in a four-bedroom home she bought in nearby Belleville, three blocks from a married sister. ?The company tells us the end of March, but they don?t know either,? Ms. Loepker said. ?The uncertainty has everyone fearful.? Not since the 1980s has American steel production been as low as it is today. Those were the Rust Belt years when many steel companies were failing and imports of better quality, lower cost steel were rising. Foreign producers no longer have an advantage over the refurbished American companies. Indeed, imports, which represent about 30 percent of all steel sales in the United States, also are hurting as customers disappear. The industry, in response, is lobbying the Obama transition team for infrastructure projects that would require big amounts of steel. Mass transit systems are high on the list, and so is bridge repair. ?We are sharing with the president-elect?s transition team our thoughts in terms of the industry?s policy priorities,? said Nancy Gravatt, a spokeswoman for the American Iron and Steel Institute. The Obama team has not yet revealed details of the president-elect?s soon-to-be-announced recovery plan other than to indicate that most of the package will probably go into infrastructure spending rather than tax breaks. ?If the president-elect really follows through, he?ll fund a lot of mass transit projects,? said Wilbur L. Ross Jr., the Wall Street deal maker who put together the steel conglomerate known as Arcelor Mittal USA. ?All the big cities have these projects ready to go.? The sharp slide in steel production has several causes. Construction and auto production have fallen sharply; between them, they account for 57 percent of the steel bought each year in the United States, according to the Iron and Steel Institute. Appliances, machinery and other electrical equipment account for an additional 13 percent, and the fall-off in production of these goods has also reduced steel orders. Then there are the wholesalers, known in the steel industry as service centers. They buy in huge quantities from the mills, building up inventories and selling to customers like a construction company that needs I-beams to build a shopping center, or a manufacturer of auto parts in need of steel tubing. Until recently, the inventories were bought on credit, and the service centers constantly replenished these stockpiles as steel was sold to end users. But now the service centers, unable to borrow money easily and reluctant to borrow anyway in these hard times, have stopped buying from the steel mills. They are selling off their inventories instead, raising cash in the process. It is a tactic that annoys Mr. DiMicco, the Nucor chief, no end. ?They don?t want to be without cash when they go into whatever the black hole is that is being created by the financial crisis,? he said, and faulted the nation?s lenders for collecting billions in government bailout money and then, in his view, refusing to lend it to the service centers on reasonable terms. ?Credit completely dried up,? Mr. DiMicco said, ?and it is still hard to get.? From Dbachmozart at aol.com Fri Jan 2 08:25:01 2009 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:25:01 EST Subject: [Marxism] "Anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target." Message-ID: IS THE UN COMPLICIT IN ISRAEL'S MASSACRE IN GAZA? By Omar Barghouti, The Electronic Intifada, 1 January 2009 The UN's complicity in Israel's propaganda war is the latest, albeit hardly ever mentioned, dimension of the international organization's utter failure in defending its principles, foremost among which are the prevention of war and the promotion of peace, when performing such a duty is expected to stir the wrath of the US master and the uniquely influential Israel lobby. Not only has the UN Secretary-General betrayed the very Charter of the UN and all relevant international law principles by failing to even condemn Israel's massacre of civilians and targeting of civilian institutions and residential neighborhoods. Omar Barghouti comments for The Electronic Intifada. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10089.shtml **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From lnp3 at panix.com Fri Jan 2 10:04:24 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:04:24 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Jeff Perry reading on Hubert Harrison Message-ID: <495E4918.9090200@panix.com> > Hubert Harrison: The Voice of Harlem Radicalism, 1883-1918 > by Jeffrey B. Perry > Book Talk and Book Signing > Sunday, January 4, 2009 > 7:00 pm > Bluestockings Bookstore, Fair Trade Cafe > 172 Allen Street > New York, New York > Dr. Jeffrey B. Perry will present a PowerPoint presentation and lecture, as > well as sign copies of his newest book Hubert Harrison: The Voice of Harlem > Radicalism, 1883-1918. > "Hubert Harrison was an immensely skilled writer, orator, educator, critic, > and political activist who, more than any other political leader of his era, > combined class consciousness and anti-white-supremacist race consciousness > into a coherent political radicalism. Harrison's ideas profoundly influenced > "New Negro" militants, including A. Philip Randolph and Marcus Garvey, and > his synthesis of class and race issues is a key unifying link between the > two great trends of the Black Liberation Movement: the labor- and > civil-rights-based work of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the race and > nationalist platform associated with Malcolm X. > "The foremost black organizer, agitator, and theoretician of the Socialist > Party of New York, Harrison was also the founder of the "New Negro" > movement, the editor of Negro World, and the principal radical influence on > the Garvey movement. He was a highly praised journalist and critic > (reportedly the first regular black book reviewer), a freethinker and early > proponent of birth control, a supporter of black writers and artists, a > leading public intellectual, and a bibliophile who helped transform the > 135th Street Public Library into an international center for research in > black culture. His biography offers profound insights on race, class, > religion, immigration, war, democracy, and social change in America."(1) > (For more information call 212- 777-6028) > About the Author > Jeffrey B. Perry is an independent scholar > of the working class formally educated at Princeton, Harvard, Rutgers, and > Columbia University. Perry preserved and inventoried the Hubert H. Harrison > papers (now at Columbia University's Rare Book and Manuscript Library) and > is the editor of A Hubert Harrison Reader. He is also literary executor for > Theodore W. Allen and edited and introduced Allen's Class Struggle and the > Origin of Racial Slavery: The Invention of the White Race. > (1)Columbia University Press > . From christopher.hutch at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 10:40:01 2009 From: christopher.hutch at gmail.com (Christopher Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:40:01 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] General Strike: 50 Years of Revolution... Message-ID: ...and Many More!!! keep well, christopher From christopher.hutch at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 10:41:00 2009 From: christopher.hutch at gmail.com (Christopher Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:41:00 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] General Strike: 50 Years of Revolution..forgot the Link...sorry Message-ID: www.GeneralStrikecomicstrip.blogspot.com christopher From sartesian at earthlink.net Fri Jan 2 11:01:48 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (s.artesian) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 19:01:48 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [Marxism] Israel's true intentions Message-ID: <16718530.1230919308691.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> This, Paul's post, is exactly what I meant that the purpose of the destruction is exactly the destruction. No Bantustan, no Namibia, no Swaziland-- just permanent dispossession, with life below subsistence levels, but a "modernized" sub sub-sistence, complete with cell phones, video, a hospital or 2 with an MRI machine-- not just strangulation, but a continuous pressing down, a constriction, punctuated by more vicious outbursts. -----Original Message----- >From: Paul Flewers >Sent: Jan 2, 2009 3:34 PM >To: sartesian at earthlink.net >Subject: Re: [Marxism] Israel's true intentions From binesi at gvtel.com Fri Jan 2 11:09:01 2009 From: binesi at gvtel.com (David Thorstad) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:09:01 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] Israel's History in Quotes Message-ID: <495E583D.8070704@gvtel.com> > Israel's History in Quotes > > Hebrew essayist Achad Ha-Am, after paying a visit to Palestine in 1891: > > "Abroad we are accustomed to believe that Israel is almost empty; > nothing is grown here and that whoever wishes to buy land could come > here and buy what his heart desires. In reality, the situation is not > like this. Throughout the country it is difficult to find cultivable > land which is not already cultivated." > > Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of > the Arabs of Palestine,Complete Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry: > > "Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it > employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the > poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." > > The Balfour Declaration to Baron Rothchild, on the 2nd of November, 1917: > > "His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in > Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their > best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being > clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the > civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in > Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any > other country." > > Lord Sydenham, Hansard, House of Lords, 21 June 1922: > > "If we are going to admit claims on conquest thousands of years ago, > the whole world will have to be turned upside down." > > Vladimir Jabotinsky, The Iron Wall, 1923: > > "Zionist colonization must either be terminated or carried out against > the wishes of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, > be continued and make progress only under the protection of a power > independent of the native population - an iron wall, which will be in > a position to resist the pressure to the native population. This is > our policy towards the Arabs..." > > Vladimir Jabotinsky, founder of Revisionist Zionism (precursor of > Likud), The Iron Wall, 1923: > > "A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question > either now or in the future. If you wish to colonize a land in which > people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, > or find some rich man or benefactor who will provide a garrison on > your behalf. Or else-or else, give up your colonization, for without > an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempt to > destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible, not > difficult, not dangerous, but IMPOSSIBLE!... Zionism is a colonization > adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed > force. It is important... to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is > even more important to be able to shoot - or else I am through with > playing at colonizing." > > David Ben Gurion, future Prime Minister of Israel, 1937, Ben Gurion > and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985: > > "We must expel Arabs and take their places." > > Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department in > 1940. From "A Solution to the Refugee Problem": > > "Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both > peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the > Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way than to > transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries - all of them. > Not one village, not one tribe should be left." > > Israeli official Arthur Lourie in a letter to Walter Eytan, director > general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry (ISA FM 2564/22). From Benny > Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1947-49", p. 297: > > "...if people become accustomed to the large figure and we are > actually obliged to accept the return of the refugees, we may find it > difficult, when faced with hordes of claimants, to convince the world > that not all of these formerly lived in Israeli territory. It would, > in any event, seem desirable to minimize the numbers...than otherwise." > > David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben- Gurion, A > Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978: > > "We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash > Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the > Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall > establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab > Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb > and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai." > > David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar > Zohar's Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157: > "We must do everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do > return." Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never > come back to their homes. "The old will die and the young will forget." > > David Ben-Gurion, one of the father founders of Israel, described > Zionist aims in 1948: > > "A Christian state should be established [in Lebanon], with its > southern border on the Litani river. We will make an alliance with it. > When we smash the Arab Legion's strength and bomb Amman, we will > eliminate Transjordan too, and then Syria will fall. If Egypt still > dares to fight on, we shall bomb Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo... > And in this fashion, we will end the war and settle our forefathers' > account with Egypt, Assyria, and Aram" > > [Begin, and Yitzhak Shamir who were members of the party became Prime > Ministers.] Albert Einstein, Hanna Arendt and other prominent Jewish > Americans, writing in The New York Times, protest the visit to America > of Menachem Begin, December 1948: > > "Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our time is the > emergence in the newly created State of Israel of the Freedom Party > (Herut), a political party closely akin in its organization, method, > political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties." > > Martin Buber, Jewish Philosopher, addressed Prime Minister Ben Gurion > on the moral character of the state of Israel with reference to the > Arab refugees in March 1949: > > "We will have to face the reality that Israel is neither innocent, nor > redemptive. And that in its creation, and expansion; we as Jews, have > caused what we historically have suffered; a refugee population in > Diaspora." > > Moshe Dayan (Israel Defense and Foreign Minister), on February 12 > 1952. Radio "Israel.": > > "It lies upon the people's shoulders to prepare for the war, but it > lies upon the Israeli army to carry out the fight with the ultimate > object of erecting the Israeli Empire." > > Martin Buber, to a New York audience, Jewish Newsletter, June 2, 1958: > "When we [followers of the prophetic Judaism] returned to > Palestine...the majority of Jewish people preferred to learn from > Hitler rather than from us." > > Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion's special adviser on Arab Affairs, 1960. > >From "The Arabs in Israel" by Sabri Jiryas: > > Rabin's description of the conquest of Lydda, after the completion of > Plan Dalet. "We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of > woodcutters and waiters" > > Aba Eban (the Israeli Foreign Minister) stated arrogantly. New York > Times June 19, 1967: > > "If the General Assembly were to vote by 121 votes to 1 in favor of > "Israel" returning to the armistice lines-- (pre June 1967 borders) > Israel would refuse to comply with the decision." > > Dr. Israel Shahak, Chairperson of the Israeli League for Human and > Civil Rights, and a survivor of the Bergen Belsen concentration camp, > Commenting on the Israeli military's Emergency Regulations following > the 1967 War. Palestine, vol. 12, December 1983: > > "Hitler's legal power was based upon the 'Enabling Act', which was > passed quite legally by the Reichstag and which allowed the Fuehrer > and his representatives, in plain language, to be what they wanted, or > in legal language, to issue regulations having the force of law. > Exactly the same type of act was passed by the Knesset [Israeli's > Parliament] immediately after the 1067 conquest granting the Israeli > governor and his representatives the power of Hitler, which they use > in Hitlerian manner." > > Golda Meir, March 8, 1969: > > "How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return > them to." > > Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, > April 4, 1969: > > "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not > even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you > because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not > exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the > place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in > the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al- > Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not > have a former Arab population." > > Golda Maier Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969: > > "There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed" > > Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972: > > "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June > 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only > bluff, which was born and developed after the war." > > Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972: > > "It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, > clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten > with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, > colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and > the expropriation of their lands." > > Joseph Weitz, Director of the Jewish National Fund, the Zionist agency > charged with acquiring Palestinian land, Circa 194. Machover Israca, > January 5, 1973 /p.2: > > "The only solution is Eretz Israel [Greater Israel], or at least > Western Eretz Israel [all the land west of Jordan River], without > Arabs. There is no room for compromise on this point ... We must not > leave a single village, not a single tribe." > > Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in > the New York Times, 23 October 1979: > > "We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his > question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' > Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out'" > > Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, > "Begin and the Beasts". New Statesman, 25 June 1982: > > "[The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs." > > Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York > Times, 14 April 1983: > > "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about > it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." > > Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad > Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983: > > "We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one > centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will > understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians > come crawling to us on all fours." > > Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General > Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983: > > "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live > here as slaves." > > Isreali Prime Minister, Yitzhak Shamir, in a speech to Jewish settlers > New York Times April 1, 1988: > > "The Palestinians" would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads > smashed against the boulders and walls." > > Israeli Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg, Inferring that killing isn't murder if > the victim is Gentile. Jerusalem Post, June 19,1989: > > "Jewish blood and a goy's [gentile's] blood are not the same." > > Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime > Minister of Israel, tells students at Bar Ilan University, From the > Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989: > > "Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in > China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass > expulsions among the Arabs of the territories." > > Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial > service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic > Radio Service: > > "The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep > Eretz Israel from the Sea to the Jordan River for future generations, > for the mass aliya [immigration], and for the Jewish people, all of > whom will be gathered into this country." > > Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of > militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France > Presse, November 15,1998: > > "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to > enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay > ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." > > Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. > Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000: > > "The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, > they want more"... > > Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, > November 16, 2000: > > "If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead > would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more > force...." > > Israeli president Moshe Katsav. The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001: > > "There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies? Not just in > ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. > They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few > hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our > continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy." > > Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon > Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio: > > "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will > do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry > about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control > America, and the Americans know it." > > "Israel Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum": > > "We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, > and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab > population." > > Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department. > From Israel: an Apartheid State by Uri Davis, p.5: > > "There are some who believe that the non-Jewish population, even in a > high percentage, within our borders will be more effectively under our > surveillance; and there are some who believe the contrary, i.e., that > it is easier to carry out surveillance over the activities of a > neighbor than over those of a tenant. I tend to support the latter > view and have an additional argument:...the need to sustain the > character of the state which will henceforth be Jewish...with a > non-Jewish minority limited to 15 percent. I had already reached this > fundamental position as early as 1940 [and] it is entered in my diary." > > Ben Gurion: > > In 1899, Davis Triestsch wrote to Herzl: " I would suggest to you to > come round in time to the "Greater Palestine" program before it is too > late... the Basle program must contain the words "Great Palestine" or > "Palestine and its neighboring lands" otherwise it's nonsense. You do > not get ten million Jews into a land of 25,000 Km2". " The present map > of Palestine was drawn by the British mandate. The Jewish people have > another map which our youth and adults should strive to fulfill -- > From the Nile to the Euphrates." > > Vladimir Jabotinsky (the founder and advocate of the Zionist terrorist > organizations), Quoted by Maxime Rodinson in Peuple Juif ou Problem > Juif. (Jewish People or Jewish Problem): > > "Has any People ever been seen to give up their territory of their own > free will? In the same way, the Arabs of Palestine will not renounce > their sovereignty without violence." > > David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister) quoted by Nahum > Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121: > > "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with > Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God > promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not > theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, > but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we > have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Attached Message Part Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/attachments/20090102/058e3250/attachment.txt -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Attached Message Part Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/attachments/20090102/058e3250/attachment-0001.txt From sartesian at earthlink.net Fri Jan 2 11:34:46 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 19:34:46 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] ISM Measure Message-ID: <2EE3E663E37642C58315773825215098@dmsthinkpad> Below, excerpt from the article at WSJ.com (you need a sub to get the whole thing, this is the core). What isn't pointed out is that predictions were for the manufacturing sector index to come in at 35.4 NOT 32.4. A drop of this severity, and so much greather than anticipated, is virtually unheard of in the history of the index. ______________________ WSJ.com By MICHAEL S. DERBY NEW YORK -- The U.S. factory sector closed out 2008 on a decidedly sour note, marking its weakest period of activity in nearly 30 years. The Institute for Supply Management reported Friday that its manufacturing sector index came in at 32.4 during December, from 36.2 in November and 38.9 in October. It had been expected to stand at 35.4. December's reading was the weakest since June 1980. The report suggested that the broader economy continues to remain troubled, in a recession that harkens back to the steep downturn that prevailed during the opening years of the 1980s. There was little in the way of good news to be found in the report. "The decline covers the full breadth of manufacturing industries, as none of the industries in the sector report growth at this time," said Norbert Ore, who leads the survey for the ISM. He added, "manufacturers are reducing inventories and shutting down capacity to offset the slower rate of activity." Ore said a recovery might start to come into view when five or so of the 18 industries in the report begin to show improvement. But he doesn't expect to see that anytime soon. In the report, the ISM said that the production index stood at 25.5, from 31.5. Meanwhile, the new orders index, which hints at future activity, was weak at 22.7, from 27.9. The ISM said that reading was the lowest since January 1948. Hiring contracted, with the employment index at 29.9, versus November's 34.2. From jbustelo at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 11:48:32 2009 From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 13:48:32 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] TIME TO TAKE OUT THE TRASH! [WAS: RE: 2009 should be interesting in the US] In-Reply-To: <495D0F55.9030809@email.it> References: <495D0436.8040501@gmail.com> <495D0F55.9030809@email.it> Message-ID: "Double bluff" sent a series of links to the blog of a self-described "anarchist" that in turn promotes nativist/survivalist gun cult sales and so on. Right wing trolls (including "anarchists" this successful in imitating them) should be subject to a one strike and out rule. One troll post and you're out of here. Joaquin From skeyesvogt at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 12:13:11 2009 From: skeyesvogt at gmail.com (Sky Keyes) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:13:11 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Unarmed Man Murdered By Police Near San Francisco Message-ID: http://www.malcolm-che.com/2009/01/02/unarmed-oscar-grant-murdered-by-police-near-sf/ From lnp3 at panix.com Fri Jan 2 12:43:24 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:43:24 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Cynthia McKinney: we lived to tell the story Message-ID: <495E6E5C.4030509@panix.com> Counterpunch, January 2 - 4, 2009 How Lebanon Rescued Us We Lived to Tell the Story By CYNTHIA McKINNEY Yesterday, we met with the President of Lebanon, the Chief of the Military, and the Interior Minister who all thanked us for responding and risking our lives on a mission of mercy; we profusely thanked them for rescuing us. What would we have done, stranded out at sea, prohibited from reaching our destination, low on fuel, with a badly damaged boat if Lebanon had not accepted us? Lebanon sent their ships to find us. Lebanon rescued us. Lebanon welcomed us. And we are truly thankful. It's official now. We've been told that the sturdy, wood construction of our boat, Dignity, is the reason we are still alive. Fiberglass would probably not have withstood the impact of the Israeli attack and under different circumstances, we might not be here to tell the story. Even at that, the report that came to us yesterday after the Captain and First Mate went back to Sour (Tyre) to inspect the boat was that it was sinking, the damage is extensive, and the boat will take, in their estimation, at least one month to repair. Tomorrow, we will bring the Dignity from Sour to Beirut. And now, we must decide what to do and from where we will do it and how we are to get back to wherever that might be. My personal, and I know the group's, thanks must go to Al Jazeera, that allowed three of their reporters to be onboard with us on our voyage. As a result, Al Jazeera carried the story of the Dignity live, from castoff in Cyprus when our spirits were high, right up through the manacing maneuvers of the huge, super fast Israeli ships before they rammed us, the Israeli calls on the ship phone after the ramming calling us terrorists and subversives and telling us to return to Cyprus (even though the Israelis later claimed that they didn't know who we were, they knew enough about us to tell us where we had come from), and the fact that we didn't have enough fuel to follow their instructions, right up to their threat to fire at us if we didn't turn around, ending with our beaten-up boat limping into Sour harbor in Lebanon. Al Jazeera carried our story as "breaking news" and performed a real service to its audience and to us. Al Jazeera called the Israelis to inquire about the incident right as it was happening and I am sure the Israelis were prepared to leave none to tell the story. Al Jazeera told the story and documented it as it was happening. One of those Al Jazeera reporters with us was Sami El-Haj, who was detained in Guantanamo by the United States for six incredibly long years. What an honor to even exchange glances with such a humble man who had endured so much pain at the hands of the U.S. government. I apologized to him that my tax dollars were being used in such a despicable way. And Sami's crime according to the U.S.? Born in Sudan, and reporting for Al Jazeera in Afghanistan, Sami was the wrong color, the wrong nationality, the wrong religion, reporting for the wrong news outfit, telling us the truth about a wrong war. And for that he survived incarceration for six long years. Sami El-Haj, Guantanamo prisoner number 345. Another incredibly committed journalist who was with us was CNN's Karl Penhaul. Karl reported the truth even when his own station was repeating Israeli disinformation. The fact that we were traveling with these alert journalists added to the flat-footedness and obvious crudeness of the Israeli response. Sadly, Israel has changed its story too many times to count, and that's because they are not telling the truth. We lived to tell the story. I'm told that CNN only played my full statement once--and that's the time that it aired live. Of course, they cut the reference to the U.S.S. Liberty. What are they afraid of? Last night I was on PressTV.com, along with others who were on the Dignity, and we debated a representative from WINEP, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. I reminded the audience that the Palestinians don't have nuclear weapons, depleted uranium munitions, white phosphorous, or F-16s, but the Israelis do. The facts, however, tend to get garbled after being processed by the "Grand Wurlitzer" organ of state-sponsored disinformation utilizing the world's press. With the truth clearly on our side, Israel has been reduced to releasing the ridiculous bombast below, given to me by a reporter who came to our hotel in Beirut for a visit. With their multiple, conflicting stories, it is clear that the Israelis did not expect us to live to tell the truth. On the drive from Sour through Saida to Beirut, we were welcomed like heroes because our ordeal had been seen by everyone on Al Jazeera. The mayor of Sour came to welcome us. The mayor of Saida insisted that we stop there, on our way to Beirut, for a special ceremony. But there was something else that was visible along our drive, and that is the devastation that Lebanon, itself, has received as a result of the Israeli war machine. The scars of the war are still evident everywhere. I will write more on that tomorrow. And one final note, President-elect Obama roared like a mighty lion onto the political scene, but now he is as silent as a lamb in the face of the death and destruction that is happening in Gaza. As we approach the birthday celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. let us remember what Dr. King said: "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." And after five days of aerial bombardment by Israel, the carnage in Gaza continues. Cynthia McKinney ran for president on the Green Party ticket. From Dbachmozart at aol.com Fri Jan 2 12:54:49 2009 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:54:49 EST Subject: [Marxism] Israel's intentions Message-ID: David Thorstadt posted this quote from perhaps the next Israeli Prime Minister - Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, tells students at Bar Ilan University, From the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989: "Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories." Certainly getting an advantage for the upcoming election was a factor for Livni and Barak's attack on Gaza, but according to all the polls, the racist idea of "transfer" - what the world calls ethnic cleansing, is gaining more adherents among Israeli Jews as the "final solution" to the "demographic threat" of "too many Arabs" with a higher birthrate. I believe that Israel has written off Gaza and consigned it to eventually being taken over by Egypt, which is what happened from 1948 - 1967. But with the illegal West Bank settlements, Israel seeks to present the world with a fait accompli - "we've spent so much money on infrastructure and have so many people here that it just isn't realistic anymore to abandon it all. Let the Palestinians set up a state of their own in Jordan". (Jordan is part of historic Palestine, 60% of whose population is Palestinian). And the Israelis will exploit a major war with Iran or even Lebanon and the extreme chauvinism and hysteria that would accompany it as the perfect opportunity to put this transfer of "a fifth column" into place, And the liberals and cruise missile left will defend it in the name of "Israel's security must be guaranteed!" **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From binesi at gvtel.com Fri Jan 2 13:11:40 2009 From: binesi at gvtel.com (David Thorstad) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:11:40 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] It takes two sides to make a war (or does it?) Message-ID: <495E74FC.9000401@gvtel.com> COMPARE Pictures show the effect of Israeli attacks on Palestinians and Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. http://palestinian.ning.com/forum/topics/the-other-side-of-the-story -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Attached Message Part Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/attachments/20090102/fd267a5f/attachment.txt From sabocat59 at mac.com Fri Jan 2 15:05:37 2009 From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:05:37 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] 2009, the Year in Preview Message-ID: 2009, the Year in Preview The Year No One Can Remember By JOHN ROSS 2009 will be remembered as the year no one can remember. Faced with the collapse of capitalism and multiple catastrophes triggered by global warming, President-elect Barack Obama called off the year after nine months of unremittingly bad news. Here is a month-by-month breakdown of the breakdown. JANUARY - The year began inauspiciously enough when at Barack Obama's January 20th inauguration, Chief Justice John Roberts misidentified the President-elect as Osama Bin-Laden. Apparently not catching the chief justice's "mistake", Obama Hussein swore in under the name of Osama, technically making the latter president of the United States. It is not known if Roberts' error was a slip of the tongue or a premeditated plot to elevate the Al Qaeda leader to the most powerful position on the planet. Whether or not Bin Laden will continue as U.S. president will be decided by the Supreme Court with Roberts recusing himself because of his role in the scandal which insures that the panel will be deadlocked four to four for the foreseeable future. In other news, CNN, Fox, and MSNBC announced that they are changing formats to a 24-hour fake news cycle. FEBRUARY - With no decision forthcoming from the deadlocked Supreme Court, Bin Laden continues as U.S. president and Obama Hussein as president-elect. The confusion has detonated an unlikely string of events in the Middle East. On Groundhog's Day, a national holiday in Iran, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad let fly with a shoe-shaped missile that dropped thousands of shoe-lets on Israel to protest the continuing bombing of Gaza now in its third month. The shoe-lets bopped several residents on the noggin, slightly injuring two Jews and an Israeli Arab in addition to rendering a hapless Bedouin camel unconscious. Israel launched a rain of nuclear missiles in retaliation killing and maiming a third of the Iranian people and eliminating that ancient nation's non-existent nuclear capability. In Iraq, the Baghdad shoe coup unleashed by militants affiliated with Muqtada al-Sadr so seriously contused Washington puppet Nuri al- Maliki after he was creamed by a pair of ten-pound combat boot that he had to be flown to Walter Reed Shoe Hospital for repairs. Hero reporter and shoe-flinger Muntadhar al-Zaidi has been chosen to replace the fallen quisling. In other shoe news, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her first world tour of the first world, has been pelted by shoes in 12 countries, many of them in the latest designer models for which she thanked her would-be assassins. On the economic front, the international shoe deluge has been the only bright spot in an otherwise dismal forecast with shoe stores staying open 25-7 to meet the demand for the missiles. MARCH - The continuing confusion over who exactly is the U.S. president has impacted the American war machine in Afghanistan where 30,000 U.S. boots on the ground and another 30,000 being forwarded to that devastated landscape are now officially under Al Qaeda-Taliban command. Meanwhile on the homefront, the plummeting economy has now reached the disastrous proportions of the Great Depression - of 1907 - when world commodity prices dropped into negative numbers but there was no cash to buy them. Among those most affected is the White House where all staff has been laid off. First Lady-elect Michelle Obama confessed to People Magazine that she is now doing White House floors - the first girls-elect will work off their allowances, reduced by half due to the calamitous economic situation, by cleaning the toilets. As usual, steamed Michelle, Barack Hussein refuses to take out the garbage. Also in the financial toilet: the publishing industry. In a reflection of popular discontent at the collapse of capitalism, Karl Marx's "Das Capital" hit number one on the New York Times best-seller list. The bad news is that Marx's bestseller only sold three copies. The New York Times itself has gone belly-up causing older U.S. radicals who could no longer get their blood boiling without the daily lies served up by the former newspaper of record to lapse into life-threatening comas. The downfall of the publishing industry also affected the author of Blindman's Buff whose latest opus "El Monstruo - True Tales of Dread & Redemption in Mexico City" has been shredded and buried in a West African landfill. APRIL - In a ploy to distinguish himself from President Osama Bin Laden, Obama Hussein has taken to wearing a yarmulke to express his solidarity with the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahoo now in its fifth month of bombing Gaza where over 4,000,000 Hamas-related Palestinians have been killed or wounded, double the population of that seaside strip and ten times the number of previously recorded Hamas supporters. "Hamas must stop its naked aggression against Tel Aviv," the yarmulke-wearing president warned. International tensions were also ratcheted up by the April Fool's Day invasion of Atlanta, Georgia by Georgian strongman Mikhail Saakoshitli, claiming copywrite infringement. "We had the name first," Sacoshitli told the former New York Times. The former Soviet Union came to the defense of that former southern state made famous by former ax-wielding governor Lester Maddox by launching a massive Piroshki attack on Tbilisi. Meanwhile, a crack team of Yeshiva Talmudic scholars broke into Bernie Madof's Upper East Side bunker and whacked the deposed Ponzi schemer in retaliation for putting their university out of its misery. On the economic side, Goodwill Stores announced that it is taking over the shuttered factories of the Big Three automakers and converting them into thrift stores. MAY - New York City police closed down Wall Street to pedestrian traffic after several Japanese tourist groups were crushed flat by plunging stockbrokers. Mobs of hungry homeless citizens sacked Sothby's, carrying off the hors d'oeuvres and many priceless paintings of Andy Warhol Campbell Soup cans. The deflationary spiral was accentuated when millions of lost balloons gathered over the North American landmass and plummeted to earth, further paralyzing traffic on major U.S. Interstates where over a million motorists now living in their cars after being evicted from their homes, have been parked in coast-to-coast gridlock for months. JUNE - In news from our Latin neighbors, Felipe Calderon ("Fecal"), the fraudulently elected president of Mexico, has died in an alleged tricycle accident and is being replaced by a coalition of five drug cartels. In another Latin development, Hugo Chavez was elected president for life of Venezuela but choked to death on a CIA-planted banana the next day during a victory party at Miraflores Palace while cursing the Yanquis. As for the Yanquis, the Bronx Bombers announced the signing of Lebron James to an unprecedented billion dollar ten-year contract despite the penury of the nation. "We know Lebron plays basketball" conceded GM Brian Cashman, "but we really liked his exorbitant salary demands." Finally, final arguments were heard by the deadlocked Supreme Court in the Obama-Osama flap with no resolution of this existential crisis in sight. JULY - Dog food has become so expensive and money so worthless that millions of Americans are broiling their pets. Packs of feral French poodles now rule New York's Park Avenue. Heeding his economic advisers whose worthless advice bankrupted the U.S. in the first place, The yarmulke-wearing President-elect has ordered the printing of a trillion dollars worth of worthless money. Desperate for a fix, the nation's chronic shopping addicts are now hauling their worthless dollars to Wal Mart stores in wheelbarrows. A riot at the Mall of America in Minneapolis killed 36 when the doors opened at Wal Mart for the chain's weekly wheelbarrow sale. Meanwhile the price of gasoline which was down to two cents Americano in June suddenly skyrocketed to $10 a gallon. Collusion by the Saudi government and Greenpeace is suspected. AUGUST - Record-breaking flooding on the River Denial has so swelled the world's oceans that waves are lapping at the upper floors of the world's tallest skyscraper in downtown Dubai. In other news of global warming, more than a million penguins turned out for the Million Penguin March On Washington. President-elect Obama Hussein's unresolved tenancy of the Oval Office was further jolted by news that ex-prexy George Bush, bored with sawing logs on his ranch retreat, has risen in Texas. Under rebel commander David Betrayus, Waco, Dallas, and Larry McMurtry's Book City have fallen to the insurgents. SEPTEMBER - With the Bushite army advancing on Washington, unemployment at 150% (many people lost two jobs), global warming turning Mother Earth into one big cuchifrito, and the Supreme Court still dead- locked over whether Osama or Obama is the legitimate U.S. president, the yarmulke-wearing President-elect opted to call off the rest of 2009 and fled to his home state of Hawaii which no one has been able to locate for months. John Ross's crystal ball was blown up by suspected Mossad agents on New Year's Eve. If you have further information write johnross at igc.org or consult www.johnross-rebeljournalist.com. From adambrichmond at yahoo.com Fri Jan 2 16:32:38 2009 From: adambrichmond at yahoo.com (Adam Richmond) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:32:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] Black gay activists: Ebenezer should dump Warren as MLK Day speaker Message-ID: <518227.27128.qm@web54606.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Black gay activists protest Rick Warren's invite to speak at the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.? The controversy continues. Adam LOCAL | www.sovo.com Black gay activists: Ebenezer should dump Warren as MLK Day speaker Speech at Atlanta church set for day before Obama?s inauguration By LAURA DOUGLAS-BROWN Jan. 02, 2009 The Atlanta Black LGBT Coalition last week called on Ebenezer Baptist Church, the historic church where Dr. Martin Luther King served as pastor, to remove Pastor Rick Warren as the keynote speaker for its upcoming MLK Day service. ?Rev. Warren?s hateful opposition to civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and reproductive rights for women, and his intolerance of diversity contradict the values of freedom and equality that this day represents,? the group said in a Dec. 24 press release. The coalition called on Ebenezer?s pastor, Rev. Raphael G. Warnock, to rescind the invitation to Warren to speak at the Jan. 19 service. The church did not respond to an interview request by press time. ?Bestowing Rev. Warren such a prominent role does not foster greater understanding between divided communities. Instead it drives more wedges between disenfranchised communities that are continually pitted against each other by the agents of racism and homophobia,? the gay coalition said. Held each year to commemorate the national holiday honoring King, the church service at Ebenezer attracts media, politicians and civil rights leaders from around the nation. Last year, then-Democratic hopeful Barack Obama spoke to the church the day before the national holiday, delivering a rousing call to responsibility that included a challenge to black churches to renounce homophobia. Obama told the mostly black audience that ?our own community has not always been true to King?s vision of a beloved community,? in part because ?we have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them.? This year?s MLK Day service takes place the day before Obama will be inaugurated as the nation?s first African-American president. Warren, pastor of California?s Saddleback Community Church and author of ?The Purpose Driven Life,? has also been tapped by Obama to give the? invocation at his Jan. 20 inauguration, sparking outrage from gay activists who note Warren?s vocal opposition to gay marriage. ??I don?t know what Rev. Warnock?s motives are. I do know that the invitation is an affront to queer communities,? Craig Washington, a leader of the Atlanta coalition, said in an interview. ?It does nothing to unify the community, it drives the wedge deeper. I think Ebenezer, like Obama, is seeking to find some political currency with the conservative movement in this country.? Another group of Atlanta activists is organizing a protest during Warren?s speech at the church. Jeff Shade is one of the organizers for the massive Nov. 15 rally at the State Capitol for marriage equality and the smaller Dec. 13 ?All? I Want for Christmas is Equal Rights? picket at Lenox Mall. Schade said they are organizing another event for Warren?s visit, although details were not finalized at press time. ?I?m not exactly sure what direction it will take. Martin Luther King Day here in Atlanta is a big day, so we?re clearly trying to be positive, and send the right message,? Schade said. From lnp3 at panix.com Fri Jan 2 16:52:46 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:52:46 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Making of; 9 Star Hotel Message-ID: <495EA8CE.8060304@panix.com> Today someone named Doug complained on my blog about the 2008 movie consumer guide. Apparently I was shirking my responsibilities to the Palestinians: "Yes, let?s discuss films. Meanwhile, Mr Marxist, no-one would know from this web-site that the Israelis have been committing war crimes in Gaza." At the risk of angering my sectarian critic even further, I am going to review two more films today. One is titled ?Making Of? and was made in Tunisia in 2006. The director is Nouri Bouzid, who has explored issues of Islam and politics over a 30 year career. ?Making Of? tells the story of Bahta, a 25 year old break dancer who falls in with jihadists who plan to turn him into a suicide bomber. The other is a documentary titled ?9 Star Hotel? that features a group of Palestinian undocumented construction workers who live in packing crates in the hills overlooking the fancy hotel they are working on. full: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/making-of-9-star-hotel/ From jbustelo at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 18:11:13 2009 From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 20:11:13 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] 2009, the Year in Preview In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6A84ABD2C6E84CB783909C8924215D6D@albanta> I guess one would like this if this is the sort of thing one likes, but what is it doing here? Should I start forwarding Ernest Hemingway's dispatches and random pages from La Edad de Oro? Joaquin From jeanmarat1793 at yahoo.gr Fri Jan 2 18:14:09 2009 From: jeanmarat1793 at yahoo.gr (Anonym Need) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:14:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] Che's view on hoods ? Message-ID: <704103.55929.qm@web24604.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I'm conducting a survey. And I wanted to know if Che Guevara wrote or said anything like this : "Real revolutionaries do not go about wearing hoods(=capuchas) for one more reason : At the time of revolution the people must recognise in the faces of the revolutionaries its vanguard. The people doesn't value meddling with hooded ones(=encapuchados)." If there is any kind of writing or speech of Che on "encapuchados"/hooded ones please answer. Thanks in advance. ___________________________________________________________ ?????????????? Yahoo!; ?????????? ?? ?????????? ???????? (spam); ?? Yahoo! Mail ???????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????????? ???? ??? ??????????? ????????? http://login.yahoo.com/config/mail?.intl=gr From sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com Fri Jan 2 19:07:20 2009 From: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com (sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:07:20 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Palestine and revolution Message-ID: <20090103020720.390E4158045@smtp.hushmail.com> JScotlive said: >...the PFLP is a shadow of the organisation it > once was and a marginal force in the current period, >more importantly non existent in >Gaza, Lets get this straight JScot, first you proclaimed there were no secular forces in the Palestinian resistance and now you admit there are but they don't count because they are not in Gaza. Okay, write this down: PFLP demonstration in Gaza (There are any number of left wing Palestinian resistance videos of Youtube with scenes of both the West Bank and Gaza but most of them are in Arabic. This one has the location in the title. United we will fight this aggression and win: A statement from PFLP forces in Gaza *Dueling Powers and Capitalist Property in the United States* by Matt Russo (Please note that this is a reply to a document that I wrote called, "Who Gets to be a member of the ruling class?" The key idea of that essay can be grapsed in this excerpt, "I think houses that are bought and sold in markets like any other commodity are clearly a form of capital. The fact that the melt-down in the housing and mortgage markets was the catalyst for the current plunge into economic deep water ought to be a clue for anyone thinking about the topic (how's that for mixing metaphors?) "Home equity constitutes the most important form of capital owned by the petty bourgeois strata of the working class, and is an important part of the capital owned by the petty bourgeoisie per se. "If you look at it this way, the current economic crisis can be seen in part as a gigantic liquidation of the capital accumulated by the labor aristocracy and the entire petty bourgeoisie. "Is a house capital? Are homeowners capitalists? Who gets to be a member of the capitalist class?" The whole document can be found at, http://marxredux.blogspot.com/2008/11/who-gets-to-be-member-of-ruling-class.html It can also be found in the November marxmail archives.) * * Is worker-owner occupied housing a form of capital? This to be precise, since second or third houses are obviously in almost all cases a form of capital. And if so, does this make the worker-owner a member of the "ruling class"? The answer to the first can be yes if it can be shown that owner occupied housing circulates in the the form of commercial or merchant's capital. The worker who is paid enough to afford a mortgage can act as a merchant upon sale of the house, carrying out an arbitrage not over space, as with the classical merchant, but over time sufficient to realize a cash equity upon that sale. What is put forward here is that this has been the case with the United States throughout its history, and - outside the smaller Anglo settler states of Canada and Australia/New Zealand - was uniquely the case with the U.S. until quite recently, when "home ownership" as a speculative commodity spread to selected parts of Western Europe and East Asia, and even more recently beyond the core of key imperialist states in to the Mediterranean zone, Eastern Europe and major Russian cities, as well as parts of China, India and the Middle East, giving for the first time in history a global scope and force to the present mortgage bubble bust and subsequent financial collapse. In many of these latter countries it is not at all clear that owner occupied housing has been the speculative plaything of privileged proletarians, but there can be no doubt of this in the case of the archetype, the United States. The focus, then, will be limited to this state. It should be a timely focus, as the present financial and economic crisis has precisely as its central question the viability of this hybrid form of capitalist property - a.k.a. "The American Middle Class". That the well paid worker has to carry out this mercantile arbitrage over time speaks to the fact that this particular (indeed peculiar) form of capitalist property is the result of not one but multiple determinations, which are not simply that of the superstructure of imperialism which permit capitalists to pay "surplus wages" to workers of imperialist countries, but historically in the case of the U.S. also took the form of the small freeholder state (first fully realized under Andrew Jackson), fed by a surplus that was the result of a classic act of primitive accumulation in the form of the expropriation of an entire continent from its original user inhabitants, and was generally not the the fruit of an imperialist hegemony or domination exercised over other states, feudal, modern or otherwise by the U.S.. The post-agrarian successor form at the end of the 19th century was as a component part of variable capital, coinciding with the rise of American state power in the world system, enabling a surplus to be redistributed by means of successful interimperialist competition to workers wages in the U.S.. It is critical to grasp here that the very recent legacy - a legacy still living all the way up to World War 2 - of the agrarian freeholder state acted as a powerful lever to force the redistribution of a portion of the surplus into worker's wages sufficient to enable home ownership. This potential merchant's capital is at the same time, and in the meantime, a component of consumption necessary for the reproduction of labor power. To realize this potential required that a portion of that variable capital be transformed into homeowner property by means of the mortgage. It is for this very reason that a third determination must enter, that of money capital in the form of residential mortgages, for even the highly paid worker must still, as a worker, reproduce their capacity to labor on a daily basis, and cannot suspend this process in regards to shelter for their family for the 20 - 30 years required to accumulate the sum to purchase the residence outright. The worker is, so to speak, in the reverse position of the banker, lending their labor power short - for as Marx pointed out labor power is always expended in advance of its payment in wages - while borrowing long for ownership of housing as mercantile speculation over time. In other words this particular form of variable capital is a near perfect market complement to banking capital, and in sum this particular form of capitalist property assumes the form of variable capital (for the employing productive capital), commercial capital (for the worker-owner) and money capital (for the banker-creditor). It therefore traverses all three main spheres of capitalist production as a whole: commodity production, circulation, and realization of capital as a commodity. This can give it a profound weight in capitalist society as a whole should this form of capital attain sufficient economic weight. However an entire historical transition had to be navigated before a substantial layer of the U.S. working class could replace the former settler agrarians as the mass foundation of the freeholder state. This substitution, preserving the old 19th century basis of the state, was truly a social innovation of U.S. capitalism. At the same time it also involved maintenance of the 19th century structure of "dual" balance of power in the state that acted as a constraint upon the capitalist class. Understanding this transition and its structure will go a long way to explain why a "socialist consciousness" has not yet developed in the American working class. As to the second question: "Who is a member of the ruling class". Here first of all there is some potential for confusion in the manner of phrasing the question. The "ruling class" is neither identical to the capitalist class nor the capitalist class plus the mass of the petit bourgeoisie. For the word "ruling" to have any meaning here, it must be distinguished from the concept of a socially dominant class. The capitalist class per se, as owners of the majority of capital, is the socially dominant class, but it is far too tiny a percentage of the population to actually rule society directly. For that it has always required an extended layer of petit bourgeois intellectual functionaries in all spheres of social life - constituting a sort of "ideological apparatus", as Althusser might have put it (though not necessarily "of the state", where I think Althusser errs, as this apparatus is not necessarily coterminous with the state). It is this layer that permits the capitalist class to reproduce itself as the dominant class while this layer is also the favored route of the petit bourgeois into potentially entering the capitalist class, although the vast majority remain in this nevertheless most privileged sector of the petit bourgeoisie. In the definition here, the sum of these constitutes the "ruling class". The early modern bourgeoisie ruled exclusively in this manner up until the French and American Revolutions. Between the American, French and Jacksonian political revolutions we have the emergence of a "democratic" petit bourgeoisie forming a sphere of "civil society" beyond the state as both a mass social support for, and constraint upon, capitalism. With this a second determination enters in the definition of "ruling class" in the form of a distinction between "ruling" and exercising a limited and partial power in the state. The ruling class in this case rules "hegemonically" in conjunction with some form of small capitalist property. This also led to a distinction between political regimes in the 19th century and persisting well into the 20th. At one pole were the "Britains", including post 1871 Germany, Italy, Japan and so forth , relatively narrow capitalist oligarchies ruling still in the 18th century manner where land ownership was monopolized by a post-feudal pseudo-aristocracy and therefore had a weak mass petit-bourgeoisie excluded from the exercise of power in the state. This is generally the situation of "ground rent" as Marx analyzed in Vol. 3 of Capital. At best in this case, as in Britain, there was a layer of small "shopkeepers" consisting of a form of capitalist property divorced, though, from ownership of land. These shopkeepers could therefore just as easily bloc with the emerging propertyless London proletariat as with the political regime, as they did until the Napoleonic Wars, or with the Chartist movement at the latest. France, as a result of the Revolution, was an intermediate case, with a politically active rural and urban mass petit bourgeoisie in an unstable balance with the capitalist class that oscillated between Bonapartist and parliamentary regimes at least until 1871, when this pattern came to an end with the suppression of the Paris Commune. Its Bonapartist phases reflected a rise in the influence of the petit bourgeoisie in the state, but the sharp difference in forms of capitalist property between the petit bourgeoisie of the city and country prevented a stable and enduring representation in the state based on a homogeneous form of property - instead the rural petit bourgeoisie, following the Napoleonic tradition, tended to favor the Army as representative institution. The origin of the small freeholder form of capitalist property in the United States as a foundation of the state, and its transformation into the form of the worker homeowner as a continuation of that foundation, will be covered in the next installment. From anthony.boynton at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 20:43:47 2009 From: anthony.boynton at gmail.com (Anthony Boynton) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 22:43:47 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Some comments on Dueling Powers and Capitalist Property in the United States Message-ID: <7b8a676d0901021943q4f2db93x5e3fc23a774ee83f@mail.gmail.com> *Some comments on Dueling Powers and Capitalist Property in the United States* I like Matt Russo's essay and think that in many ways it an advance on what I wrote. (See "Who Gets to be a member of the ruling class?" in the November Marxism list archive or at http://marxredux.blogspot.com/2008/11/who-gets-to-be-member-of-ruling-class.html ) Here are a few comments. When Russo talked about home ownership spreading. I think that there has been a lot more than just "spreading". In all kinds of bourgeois political science, economics, and especially law, there is a lot of discussion of creating well-defined property rights where they do not, or did not exist. The neo-cons think this is one of the keys to capitalist well-being for a whole range of reasons, most importantly establishment of a state structure that will protect the property they buy or steal. The reason is that 'property' owned wholly and discretely by one legal entity is relatively new, especially and most importantly for this discussion, property in land. In Latin America, a great deal of the social conflict that has taken place since the Spanish conquest has been for the control of land, peasant land invasions countered by gang terror of would be big land-owners or already big land-owners. The "wild west" of the USA featured this kind of conflict, too. Buying and selling of land in an "orderly" fashion regulated by the state is still a fiction in many parts of Colombia. Home ownership here has come from organized land invasions, which were later "legalized", as often as it has from purchasing a plot of land and building on it. Buying a ready made house or apartment is very new. One point of disagreement I have with Russo concerns his characterization of the source of the high wages of US workers at the end of the 19th century. Russo wrote, *"*The post-agrarian successor form at the end of the 19th century was as a component part of variable capital, coinciding with the rise of American state power in the world system, enabling a surplus to be redistributed by means of successful inter-imperialist competition to workers wages in the U.S.." I do not think that the surplus "redistributed" to workers wages resulted from successful inter-imperialist competition by the US, certainly not before WWI. I think the working class of the United States had historically high wages because of the unique labor market formed through the primitive accumulation of land. The fact that many workers could become free-holders caused a permanent shortage of labor and permanently high wages compared to Europe or Asia. Slavery, black chattel slavery, was the temporary solution to this "problem" for southern plantation agriculture. After the civil war the victorious alliance of northern capitalists and free-holders both got what they wanted: the Homestead Act and open borders for mass importation of starving workers ? give us your huddled masses! The two caused a very volatile new situation: a rapidly expanding class of free-holders leading to rapid geographical expansion westward leading to rapid expansion of demand for manufactured goods, leading to rapidly expanding demand for labor, leading to rising wages, leading to a financial crash and then renewed expansion, all of this tempered by an enormous inflationary influx of California gold.... Basically, the closure of the frontier signaled the coming end of the high wage American working class, as long as immigration from Europe and Asia continued. This was clearly understood by the privileged white, racist, workers, who fought against immigration tooth and nail ? even when they themselves were immigrants. (Most of the socialist left was also anti-immigrant.) The prospect of ending the high wage labor market through immigration was halted by WWI. In other words, the solution envisaged by post-Civil War Republican capitalism through massive immigration was cut short by events outside of the USA. Surplus value from US imperialist exploitation of other countries, in the sense that Lenin talked about, did not become important until after the Spanish American war, and even then was not a key to working class wages until probably the 1950's. I think imperialism, modern imperialism, is mostly about rents and monopoly profits. And the most important rents have been the rent from oil and other fossil fuel production. US imperialism's "benefits" were first felt by US workers in the form of cheap bananas from the United Fruit company et. al.. Imports of other primary products before WWII, especially copper, had a contradictory impact on US workers (e.g. cheap Chilean copper allowing copper companies to withstand miners strikes, break unions, drive down wages, but cheap Chilean copper also allowing for cheaper electrification of the country). Ironically, mass production of automobiles created a strong impetus for imperialism to reinforce the privileges of the working class which ? if it maintained its privliged position - could become the mass market for the new product. World Wars I and II provided the means to "redistribute" surplus value to the working class in the form of redistributing the rents from the oil fields imperialism gained control over in the Middle East, Latin America, Indonesia, etc. the redistribution of these rents took place through the extremely low rents imposed on oil producing countries from the end of WWII until 1973 and even after. Profits from US investments outside of the US, prior to the cold war, were not big enough to account for the high standard of living of US workers prior to the depression. Redistribution of the rents from oil production was the key to this imperialist redistribution. (The fact that it took place in very different ways in Europe and the USA, does not change its overall importance.) Basically Russo defines "class" in two different ways: according to relations to means of production and distribution (capitalist class), and according to exercise of political power in the state (ruing class). My point, probably not made clearly in my earlier document, was that sticking to defining social class by relation to means of production and distribution, rather than using other methods of defining social class is a clearer, more Marxian method. (And therefore, the capitalist class is the ruling class, in my view.) How it rules, is another, more complex, issue. Russo's sketch and the book by Domhoff, and a lot of sociology, define that process as it works itself out through the different layers of the petty bourgeoisie. Which comes back to the point above. I do not think the working class, or any segment of it, including the petty bourgeois home-owning aristocracy of labor segment, is part of the ruling class. However, the labor aristocracy is firmly attached to the capitalist class by strong social relations starting with homeownership. * * Anthony From markalause at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 21:33:57 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 23:33:57 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Dueling Powers and Capitalist Property in the United States by Matt Russo In-Reply-To: <7b8a676d0901021919x664b0d49n779d6bdca6d2301e@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b8a676d0901021919x664b0d49n779d6bdca6d2301e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Just a few offhanded comments, related to issues on this I've raised earlier.... 1. The role of the small freeholders in the American capitalist state was always exaggerated in the political rhetoric of the period, as has been their descendant...Joe the Plumber. The misunderstanding of the rhetorical and subjective (rather than social and objective--and I hate even using these terms) actually obscures the most important feature of the Jacksonian "revolution": the emergence of mass politics and the mechanisms by which the ruling class systematically manufactures its perceived legitimacy. 2. The comparison of freeholds used for agricultural purposes and the allotments on which we have private dwellings in the U.S. are an apples and oranges comparison. Regards, Mark L. From jbustelo at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 22:01:49 2009 From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 00:01:49 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Che's view on hoods ? In-Reply-To: <704103.55929.qm@web24604.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <704103.55929.qm@web24604.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6E0DCC7A5E9744EF965D57F195861C37@albanta> I'm conducting a survey. I want to know how many email lists you have spammed with this same idiot question. Joaquin From ratbagradio at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 00:19:54 2009 From: ratbagradio at gmail.com (Ratbag Media) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 17:19:54 +1000 Subject: [Marxism] Watch Tommy Sheridan in the Big Brother House Message-ID: <57b410090901022319i48a64e84w40d83f0478b31421@mail.gmail.com> http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/housemates/profile.jsp?housemateId=58 Jim Jepps comments: http://jimjay.blogspot.com/2009/01/big-brother.html Anyway, it's with great delight that I just watched (online) the moment left wing Scottish politician Tommy Sheridan (right) entered the house. With the crowd booing something rotten (they didn't seem to do this for the others, I'm surprised they knew who he was) Sheridan made a brisk walk to the entrance in what must have been extremely intimidating circumstances. I'm fascinated by the idea that he'll be spending the next however long chatting to LaToya Jackson (who eyed him skeptically when he entered the house), and Mini-Me from Austin Powers (hearty handshake), who incidentally must be a shoe in for the winner. His BB biog says that apart from being a socialist politician he's "a qualified gym instructor and describes himself as a control freak. He enjoys sunbeds, touching his nose and scratching his bum." Well I never. The touching his nose thing made it very tempting to make a remark about Pinocchio, as he's on bail for perjury, but see... I've resisted! (see what I've said about him in the past here ...) Whether Tommy will be able to top Galloway's performance it's hard to tell. Galloway was superb (sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for the horror of it) and I can see the spark of greatness in Sheridan. Unfortunately, I'm unlikely to have the time to follow his antics properly but I will definitely make an effort to see the many highlights that I'm sure are to come. Almost the first thing he said to his fellow housemates had me in stitches. "Let the madness begin!" I couldn't agree more Tommy, could not agree more. From jbustelo at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 00:24:59 2009 From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 02:24:59 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Dueling Powers and Capitalist Property in the UnitedStates by Matt Russo In-Reply-To: <7b8a676d0901021919x664b0d49n779d6bdca6d2301e@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b8a676d0901021919x664b0d49n779d6bdca6d2301e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <11994206EFED441F8018376EB49A1405@albanta> Anthony Boynton wrote: "I think houses that are bought and sold in markets like any other commodity are clearly a form of capital." Yeah, that's what the ruling class has been preaching for decades, and I guess some "Marxists" have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The "ownership" society and all that. Boynton's blog post argues that people buy houses expecting to profit. "Every person who buys a home in the United States, or at least every person who bought one in the past, expected to gain a portion of the surplus value generated throughout the society. The belief that real estate prices inevitably and inexorably rise is deeply held in all layers of society in the United States. And, over the long run, it has been historically true." It is not true that people automatically assumed they could make a killing by buying a house. "Desirable" neighborhoods are in a constant state of flux, as developers and local banks (the latter until the last decade or two, when local banking was gradually abandoned) manipulated local governments to create ground rent differentials. The basic trick is you let a neighborhood get real run down, then you move in and gentrify it, making top dollar because you bought in when it was cheap, and sold when you transformed it into a luxury neighborhood. Savvy people have always exercised a great deal of care NOT to buy into neighborhoods about to go into decline, and those who DO buy in less desirable areas do so because they can't afford anything more. Also, for most working class families with children, when you buy a house you're also "buying" the right to send your child to a certain school. That's one of the main things that makes "middle class" neighborhoods desirable. This is all easily verifiable by anyone who turns to the real estate section of their local Sunday paper or the corresponding area of its web site. There's detailed information on where prices are going up or down, recent sales by zip code, how many houses have sold, for how much, a feature about some new development or high rise and so on. What Anthony describes is the sucker-bait laid before people by shyster loan brokers who said, but this half million dollar house and I'll give you a 2% interest rate for the first three years, and then you can sell it before the real interest rate kicks in and make a nice killing. That's how the housing bubble was inflated. And then after much hemming and hawing and quoting Marx, Anthony says in his blog: "This is the famous formula for capital of M-C-M which Marx explains at length in Volume 1 of Das Kapital. If we define a house as a commodity, then the formula can easily be applied. Money is invested in the house in order to gain more money when the house is later sold. (The only important variation in this formula when the commodity happens to be a house (or any other form of real estate), as compared to other types of commodities, is that the amount of time between the first transaction and the second transaction could be longer for real estate.)" The fallacy in the argument is Anthony's facile assumption that gains based on comparisons of nominal purchase and selling prices are real. But the nominal contract price is only a part of the cost of owning a house. Start with inflation, averaging 3% a year. That is a real "cost" because you want to get back not the same nominal dollars, but the same purchasing power. Add a mortgage, say 6%-7%, property taxes of 1%-2%, as well as maintenance, 2% a year, and house prices have to increase at an average annual rate of 12%-14%, i.e., double every 5-6 years, to keep up, in reality 1% more to take into account the transaction costs of selling a house (7% typically, and the "average" period of home ownership is seven years). Oh, and I forgot house insurance. Add 1/2%-1% for that. So let's look at an example: I've lived in the same townhouse for 10 years. My down payment was around $5,000, the original mortgage was for around $82,000; I still owe something like $70,000. In this neighborhood right now you might get $120,000 for this house. But having been paying around $700 (including insurance and taxes) a month for the mortgage for 10 years I've laid out $84,000, not counting a ton of other expenses. So if I were to sell it for $120,000, I would get $113,000 (subtracting the commission for real estate agents) or $26,000 more than I "paid" for it ($87,000), and I'd have $43,000 left over after paying the mortgage. Even if the house had doubled in price over 10 years (7% average annual increase), selling for $174,000, there would be around $163,000 left after real estate commissions and $93,000 after the mortgage. So I've paid $84,000 in mortgage, $5,000 down, and even leaving maintenance etc, completely out of it, I got $93,000 BACK for my $89,000 PAID OUT. But it gets worse, since those original $5,000 were decade-ago dollars, worth something like $1.40 or $1.50 today, and then you'd have to do the corresponding calculation for each year's mortgage payment to translate to current dollars, and you will see you paid out A LOT MORE than you're getting back. Now you may think I made a particularly poor choice of house; don't house prices rise more than mine has? Not really. The house pricing numbers that float around have a very sharp, systematic upward bias. Because the housing stock is constantly being replenished. And you have 2,000-3,000 square foot homes replacing 900-1200 square foot homes built right after WWII. The "average selling price of existing single-family dwellings" becomes an increasingly apples-to-oranges comparison because prices may have doubled in the last 10 years, but they are not the prices for the same houses. Some percent --15, 20 or 25-- of this year's "used" houses are ones built within the last ten years; they have replaced 10, 15 or 20 percent of the houses that were selling a decade ago, and precisely the smaller, older, less attractive houses in "declining" neighborhoods with lower selling prices. To get a REAL average figure you'd have to include in the calculation the price of houses that leave the market (lower than even an empty lot because it costs money to clear away the rubble, and as likely as not in neighborhood where ground rent is very low). And to figure out the real appreciation of *existing* housing stock over that ten year period you'd need to EXCLUDE all new construction, and ONLY count houses that were already there a decade ago. Am I saying that the American public has been taken for a ride with a bunch of hoakey, propagandistic "facts" about the "benefits" of home ownership? Think about it: Federal, state and local governments are all for home ownership, banks are for it, real estate developers are for it. When was the last time all these sorts of people got together to promote something that actually BENEFITS the working class? A given home in a specific neighborhood will not appreciate nearly as much as housing price indices suggest. The ones who make the real killing are real estate developers and redevelopers (for example through gentrification). Does this mean people are better of renting? Probably not, except for perhaps the lowest-income quarter or third of the population, at least not usually. If you can use the interest and real estate tax deduction and are likely to stay put for a few years, you will be better off "buying," and the longer you stay put --all other things being equal-- the greater the benefit, because your monthly housing payment is likely not to go up nearly as fast as inflation (if you have a fixed-rate mortgage). In the end, you're likely to clear some money, but nothing like what government and industry-promoted statistics suggest, or the phony "case studies" "calculators" and other garbage that newspapers put in their housing sections. Especially important is that at some point, houses have to be "renovated" or otherwise the danger is you fall out of the top tier of the retail market for houses like yours in your neighborhood and have to sell it as a "fixer upper." That, including the new appliances, built-in microwave and so on, new carpeting or flooring, new kitchen cabinets, etc., costs many thousands of dollars. * * * There is, in addition, something much more fundamentally unsound with Anthony's argument. Which is that the point Marx makes in Capital is that capital is not merely a monetary or economic power, but a SOCIAL one. In the last analysis, in this kind of society economic relations are NOT between people and things, they are between people (and classes of people) and OTHER people. It may be an easy thing to say that just because you have a few thousand dollars earning interest in a bank or a couple of hundred thousand in a 401K that you're now an "investor," a capitalist. As current events show, those "investments" did not entitle you to any return on your "capital." And UNLIKE the REAL capitalists, regular working people whose retirement savings have been decimated ARE NOT going to get "bailed out" by the government. That tells you who is in the REAL ruling class. If you can go to the government and say, gee, I lost a bunch of money could you print up some more and give it to me, and the government says, sure, then you're part of the ruling class. If your "capital" is your house and some retirement savings, you're really NOT an "investor" or part of the "ownership society," you're just a working stiff -- notwithstanding what Barak, Bush or Boynton may say to the contrary. Joaquin From suklasenp at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jan 3 01:36:19 2009 From: suklasenp at yahoo.co.uk (Sukla Sen) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 08:36:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Marxism] India, Indian Poor and the Economic Crisis: An Informed Assessment Message-ID: <874925.45296.qm@web23005.mail.ird.yahoo.com> [The sub-prime crisis in the US rather unobtrusively graduated into full-scale national financial meltdown. Then the financial institutions elsewhere, particularly in the Europe, got affected. That triggered off the credit crisis in turn inaugurating an economic slowdown/recession, threatening to turn into a "depression" with nightmarish visions of unending queues leading to soup kitchens associated with it, all over the globe, even if with intensities significantly varying across continents and nations. A system, fairly complex to begin with, became far more so, with the level of global integrations radically rising over the last quarter century in particular. The evolution of the financial market into more and more complex further added to the overall opacity. Consequently, even today, there is no adequate understanding of the dynamics of the crisis - on the Right, Left and Centre. Never mind the pompous claims of Nostradamus-like foresight. Consequently, apart from specific interests and ideological predilections, the solutions suggested, and actual responses, are mostly of the nature of trial and error. Two broad trends have emerged. One, tinker with the fiscal policies. Give more tax incentives and easier/softer credit to private capital to boost production and economy and also provide similar palliatives to the consumer and boost consumption/economy. The other one is more direct government intervention. In the US, the government initially intervened to rescue the banking and non-banking financial institutions while maintaining a sort of hands off policy as regards the management of these failed institutions. The UK, in a rather surprising divergent move away from the path trodden by the US, intervened more vigorously to rescue the banking institutions by injecting capital into the banking industry by way of taking over shares (and thereby part ownership), instead of picking up "toxic assets" as in the US. Another sub-trend is to raise the level of state intervention much further - state directly making huge investments, and allocating resources for social welfare, to boost the economy, and regulate popular discontent, almost overnight throwing overboard the considerations of "fiscal prudence" and avoiding deficit financing at any cost - raised to the level of a sacred concept under the neo-liberal regime since early eighties. China is the major example. But Barack Obama, the President-elect of the US, is intent upon hitting this path in an even bigger way despite the formidable legislative hurdles anticipated. India, rather coyly, is still toying with the most timid alternatives trying to stick to the neo-liberal dogma as closely as possible. The fact that its ideological mentors have already strayed from the path straight and narrow is yet to properly register with the slow-witted Indian rulers. The fact that a general election is just round the corner otherwise demands a very different response though. Sukla] 2008: a difficult year Relief not in sight soon by Arun Kumar The Tribune, January 1, 2009. THE year 2008 started on a high with the economy doing well, stock markets at a historic high, the real estate sector booming, industrial growth running at upwards of 10 per cent and inflation at a low level. The Finance Minister boasted that the macro-economic fundamentals were good and the Eleventh Plan target of 9 per cent average growth rate viable. There was little inkling that policy making circles understood that a deep economic downturn had set in India and the entire world. Contrasting this rosy picture, the year has ended with widespread reports of declining employment, stock markets down by 50 per cent to the levels of 2006, declining real estate markets, poor industrial growth and exports showing negative growth and many components of the services sector declining rather than rising. This has happened despite the unprecedented interventions by the government and the Reserve Bank ? the infusion of massive liquidity, a huge supplementary budget and the announcement of the first package of fiscal stimulus soon to be followed by a second one. The FRBM has been given a quiet burial. The year also saw much turmoil due to a rapid acceleration of inflation from its lows in January to the highs in the middle and to a rapid decline at the end. It seemed that the government had lost control because at one point it admitted that it could do little to keep inflation in check by pleading that it was stable and not rising further. Internationally, the crude oil prices, which had reached a peak of around $150 per barrel, have sharply fallen to around $40 in spite of the threatened cut in production by oil producers. In fact, many like Goldman Sachs had predicted that the price of crude would be around $200 by the end of 2008. Similarly, given the blistering pace of the rise in the BSE, experts predicted that it would touch 30,000 ? three times the level ruling currently. All this calls into question the expertise of the so-called experts and policy makers. The year began with policy makers and experts suggesting a decoupling between the Asian and the US and European economies. They suggested that the rapidly growing economies of Asia will provide the boost to the advanced economies so that there would be a soft landing for the world. This was based more on hope and hype rather than on analysis (As argued in these columns on February 6, 2008). These economies were already at their peak growth rates and could not double them which was required to compensate for a decline in the rates of growth in the OECD economies. Further, since China is heavily dependent on exports to these economies and India is much more open than earlier, if anything, their rates of growth were bound to fall. These two economies could not move in a direction opposite to that of the bigger economies, as events have borne out. Clearly, all along, the policy makers and experts have been hoodwinking by denying the reality. They also fooled themselves and did not take timely steps so that the situation became worse than it should have, and now everyone is paying for it. The rich have lost a lot of paper wealth on their financial assets where much of their savings were invested. These people also had a substantial amount of their black wealth stashed away abroad because this was invested in financial instruments. These people were also operating real, nuts and bolts companies or offices and due to the slowdown, these are in trouble. The contagion has spread from the financial markets to the real economy. All this has impacted the middle classes who have linkages in the organised sectors. Many of them are in the process of losing jobs and their children are not getting the good jobs they expected. Further, a large part of their savings in financial assets ? stocks, real estate, mutual funds, etc. ? have been wiped out. In recent times they were lured by stories of high returns, and greed won over caution. Many NRIs will possibly return as they lose jobs abroad and add to the employment pressures. Remittances that supported many families are likely to dry up, leaving families in trouble. Public sector employees with safe employment will have a good time as prices fall. Some argue that the poor will not be hit by the current crisis because they are marginal to the market and especially the financial markets. This is fallacious because the marginal are coercively linked to the markets in a one-way relationship. While they derived little benefits from the high but marginalising growth, they will suffer from the decline. Even if they lose a few rupees a day of income, it will be calamitous for them since they are at the edge of survival. As unemployment builds up the world over, wages will fall and disguised unemployment will rise. The price fall will help but not enough. Employers in the unorganised sectors and the rich farmers, who will be squeezed by the crisis, will put the squeeze downwards and affect adversely the incomes of the poor. Government programmes like rural employment schemes can help the poor but corruption moderates its effect. Agriculture in India has been increasingly export-oriented, and there has been a shift towards commercial crops and high-cost agriculture. The markets for these commodities have declined sharply and the slide can continue unless prices are sharply lowered, but then the surplus farmers will lose out. The traders will put the squeeze downwards and the farmers will do the same to the landless workers. In India, big and medium-sized firms buy from the smaller units in the unorganised sectors. As these units face a decline in demand, they will be forced to shut partially or wholly, reduce shifts and cut prices which is possible only if they squeeze either the wages or the smaller ancillary suppliers (possibly both) who in turn will squeeze their workers. Thus, wages of workers are likely to decline all around and their employment curtailed. Governments all over the world have put together huge packages of interventions to prevent their financial sectors from collapsing but done relatively little for the real economy and the poor. This has certainly slowed the decline but it is still continuing. The problem this time is different than in 1929 and much deeper, linked to the basics of the world economic system. Merely trying to reflate the economies without any basic change will not work. In India, the NEP, launched in 1991, depended on the proper functioning of the global financial system. But because this is now collapsing, the success of NEP is in doubt. While the marginalised sections were suffering and continue to suffer, now the beneficiaries of the NEP are being grievously hurt. In the changed global scenario, the NEP need a rethink. Many companies are close to bankruptcy if not bankrupt; the public does not trust the present financial system. So it has ground to a halt and due to extreme uncertainty, everyone wishes to remain liquid rather than invest. The crisis has been building since 2006 without our recognising it and we are still groping for solutions because these have to be out of box and this will take time. If the social and political situation deteriorates with rising unemployment and destitution, then even big economic interventions will not succeed and governments will become helpless. While 2008 has closed on a difficult note, 2009 appears to be heading for deeper trouble. The writer teaches at JNU, New Delhi. arunkumar1000 at hotmail.com From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 02:43:33 2009 From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 04:43:33 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Example answer to "why don't you protest rocket attacks" question Message-ID: <908b689f0901030143x5e093f3m84f3a3c44f313199@mail.gmail.com> I think this (below) may be of use to others who are confronted by the same "why don't you protest rocket attacks" question, to engage the questioner in a reasonable discussion that could change minds. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ruthless Critic <> Date: Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 4:31 AM Subject: demonstrations in protest against Gaza bombing To: Piotr <> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Piotr <> wrote: > I just wanted to take a moment and protest these emails. I understand this > is a group promoting peace and understanding, and naturally the members will > hold different views. However, it is kind of funny that no one here > suggested holding a protest against the rockets that were and are > specifically targeting civilian areas. It seems to me, that this group will > fail like all of its predecessors. Please be more understanding and stop > sending these mass emails supporting demonstrations by people who do not > even recognize Israel's right to exist. > > B'Shalom. Hi Piotr and others, I am the person who sent the email. Let me correct Piotr when he says that the demonstration was "by people who do not even recognize Israel's right to exist". That is not correct, because I, myself am a counter-example: I *participated* in Tuesday's demonstration, and I certainly do recognize Israel's right to exist as a democratic state. Nor did I hear any slogan being raised during the Tuesday demonstration, nor did I see any sign at the Tuesday demonstration, that denied Israel's right to exist. Many people compare the situation of the people in Gaza today, with that of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto in occupied Poland. Let me assure you that, if I had been alive at that time (during World War II), I most certainly would have marched in protest against the attack on the Warsaw Ghetto. Below are some probable reasons as to why there have not been protests against rockets launched from Gaza (which Piotr wonders about). (1) In my view, it is much more of a matter of concern when a *State* commits human rights violations, than when individuals, or even a group of individuals, commits a criminal act. The scale of violence is simply different (larger) by many orders of magnitude, when the violence is committed by state actors rather than by non-state actors. (2) Since we're in the US, and Israel is a direct recipient of a lot of military aid from the USA (in fact the F-16 bombers used in the bombings are US-made), it is quite natural that people in the US would be more concerned about violence committed by Israel than by that committed by Hamas. After all, your and my money (as US taxpayers) is directly being used to carry out the bombings. That is not the case in the case of Hamas rockets. So, it is perfectly understandable, and even justifiable, I think, to participate in protests against Israeli state-sponsored violence even if one is not participating in or organizing protests against Hamas rockets. (3) Just as one could ask the question why there have been no protests against Hamas rockets, one could also ask the question why there have not been any protests against the barriers to passage of pretty much all sorts of goods in and out of Gaza by Israel, over a period of many months. Sick Palestinian patients routinely die because they are blocked at checkpoints by Israel and cannot get to the hospital. Many neutral parties have described the state of Gaza under Israeli blockade as being like a giant concentration camp or open-air prison. If months and months of such humiliation and oppression lead some people to shoot rockets, that is probably an understandable reaction (although certainly not a justifiable reaction). (4) Finally, there is simply the matter of scale. Of course all human life is precious, but the bombing of Gaza is creating way too many deaths compared to deaths that have been caused by rocket firings. Given that Gaza has 1.5 million people, the 400+ people killed by bombing so far is (proportionately) like the 3000+ who were killed in the 9/11 attacks in the USA (which has a population of about 300 million), if you compare the number of deaths to the total population. So, you can see why this is simply a HUGE number of deaths. I am neither Arab nor Jewish. The reason I participate in these protests is because I stand in solidarity with people who are being oppressed. Not because of any parochial reasons. . From Jscotlive at aol.com Sat Jan 3 02:55:06 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 04:55:06 EST Subject: [Marxism] Palestine and revolution Message-ID: Sobuad still doesn't get it. It is clear to me that his interpretation of Marxism has resulted in him erecting an ideological war around himself, designed to keep out any and all forces that he considers may threaten his Marxist purity. In my experience such people are insecure about their politics, scared to deviate from a syllable of Marxist text for fear of losing an identity constructed not from the living material of struggle and contradiction which exists, but from the struggles of the past. It is a grievous mistake for any Marxist to attempt to transmute Marx's conclusions onto to the current situation in any given period. On the contrary we use Marx's method - dialectical thinking - to arrive at our own analysis based on prevailing material conditions. In his latest attempt to counterpose one section of Palestinian opposition to Israeli ethnic cleansing to another, Sobaud writes: 'You will not get everyone to line up and anoint Hamas,and its Islamacist program, as the only authentic expression of Palestinian nationalism.' So there we have it. For Sobaud and his co-thinkers the essential struggle AT THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT, with Israeli tanks poised to roll over Gaza, is not one between Palestinian resistance, currently led by an organisation called Hamas, with an arsenal of homemade rockets, rudimentary assault weapons, stones, and slingshots at its disposal, and a state with the fourth largest military in the world that is committed to the destruction of the Palestinian people,culture, and national identity. No, for Sobaud and his co-thinkers the essential struggle is between the Palestinians themselves, between the secular forces and those he denounces as Islamo-fascists. Christopher Hitchens, Nick Cohen, Bernard-Henri Levy, this is the eminent company of leftists who would have no problem whatsoever with the latest musings from Sobaud. As Trotsky wrote: 'Moral evaluations, together with political ones, flow from the inner needs of struggle.' The fatal flaw which runs through and informs Sobaud's entire analysis is that he is focused on the wrong struggle entirely. For him the intrinsic struggle in the Middle East, and the world I presume, is one between secularism and religious fundamentalism. For me it is between the interests of the international working class and global imperialism, with religious fundamentalism merely a symptom of that struggle. Lenin understood this. It is why he amended Marx's 'workers of the world unite' to 'workers and oppressed peoples of the world unite', doing so in order to bring the colonial peoples into the orbit of struggle, into one united and international resistance against capitalism. As Marxists engaged in struggle we do not have friends. We do, however, have common interests, which must needs take us into alliances in order to further those interests at any given time. We understand that the rise of religious fundamentalism in the Middle East as an expression of resistance to the West, to imperialism, is a relatively recent phenomenon, in the wake of the destruction and defeat of the forces of secular resistance which formerly obtained under a unified and coherent leadership. We understand that this turn towards anti-modernity reflects this defeat of secular forces, ideology and politics in the region, in line with the distorting impact of Western imperialism, which retards the natural development of the peoples it enslaves. The issue therefore at a time when the world is confronted with the beast of neoliberalism in its most extreme stage, is not the content of the resistance but resistance itself. James Connolly understood this when he brought his volunteers into alliance with Irish Nationalists, Catholic fundamentalists to the core, in his struggle against British imperialism in 1916. His oft repeated quote about his men holding onto their weapons should they succeed for they would then have a new enemy to fight is germaine to the current conflict in Palestine, and Iraq, and for that matter Afghanistan. But crucially Connolly understood that the time for that particular struggle was in the future, that the fundamental role of Marxists and revolutionarieslay in fighting the correct struggle as demanded by the law of historical development. So today as I march in Edinburgh against Israel's assault on the Palestinians of Gaza, I intend leaving my checklist of approval with regard to the Palestinian people and their resistance at home. I suggest that Sobaud and others do likewise. This would not only be in service to the Palestinian people, it would also and perhaps more importantly be in service to Marxism as a living science. John Wight Edinburgh, Scotland From Jscotlive at aol.com Sat Jan 3 03:16:31 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 05:16:31 EST Subject: [Marxism] Example answer to "why don't you protest rocket attacks" question Message-ID: I think the answer to this question is far more straightforward. To those who ask why the Palestinians continue to fire homemade rockets at Israel, the answer is simply because they do not have the Merkava tanks, Hellfire missiles, and F16s that the Israelis have. Give the Palestinians the tanks and the missiles and aircraft, and give the Israelis the homemade rockets, and the question is answered. From jeanmarat1793 at yahoo.gr Sat Jan 3 03:32:55 2009 From: jeanmarat1793 at yahoo.gr (Anonym Need) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 02:32:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] Che's view on hoods ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <394006.24783.qm@web24608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> "Real revolutionaries do not go about wearing hoods(=capuchas) for one more reason : At the time of revolution the people must recognise in the faces of the revolutionaries its vanguard. The people doesn't value meddling with hooded ones(=encapuchados)." It's not my quote, it's by CP of Greece (claiming it's by Guevara) so as to disavow the recent riots in Greece. I think it's a forgery and I would be pleased if you could help instead of attacking me. I don't see any reason for anyone to be offensive. ___________________________________________________________ ?????????????? Yahoo!; ?????????? ?? ?????????? ???????? (spam); ?? Yahoo! Mail ???????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????????? ???? ??? ??????????? ????????? http://login.yahoo.com/config/mail?.intl=gr From sartesian at earthlink.net Sat Jan 3 04:06:19 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (s.artesian) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 12:06:19 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [Marxism] Palestine and revolution Message-ID: <33056448.1230980779886.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> John still doesn't get it. He initiated this discussion when a comrade who had particpated and participates in demonstrations against Israel's attacks without qualification, approval, checklists, etc. etc. offered an assessment that nationalism would never be the proper tool to defeat such assaults. To that John replied with his liberal gut-check of armchairs and keyboards and no time for criticism. Now John, after arguing "this is no time for criticism," positions himself as the true defender of the true Marxism. How's that for an example of the human mind balancing mutually exclusive opposites-- no time for criticism and merciless criticism of everything in existence? Sobuad offered no checklist or criteria of purity. Sobuad and others have demonstrated their solidarity with all Palestinians against all and any Israel attacks. John however regards any deviation, any analysis of programs and policies-- of that most important of all Marxist categories, HISTORY, leading up to these assaults as, if not treachery, then equivo- cation. And to prove his false thesis, he links such "deviation"-- concrete analysis-- to providing aid and comfort to the work of Christopher Hitchins, Bernard Henri-Levy...etc. Not new, and not neat, but smear it is; made more clear by John's use of the term "Islamo-fascist" and attributing its use to Sobuad. Nobody stated that at this moment, at this time, the most important struggle is the struggle within the Palestinian movement itself. What is clear in Palestine, as it was in Ireland, is that the struggle against oppression and military barbarism cannot be divorced from a class struggle; that defense of all the Palestinians and real prospects for rolling back the tanks, as opposed to bearing witness, depends on exactly that evaluation of program, practice, and history, so distasteful to some. John says that his understanding is that the rise of religious fundamentalism is a response to imperialism and the defeat of the secular forces. The rise of religious fundamentalism is more than that. In case after case, the religious fundamentalists have been aided by the very imperialist forces they now stand in opposition to. In case after case, the religious fundamentalists participated in just that destruction of secular forces, and in the face of the common, class enemy. And this is a critical point-- for John's understanding and insistence of a "obedience" is not unity. None of that changes the need to oppose completely, without qualification, the actions of the Israelis against the Palestinians. It does mean that the time for criticism is neither in the future nor in the past. It is right now. To abdicate that responsibility is to guarantee defeat. And all the solidarity in the world can't outweigh the consequences of that defeat. In answer to John's previous question to another poster, and one which I'm sure he directs to all those who disagree with him-- No, I've never been to Palestine. Yes, I know 2 Palestinians, more than casually, one of whom I have worked politically with for years. They are both communists. -----Original Message----- >From: Jscotlive at aol.com >Sent: Jan 3, 2009 10:55 AM >To: sartesian at earthlink.net >Subject: [Marxism] Palestine and revolution From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 04:25:21 2009 From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 06:25:21 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Example answer to "why don't you protest rocket attacks" question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <908b689f0901030325v103975ebsec656853c4efb3c7@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 5:16 AM, wrote: > I think the answer to this question is far more straightforward. To those > who ask why the Palestinians continue to fire homemade rockets at Israel, the > answer is simply because they do not have the Merkava tanks, Hellfire > missiles, and F16s that the Israelis have. Give the Palestinians the tanks and the > missiles and aircraft, and give the Israelis the homemade rockets, and the > question is answered. Agreed. But the person to whom I was responding was not asking "Why do the Palestinians fire rockets at Israel?" but "Why are you protesting Israeli bombing when you don't protest Palestinian rockets?" Different questions. From lnp3 at panix.com Sat Jan 3 07:02:06 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 09:02:06 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Palestinian split hampers solidarity Message-ID: <495F6FDE.1090502@panix.com> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/03/hamas-fatah-israel-west-bank Factional divide rules out show of solidarity from the West Bank Despite a week of bombing, the long-standing rift between Hamas and Fatah prevents a united front against Israel * Rory McCarthy in Ramallah * The Guardian, Saturday 3 January 2009 The bodies of the senior Hamas leader Nizar Rayyan and his family, who were killed in an Israeli strike on their home on Thursday, are carried aloft in Jabalya. Photograph: Mohammed Salem/Reuters One cold morning this week a group of two dozen protesters walked through Ramallah carrying flags and singing quietly as they reached the steps of the Palestinian parliament building. It was supposed to be a display of Palestinian unity, a gathering of MPs of all parties brought together in shared outrage at Israel's devastating, week-long bombing of the Gaza Strip. But such scenes of unity are rare and mask a reality that has become glaringly apparent to most Palestinians: the vast physical, political and social gulf that now divides the beleaguered Gaza Strip from the West Bank barely 20 miles away. After lunchtime prayers yesterday a much larger crowd gathered in Ramallah to protest, but it descended into fist fights between supporters of rival factions. Police fired into the air. Although there have been some street protests in the West Bank this week, they have been relatively few, less copious than the demonstrations in countries abroad. Instead, while there has been sympathy for the suffering of the Palestinian citizens of Gaza, there was also - from the president down - publicly voiced criticism of the strip's rulers, the Islamist movement Hamas. After the MPs' march, Ibrahim Kharish, a senior Fatah official, spoke - with al-Jazeera's live coverage of Gaza on the television above his desk - of his extraordinary anger at Hamas. "We should have courage enough to say that this could have been avoided and that actually Hamas led to this," he said. "By taking our people and our land in Gaza under its control by force they are treating the people as hostages ... Hamas is responsible for what is going on in Gaza, not only Israel." He said Hamas, under Iranian influence, was trying to isolate Gaza to set up its own miniature Islamic state and that it had vastly miscalculated what the Israeli reaction would be to a return to rocket fire from Gaza. "The people didn't elect them to act like this," Kharish said. The Hamas-Fatah antagonism goes back years. They were at each other's throats a decade ago, in effect fighting to lead the Palestinian national movement. Fatah won then, but its position gradually evaporated until it lost parliamentary elections in January 2006 to Hamas, with its preference for armed struggle over further negotiations with Israel. Within a year there was a near civil war on the streets of Gaza, one that claimed the lives of hundreds of Palestinians. It resulted in the better-organised Hamas routing Fatah and seizing full control of Gaza in June 2007 and left a bitter mutual hatred that months of mediation and talks have failed to calm. This week's bombing of Gaza has widened, not narrowed, that gulf. In the first hours after the bombing began, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president and Fatah leader, blamed Hamas for not extending a six-month ceasefire with Israel, even though it had been violated by both sides. When demonstrations were held in the West Bank on Sunday, the second day of the bombing campaign, anyone flying a Hamas flag was roughed up and arrested by Abbas's security forces. That apparently produced such disquiet among younger Fatah ranks that Abbas has since moderated his words, calling for a ceasefire. On Thursday he even issued an order banning criticism of Hamas. Hamas was quick to respond, accusing senior Fatah officials of collaborating with Israel by offering advice and intelligence for targeting the bombing. Some fear Abbas's forces may yet ride back into power in Gaza graced by Israeli tanks. It took an outsider to capture the depth of the crisis. "This terrible massacre would not have happened if the Palestinian people were united behind one leadership, speaking in one voice," Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said on Wednesday. These concerns are reflected among the public, and this fragmentation between the two territories may account for the relatively subdued protests. There were demonstrations in Hebron, Ramallah and Nablus at the start of the bombing, but they have not been widely repeated. More demonstrations were held by Arab-Israelis in Israel, particularly in Haifa, Jaffa and Nazareth. The gathering in Ramallah yesterday was the largest of the week. There was also some sporadic stone throwing against Israeli police in east Jerusalem after lunchtime prayers yesterday. In Gaza itself, with foreign journalists still banned, it remains impossible to gauge whether Hamas's support has fallen or rebounded as a result of the bombing. Attitudes in Ramallah were mixed. "Hamas made a mistake by entering politics," said Naji Mourad, 31, who stood at a market stall in Ramallah. "They should give up their position and go back to armed resistance. It's more honourable." Others have little time for Hamas. "This is the involvement of Iran and Syria that we're seeing in Gaza," said Nasser Tubaisi, 34, who was out shopping for a mobile phone. "We're not compassionate for Hamas - their leaders are all hiding. But we are compassionate for the people of Gaza." Those Palestinian figures who are neither members of Fatah nor Hamas tend to see the challenge most clearly. Qais Abdul Karim, a long-standing leftist MP, said he believed Israel's bombing was intended to force on the Palestinians a provisional state, rather than true independence and sovereignty. "The idea is to isolate Gaza from the West Bank completely and to throw Gaza into the arms of Egypt and to subject the West Bank to perpetual domination by Israel," he said. "Our priority must be to find a way to end our division." His concerns are not without foundation. Israelis speak openly of alternatives to a viable, independent, contiguous Palestinian state. In recent weeks Giora Eiland, a former head of Israel's national security council, proposed Jordanian control over the West Bank or a multilateral land swap between Israel, the Palestinians and Egypt which would let Israel keep a large slice of the West Bank for itself and see Gaza slide closer to the reluctant embrace of the Egyptians. Mustafa Barghouti, an independent MP who ran for the presidency at the last election, said Hamas and Fatah had been seduced into fighting over leadership of a largely powerless institution, the Palestinian National Authority - created under the Oslo accords a decade and a half ago and which gave the Palestinians the trappings of power without a state itself. "The two sides were fighting for an authority that exists only in their minds, an elusive authority," said Barghouti. "Now they see this authority is being destroyed by bombing in Gaza, and in the West Bank by an absence of credibility. Now everybody realises we are all targeted. "I say to hell with this authority if it's going to get us divided. We don't need it. Let's go back to a unified leadership. Now they are losing everything." From PoliticNow at aol.com Sat Jan 3 07:06:25 2009 From: PoliticNow at aol.com (PoliticNow at aol.com) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 09:06:25 EST Subject: [Marxism] France: New Anti-Capitalist Party `a very exciting initiative' Message-ID: France: New Anti-Capitalist Party `a very exciting initiative' Interview by Jim Jepps _http://links.org.au/node/814_ (http://links.org.au/node/814) December 22, 2008 -- There's been surprisingly little discussion in the UK on the launching of the _New Anti-Capitalist Party_ (http://www.npa2009.org/) (Nouveau Parti anticapitaliste or NPA) over the water in France. I thought I'd take a look at this interesting and significant new development and so I spoke to John Mullen, the editor of _Socialisme International_ (http://www.revue-socialisme.org/) , to see if I could find out more. You recently attended the French launch of the "New Anti-Capitalist Party". How did it go? The official founding conference will be in January 2009. For the moment there are 400 ?committees for a new anti-capitalist party? all over France. The Ligue Communiste R?volutionnaire (LCR) was the force which proposed and coordinated the foundation, and will dissolve itself into it in a couple of months time. I attended the November national delegate meeting as one of the delegates for my town. The meeting was very encouraging. The new party initiative is obviously attracting a lot of people, many of them young, others are experienced union activists, mostly (apart from the LCR members) people who have not been in a party as such before. Obviously for the moment, there is quite a lot of concentration on the preparation of a programme to be voted at the founding conference. Nevertheless many committees have been active in campaigning on the issue of the financial crisis, defending schools and universities against budget cuts, defending illegal immigrants against expulsions and so on. Four-hundred committees seems like an impressive number of groups for an organisation that hasn't even been launched yet. How do these committees operate? How large are they, for instance would you have more than one in a town? Essentially are they the new party in waiting or are they the campaign for the new party? It is impressive. In Montpellier, a day-long regional meeting got 2000 people to it, a similar regional meeting in Marseilles got 1500, other towns had huge meetings. National commission meetings on ecology, on politics in working-class neighbourhoods and so on have produced wide debates and proposals. Essentially the committees are already the new party in embryo ? every week there is a national political leaflet given out in almost all the towns. But the committees also have a lot of autonomy. In one town there will be a public meeting on the financial crisis, in another a symbolic invasion on the local hypermarket to protest against the government?s refusal to raise the minimum wage. The LCR already had very much a federal sort of organisation (for better and worse), and this will no doubt continue. But the party-in-embryo does not yet have a regular publication, an essential element for a campaigning party. Nor does it yet have a proper financial structure, though plans have been made for subs based on income. There is a website, and a weekly paper should be set up two months after the founding conference. So what's the thinking behind the new organisation? After all, even more than the UK, there's no shortage of left-wing groupings. The massive strike waves and political movements of the last few years have shown that there are many, many people in France who would like to build a political alternative on the radical left. Olivier Besancenot, the spokesperson of the Ligue Communiste R?volutionnaire, has recently had significantly higher popularity ratings than Sarkozy or his prime minister, Fillon. But this widespread sympathy for radical left ideas has not led people to join far-left parties to anything like the extent one might think. And the Socialist and Communist parties are generally identified as ?the parties who don?t change much when they?re in government?, even if the Socialist Party has not yet been fully converted to Blairism. The New Anti-capitalist Party was called for by the LCR (and the LCR will be dissolving and merging with it). The idea was a party which is based on struggle, where elections are secondary, but which does not ask members to all identify with a specific revolutionary or Trotskyist position. Who's currently involved in this initiative? The only big organisation involved is the (soon to be ex-) LCR. And a few thousand individuals, quite a few of them well-known local or even national leaders of the non-party radical left, which has been quite big here for a number of years. Inside the NPA, some activists want to draw the lines of the party fairly narrow, to be absolutely sure not to include people who are too quick to ally in local or regional government with the Socialist Party and their acceptance of neoliberalism. Others would like to make the party considerably broader, because they are worried that people who put mass movements and strikes at the centre of their politics, and are firmly opposed to the dictatorship of profit, will be kept out of the party if the lines are drawn too narrowly. Discussions continue on this. But the present name of the party, ?anti-capitalist?, represents the compromise position at present. We want people who are opposed to capitalism, who generally believe that capitalism cannot be durably given a human face. This means that inside the party you have people close to anarchism, close to radical green politics, close to Che Guevara?s ideas etc. etc. The debates are very interesting every time each current avoids simply affirming its identity and makes sure the questions are looked at in depth. Do you think the current crisis in the Socialist Party is something that might bring dividends to the new project? The Left Party (Die Linke) in Germany certainly benefited from having a leading SPD member behind the project from the start. What are the prospects for attracting the best parts of the Communists, Socialists, Lutte Ouvri?re and, I guess, the Greens? Recent economic and political events certainly will boost the new party. It is not hard to get people to listen to anti-capitalism these days ? waves of sackings are making sure of that. And the relative paralysis of the Socialist Party, and the Communist Party will certainly make it easier for the NPA to build support. The situation is however complex, and the NPA is not the only organisation trying to crystallise the radical left. To go through the parties one by one, but briefly: The Trotskyist organisation of a few thousand activists, Lutte Ouvri?re, is opposed to the New Anti-Capitalist Party to such an extent that it broke with a very long tradition by allying itself with the Socialist Party in the municipal elections last April, rather than risking an alliance with the LCR and the non-party radical left. For Lutte Ouvri?re, all these people in the NPA are not revolutionaries and therefore not interesting. Over the last few years, Lutte Ouvri?re has been completely cut off from any of the big unity political campaigns (against the European constitution, against the far-right politician Le Pen etc). LO sticks strictly to ?workplace issues? and is in decline because of this. It has just expelled the minority current from its ranks because this current wanted to work with the New Anti-capitalist Party. The leadership of the Communist Party (PCF) won a good majority at its conference for a ?business as usual? motion putting alliances with the Socialist Party at the centre of its strategy. All minority motions did very well though. Whole sections of communists are leaving the party (many favourable to a federation of the radical left). But its paper and its good analyses of the economic crisis mean the PCF still has an audience. The Socialist Party has seen two historic events in the last six months. First, a significant split to the left by Mr M?lenchon, who has now established a new party ?Le parti de gauche? on the model, he says (but much smaller), of Germany's Die Linke. It will be founded very soon, and will attempt to fill the gap between the Socialist Party ?let?s manage capitalism more humanly? line and the ?almost revolutionary? line of the New Anti-Capitalist Party. It could become an important force, it?s hard to say. The second key event is that S?gol?ne Royal, the Tony Blair of the Socialist Party, was defeated by an alliance much to the left of her (though not that left), on a very close poll. This is excellent news, and means that left arguments will be more audible. The radical left should be able to point up the difference between the left speeches of Martine Aubry, the new leader, and the lack of support for key struggles from this absolutely electoralist party. Finally, some of these fragments, as well as teams from the non-party left, have just set up a ?Federation? of left forces and activists, to try to overcome the bittiness of the radical left. The idea is that different forces and individuals can join it to run joint campaigns, but don?t need to leave their own organisations ? dual membership is encouraged. This Federation is backed by a number of important figures. The upshot of all this is that the New Anti-Capitalist Party has a lot of decisions to make about who to work with on what. For example, for the European elections in 2009 ? is it better to have united slates of candidates across the radical left (I think so) or to have an independent ?New Anti-capitalist Party? slate so as to be able to put forward a clearer platform. The tendency within the New Anti-Capitalist Party is to rock forwards and backwards between sectarianism and unity politics. I am not talking about mad small-group sectarianism (because the new party will start with many thousands of people). But that sectarianism which always emphasises first of all our differences with other groups, and finds a host of reasons why we cannot work with them even for limited aims. There is a real tendency inside the NPA to think ?we are the only real left? or ?of course we want unity: people from other organisations should leave them and join us instead, then we?ll be united? . The tendency towards sectarianism is the biggest danger for the NPA. The numbers, relative youth, enthusiasm, energy and real pedagogy for explaining key issues are the most important positive points. In Britain there has been an ongoing difficulty with left unity projects where revolutionaries have been determined to hang onto their autonomy within the broader alliance to the extent that it can create, to my mind, unnecessary conflicts and distrust of separate agendas. What's the position of the LCR, as the most significant organised current in the NPA, on this tricky balancing act between retaining distinct organisation within the NPA and submerging their efforts into it? An old and tricky problem, and you and me won?t necessarily see it in the same way. In my opinion the problem comes when differences are not discussed but separate agendas are pushed forward in rather hidden ways. I personally would like to see the NPA declare: ?The NPA is a party which has some people who are revolutionaries and others are not. Debate will continue within the party on these issues, while together we build all the struggles which are needed to oppose the dictatorship of profit.? This is not really happening. There is a tendency to hide differences. So for example, on the question of whether the NPA is a revolutionary party or not, the posters will say ?A party to revolutionise society? and a whole number of other formulations which avoid the question. This ?formulation politics? was already one of the banes of the LCR. On a difficult question, find a formulation which upsets no one, instead of deciding the question. Some of the formulations had no meaning ? So, it is an ongoing question. To emphasise that the aim of the LCR is not to control the NPA, the LCR is officially dissolving itself just before the foundation of the NPA, and there is no plan to maintain an LCR current inside the NPA. I think it likely that the different currents that were in the LCR will end up setting up three or four currents in the NPA, which seems fine to me. As Socialisme International, our tiny group of comrades, along with a couple of dozen others will certainly set up openly a current based on IS ideas (close to British Socialist Workers Party's theories). To sum up, the New Anti-Capitalist Party is a very exciting initiative and everyone should build it. The new economic crisis means workers have even more of a need for a party based on class struggle, and there is a new generation of young activists being built very quickly. I hope the NPA will quickly work with wider federations, and in this way help to win partial victories on important points, while continuing the debate on how to definitively eliminate capitalism. [John Mullen is an anti-capitalist activist in the south-west of France and editor of the review _Socialisme International_ (http://www.revue-soci alisme.org/) . This interview first appeared on Jim Jepp's blog, _The Daily (Maybe)_ (http://jimjay.blogspot.com/) , nad has been posted at _Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal_ (http://links.org.au/) with permission. **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From lnp3 at panix.com Sat Jan 3 07:23:19 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 09:23:19 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] France: New Anti-Capitalist Party `a very exciting initiative' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <495F74D7.3070102@panix.com> PoliticNow at aol.com wrote: Unfortunately, this post does not make the questions and answers in the interview clear. It is always a good idea to insert "Q" and "A" when you crosspost such material. I dealt with this interview on my blog at: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/the-fight-in-the-swp-conclusion-what-kind-of-party-we-need/. I found the interviewee, John Mullen, to be an interesting example of British SWP sectarianism. Let me elaborate. Mullen says: > I personally would like to see the NPA declare: ?The NPA is a party which has > some people who are revolutionaries and others are not. Debate will continue > within the party on these issues, while together we build all the struggles > which are needed to oppose the dictatorship of profit.? This is not really > happening. There is a tendency to hide differences. So for example, on the > question of whether the NPA is a revolutionary party or not, the posters will > say ?A party to revolutionise society? and a whole number of other formulations > which avoid the question. He wants the NPA (New Anti-Capitalist Party) to be divided obviously among "revolutionaries" and "reformists", a formula that guided SWP participation in RESPECT and led to the disaster that is now threatening to split the SWP. Some people never learn. These categories are not very useful when it comes to RESPECT, let alone the NPA. Reformism is not a function of *ideology* but structure and institutions. You can be a reformist and still proclaim the need for revolution. If you ever needed any evidence of this, just review the writings of Karl Kautsky over his entire lifetime. He never said that he was for capitalist reform. He always insisted that he was for revolution, but only when the objective conditions have ripened... By analogy, take figures such as George Galloway and Ralph Nader. Neither one of them would ever proclaim the need for socialist revolution, but each in their own way posed serious challenges to business as usual in capitalist politics. The role of revolutionaries is to figure out a way to build bridges to such politicians and not burn them. Mullen says: > So, it is an ongoing question. To emphasise that the aim of the LCR is not to > control the NPA, the LCR is officially dissolving itself just before the > foundation of the NPA, and there is no plan to maintain an LCR current inside > the NPA. I think it likely that the different currents that were in the LCR > will end up setting up three or four currents in the NPA, which seems fine to > me. As Socialisme International, our tiny group of comrades, along with a > couple of dozen others will certainly set up openly a current based on IS ideas > (close to British Socialist Workers Party's theories). Get this? The "tiny group of comrades" in France who are connected to Alex Callinicos's mother ship will "set up openly a current based on IS ideas". What ever happened to Karl Marx's proposal, I wonder: "The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. "They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. "They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement." (Communist Manifesto) What's sad about Mullen's cluelessness is that it is most certainly shared by the Australian DSP that printed this interview in Links. When I proposed that the DSP should have dissolved itself as the LCR is now planning to do, one of their members (or ex-members, I am not sure) shrieked about how I had an answer for everything. I don't have an answer for everything, but I am pretty damned sure about the sectarian business. From lnp3 at panix.com Sat Jan 3 07:32:25 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 09:32:25 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Bill Blum's latest Anti-Empire Report Message-ID: <495F76F9.1060703@panix.com> America's other glorious war The Pentagon pushes hard for a large increase in troops for Afghanistan. Barack Obama has been calling for the same since well before the November election. Listen to the drumbeats telling us that the security of the United States and the Free World necessitates increased action in this place called Afghanistan. As urgent as Iraq 2003, it is. Why? What is there about this backward, reactionary, woman-hating, failed state that warrants hundreds of deaths of American and NATO soldiers? That justifies tens of thousands of Afghan deaths since the first US bombing attacks in October 2001? In early December, reports the Washington Post, "standing at Kandahar Air Field in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the United States is making a 'sustained commitment' to that country, one that will last 'some protracted period of time'." The story goes on to discuss $300 million in construction projects at this one base to house additional American forces, erecting guard stations and towers and perimeter fencing around the barracks area, putting in vehicle inspection areas, administration offices, cold-storage warehouse, a new power plant, electrical and water distribution systems, communications lines, housing for 1,500 personnel who sustain the systems, maintenance shops, warehouses[1] ... America's wealth bleeds out endlessly. Back in April Maj. Gen. David Rodriguez, commander of the US Army's 82nd Airborne Division, when asked how long it would take to create "lasting stability" in Afghanistan, replied: "In some way, shape or form ... I think it's a generation."[2] "Stability", it should be noted, is a code word used regularly by the United States since at least the 1950s to mean that the regime in power is willing and able to behave the way Washington would like it to behave. It is remarkable, and scary, to read the US military writing about how it goes around the world bringing "stability" to (often ungrateful) people. This past October the Army published a manual called "Stability Operations".[3] It discusses numerous American interventions all over the world since the 1890s, one example after another of bringing "stability" to benighted peoples. One can picture the young American service members reading it, or having it fed to them in lectures, full of pride to be a member of such an altruistic fighting force. For those members of the US military in Afghanistan the most enlightening lesson they could receive is that their government's plans for that land of sadness have little or nothing to do with the welfare of the Afghan people. In the late 1970s through much of the 1980s, the country had a government that was relatively progressive, with full rights for women; even a Pentagon report of the time testified to the actuality of women's rights in the country.[4] And what happened to that government? The United States was instrumental in overthrowing it. It was replaced by the Taliban. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, US oil companies have been vying with Russia, Iran and other energy interests for the massive, untapped oil and natural gas reserves in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. The building and protection of oil and gas pipelines in Afghanistan, to continue farther to Pakistan, India, and elsewhere, has been a key objective of US policy since before the 2001 American invasion and occupation of the country, although the subsequent turmoil there has presented serious obstacles to such plans. A planned Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline has strong support from Washington because, amongst other reasons, the US is eager to block a competing pipeline that would bring gas to Pakistan and India from Iran.[5] But security for such projects remains daunting, and that's where the US and NATO forces come in to play. In the late 1990s, the American oil company, Unocal, met with Taliban officials in Texas to discuss the pipelines.[6] Zalmay Khalilzad, later chosen to be the US ambassador to Afghanistan, worked for Unocal[7]; Hamid Karzai, later chosen by Washington to be the Afghan president, also reportedly worked for Unocal, although the company denies this. Unocal's talks with the Taliban, conducted with the full knowledge of the Clinton administration, and undeterred by the extreme repression of Taliban society, continued as late as 2000 or 2001. As for NATO, it has no reason to be fighting in Afghanistan. Indeed, NATO has no legitimate reason for existence at all. Their biggest fear is that "failure" in Afghanistan would make this thought more present in the world's mind. If NATO hadn?t begun to intervene outside of Europe it would have highlighted its uselessness and lack of mission. ?Out of area or out of business? it was said. In June, the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives published a report saying Taliban and insurgent activity against the US-NATO presence in Kandahar province puts the feasibility of the pipeline project in doubt. The report says southern regions in Afghanistan, including Kandahar, would have to be cleared of insurgent activity and land mines in two years to meet construction and investment schedules. "Nobody is going to start putting pipe in the ground unless they are satisfied that there is some reasonable insurance that the workers for the pipeline are going to be safe," said Howard Brown, the Canadian representative for the Asian Development Bank, the major funding agency for the pipeline.[8] If Americans were asked what they think their country is doing in Afghanistan, their answers would likely be one variation or another of "fighting terrorism", with some kind of connection to 9-11. But what does that mean? Of the tens of thousands of Afghans killed by American/NATO bombs over the course of seven years, how many can it be said had any kind of linkage to any kind of anti-American terrorist act, other than in Afghanistan itself during this period? Not one, as far as we know. The so-called "terrorist training camps" in Afghanistan were set up largely by the Taliban to provide fighters for their civil conflict with the Northern Alliance (minimally less religious fanatics and misogynists than the Taliban, but represented in the present Afghan government). As everyone knows, none of the alleged 9-11 hijackers was an Afghan; 15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia; and most of the planning for the attacks appears to have been carried out in Germany and the United States. So, of course, bomb Afghanistan. And keep bombing Afghanistan. And bomb Pakistan. Especially wedding parties (at least six so far). Israel and Palestine, again, forever Nothing changes. Including what I have to say on the matter. To prove my point, I'm repeating part of what I wrote in this report in July 2006 ... There are times when I think this tired old world has gone on a few years too long. What's happening in the Middle East is so depressing. Most discussions of the everlasting Israel-Palestine conflict are variations on the child's eternal defense for misbehavior -- "He started it!" Within two minutes of discussing/arguing the latest manifestation of the conflict the participants are back to 1967, then 1948, then biblical times. Instead of getting entangled in who started the current mess, I'd prefer to express what I see as two essential underlying facts of life which remain from one conflict to the next: 1) Israel's existence is not at stake and hasn't been so for decades, if it ever was, regardless of the many de rigueur militant statements by Middle East leaders over the years. If Israel would learn to deal with its neighbors in a non-expansionist, non-military, humane, and respectful manner, engage in full prisoner exchanges, and sincerely strive for a viable two-state (if not one-state) solution, even those who are opposed to the idea of a state based on a particular religion could accept the state of Israel, and the question of its right to exist would scarcely arise in people's minds. But as it is, Israel still uses the issue as a justification for its behavior, as Jews all over the world use the Holocaust and conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. 2) In a conflict between a thousand-pound gorilla and a mouse, it's the gorilla who has to make concessions in order for the two sides to progress to the next level. What can the Palestinians offer in the way of concession? Israel would reply to that question: "No violent attacks of any kind." But that would leave the status quo ante bellum -- a life of unmitigated misery for the occupied, captive Palestinian people, confined to the world's largest open air concentration camp. It is a wanton act of collective punishment that is depriving the Palestinians of food, electricity, water, money, access to the outside world ... and sleep. Israel has been sending jets flying over Gaza at night triggering sonic booms, traumatizing children. "I want nobody to sleep at night in Gaza," declared Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert[9], words suitable for Israel's tombstone. Israel has created its worst enemies -- they helped create Hamas as a counterweight to Fatah in Palestine, and their occupation of Lebanon created Hezbollah. The current terrible bombings can be expected to keep the process going. Since its very beginning, Israel has been almost continually engaged in fighting wars and taking other people's lands. Did not any better way ever occur to the idealistic Zionist pioneers? The question that may never go away: Who really is Barack Obama? In his autobiography, "Dreams From My Fathers", Barack Obama writes of taking a job at some point after graduating from Columbia University in 1983. He describes his employer as "a consulting house to multinational corporations" in New York City, and his functions as a "research assistant" and "financial writer". The odd part of Obama's story is that he doesn't mention the name of his employer. However, a New York Times story of 2007 identifies the company as Business International Corporation.[10] Equally odd is that the Times did not remind its readers that the newspaper itself had disclosed in 1977 that Business International had provided cover for four CIA employees in various countries between 1955 and 1960.[11] The British journal, Lobster Magazine -- which, despite its incongruous name, is a venerable international publication on intelligence matters -- has reported that Business International was active in the 1980s promoting the candidacy of Washington-favored candidates in Australia and Fiji.[12] In 1987, the CIA overthrew the Fiji government after but one month in office because of its policy of maintaining the island as a nuclear-free zone, meaning that American nuclear-powered or nuclear-weapons-carrying ships could not make port calls.[13] After the Fiji coup, the candidate supported by Business International, who was much more amenable to Washington's nuclear desires, was reinstated to power -- R.S.K. Mara was Prime Minister or President of Fiji from 1970 to 2000, except for the one-month break in 1987. In his book, not only doesn't Obama mention his employer's name; he fails to say when he worked there, or why he left the job. There may well be no significance to these omissions, but inasmuch as Business International has a long association with the world of intelligence, covert actions, and attempts to penetrate the radical left -- including Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)[14] -- it's valid to wonder if the inscrutable Mr. Obama is concealing something about his own association with this world. On socialist Cuba's 50th anniversary, January 1, 2009: Notes on the beginning of its unforgivable revolution. The existence of a revolutionary socialist government with growing ties to the Soviet Union only 90 miles away, insisted the United States government, was a situation which no self-respecting superpower should tolerate, and in 1961 it undertook an invasion of Cuba. But less than 50 miles from the Soviet Union sat Pakistan, a close ally of the United States, a member since 1955 of the South-East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), the US-created anti-communist alliance. On the very border of the Soviet Union was Iran, an even closer ally of the United States, with its relentless electronic listening posts, aerial surveillance, and infiltration into Russian territory by American agents. And alongside Iran, also bordering the Soviet Union, was Turkey, a member of the Russians' mortal enemy, NATO, since 1951. In 1962 during the "Cuban Missile Crisis", Washington, seemingly in a state of near-panic, informed the world that the Russians were installing "offensive" missiles in Cuba. The US promptly instituted a "quarantine" of the island -- a powerful show of naval and marine forces in the Caribbean would stop and search all vessels heading towards Cuba; any found to contain military cargo would be forced to turn back. The United States, however, had missiles and bomber bases already in place in Turkey and other missiles in Western Europe pointed toward the Soviet Union. Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev later wrote: "The Americans had surrounded our country with military bases and threatened us with nuclear weapons, and now they would learn just what it feels like to have enemy missiles pointing at you; we'd be doing nothing more than giving them a little of their own medicine. ... After all, the United States had no moral or legal quarrel with us. We hadn't given the Cubans anything more than the Americans were giving to their allies. We had the same rights and opportunities as the Americans. Our conduct in the international arena was governed by the same rules and limits as the Americans."[15] Lest anyone misunderstand, as Khrushchev apparently did, the rules under which Washington was operating, Time magazine was quick to explain. "On the part of the Communists," the magazine declared, "this equating [referring to Khrushchev's offer to mutually remove missiles and bombers from Cuba and Turkey] had obvious tactical motives. On the part of neutralists and pacifists [who welcomed Khrushchev's offer] it betrayed intellectual and moral confusion." The confusion lay, it seems, in not seeing clearly who were the good guys and who were the bad guys, for "The purpose of the U.S. bases [in Turkey] was not to blackmail Russia but to strengthen the defense system of NATO, which had been created as a safeguard against Russian aggression. As a member of NATO, Turkey welcomed the bases as a contribution to her own defense." Cuba, which had been invaded only the year before, could have, it seems, no such concern. Time continued its sermon, which undoubtedly spoke for most Americans: "Beyond these differences between the two cases, there is an enormous moral difference between U.S. and Russian objectives ... To equate U.S. and Russian bases is in effect to equate U.S. and Russian purposes ... The U.S. bases, such as those in Turkey, have helped keep the peace since World War II, while the Russian bases in Cuba threatened to upset the peace. The Russian bases were intended to further conquest and domination, while U.S. bases were erected to preserve freedom. The difference should have been obvious to all."[16] Equally obvious was the right of the United States to maintain a military base on Cuban soil -- Guantanamo Naval Base by name, a vestige of colonialism staring down the throats of the Cuban people, which the US, to this day, refuses to vacate despite the vehement protest of the Castro government. In the American lexicon, in addition to good and bad bases and missiles, there are good and bad revolutions. The American and French Revolutions were good. The Cuban Revolution is bad. It must be bad because so many people have left Cuba as a result of it. But at least 100,000 people left the British colonies in America during and after the American Revolution. These Tories could not abide by the political and social changes, both actual and feared, particularly that change which attends all revolutions worthy of the name -- Those looked down upon as inferiors no longer know their place. (Or as the US Secretary of State put it after the Russian Revolution: The Bolsheviks sought "to make the ignorant and incapable mass of humanity dominant in the earth."[17]) The Tories fled to Nova Scotia and Britain carrying tales of the godless, dissolute, barbaric American revolutionaries. Those who remained and refused to take an oath of allegiance to the new state governments were denied virtually all civil liberties. Many were jailed, murdered, or forced into exile. After the American Civil War, thousands more fled to South America and other points, again disturbed by the social upheaval. How much more is such an exodus to be expected following the Cuban Revolution? -- a true social revolution, giving rise to changes much more profound than anything in the American experience. How many more would have left the United States if 90 miles away lay the world's wealthiest nation welcoming their residence and promising all manner of benefits and rewards? NOTES [1] Washington Post, December 25, 2008 [2] Reuters, April 29, 2008 [3] _http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/Repository/FM307/FM3-07.pdf_ (http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/Repository/FM307/FM3-07.pdf) [4] U.S. Department of the Army, "Afghanistan, A Country Study" (1986), pp.121, 128, 130, 134, 136, 223, 232-3 [5] Globe & Mail (Toronto), June 19, 2008 [6] BBC News, December 4, 1997, "Taleban [sic] in Texas for talks on gas pipeline" [7] Washington Post, November 23, 2001 [8] United Press International, July 17, 2008 [9] Associated Press, July 3, 2006 [10] New York Times, October 30, 2007 [11] New York Times, December 27, 1977, p.40 [12] Lobster Magazine, Hull, UK, #14, November 1987 [13] William Blum, ?Rogue State: A Guide to the World?s Only Superpower?, pp.199-200 [14] Carl Oglesby, "Ravens in the Storm: A Personal History of the 1960s Antiwar Movement" (2008), passim [15] "Khrushchev Remembers" (1971) pp.494, 496. [16] Time magazine, November 2, 1962 [17] Cited by William Appleman Williams, "American Intervention in Russia: 1917-20", in David Horowitz, ed., "Containment and Revolution" (1967). Written in a letter to President Woodrow Wilson by Secretary of State Robert Lansing, uncle of John Foster and Allen Dulles. William Blum is the author of: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2 Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at <_www.killinghope.org_ (http://www.killinghope.org/) > Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website. To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to <_bblum6 at aol.com_ (mailto:bblum6 at aol.com) > with "add" in the subject line. I'd like your name and city in the message, but that's optional. I ask for your city only in case I'll be speaking in your area. Or put "remove" in the subject line to do the opposite. Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission. I'd appreciate it if the website were mentioned. ************** New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From elishastephens at hotmail.com Sat Jan 3 08:22:37 2009 From: elishastephens at hotmail.com (Eli Stephens) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 07:22:37 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Example answer to "why don't you protest rocket attacks" question Message-ID: Ruthless is a bit "math-challenged": "Given that Gaza has 1.5 million people, the 400+ people killed by bombing so far is (proportionately) like the 3000+ who were killed in the 9/11 attacks in the USA (which has a population of about 300 million), if you compare the number of deaths to the total population." Um, no. 400 (actually now 430, and I'm absolutely certain there must be many more bodies still lying under the rubble, so 430 is the *minimum* number killed) people out of 1.5 million is like *80,000* killed in a population of 300 million. That's a "9/11" every two weeks for an entire year. Eli Stephens Left I on the News http://lefti.blogspot.com _________________________________________________________________ Life on your PC is safer, easier, and more enjoyable with Windows Vista?. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032870/direct/01/ From lnp3 at panix.com Sat Jan 3 08:36:21 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 10:36:21 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Global manufacturing slump worst since the Great Depression Message-ID: <495F85F5.6050606@panix.com> NY Times, January 3, 2009 Manufacturing Reports Show Depth of Global Downturn By BETTINA WASSENER From Australia to Asia and Europe to the United States, the message on Wednesday in the latest economic reports was clear: manufacturing continued to slump amid the worst slowdown since the Great Depression. In the United States on Friday, a crucial measure of manufacturing activity fell to the lowest level in 28 years in December. The Institute for Supply Management, a trade group of purchasing executives, said its manufacturing index was 32.4 in December, down from 36.2 in November. ?Manufacturing activity continued to decline at a rapid rate during the month of December,? said Norbert J. Ore, chairman of the Institute for Supply Management Manufacturing Business Survey Committee. This index was at the lowest reading since June 1980, when it was 30.3 percent. ?This report indicates that the U.S. economy was on even weaker footing than commonly believed as 2008 came to a close,? said Joshua Shapiro, chief United States economist at MFR. ?Moreover, the signal from the export orders index is that the rest of the world is right there with us. Hardly a signal for economic recovery anytime soon.? In addition, Mr. Ore said, ?new orders have contracted for 13 consecutive months, and are at the lowest level on record going back to January 1948.? The new orders index was 22.7 percent in December, 5.2 percentage points lower than the 27.9 percent registered in November. No industry sector surveyed reported growth in December; the jobs sector was particularly grim. The employment index was 29.9 percent in December, a decrease of 4.3 percentage points from November. That was the lowest reading since November 1982. In Europe, a closely watched index of purchasing managers showed manufacturing hit a low in December, falling to 33.9 from 35.6. Any reading above 50 signals growth, while a reading below 50 indicates contraction in manufacturing. Similarly grim readings in Australia, China and India highlighted how the Asia-Pacific region has become caught up in the global turmoil. In China, the purchasing managers? index by the brokerage firm CLSA showed the manufacturing sector had contracted for a fifth consecutive month. The survey showed the steepest decline in its history. With five back-to-back purchasing index readings signaling contraction, ?the manufacturing sector, which accounts for 43 percent of the Chinese economy, is close to technical recession,? said Eric Fishwick, head of economic research at CLSA in Hong Kong, in a note with the release. The data added to the flood of statistical evidence from across the Asia-Pacific region showing that activity was slowing faster than previously thought as demand withers in the United States and Europe. Australia?s manufacturing index showed a seventh month of contraction, and a similar survey in India showed activity down for a second month in December. In South Korea, December data showed exports plummeted 17.4 percent from a year ago. President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea pledged on Friday that the government would go into emergency mode to pull the country out of its economic crisis. And in Singapore, the economy shrank 12.5 percent in the last quarter of 2008 from the previous period, causing the trade and industry ministry to lower its growth forecast for 2009. The ministry now expects Singapore?s economy to shrink up to 2 percent, with only 1 percent growth at best. Previously, it had expected up to 2 percent growth. The worsening data, combined with a stream of company profit warnings, production cuts and layoffs, raises the pressure on policy makers to step up their efforts to bolster their economies. India on Friday cut its main interest rate by a full percentage point, to 5.5 percent, and took a series of steps to bring more money into the country. It also raised the limit on overseas investments in corporate bonds to $15 billion, from $6 billion, and will contribute 200 billion rupees ($4 billion), to increase the capital of state-run banks. Countries across the region were widely expected to make more interest rate cuts in coming weeks. ?China?s economic outlook for 2009 will be best characterized as ?getting worse before getting better,? laying the foundation for a firmer recovery in 2010,? said Qing Wang, chief economist for Greater China at Morgan Stanley in Hong Kong. Mr. Wang expected growth to continue to slow in the first six months, before stimulus measures could take effect. ?The authorities have already made delivering economic growth a top policy priority by adopting a campaign-style policy execution approach,? he said. Mr. Wang expects interest rates to be cut aggressively by an additional 1.35 percentage points this year. The country?s important one-year lending rate is 5.31 percent. He added that a $586 billion stimulus package announced in November ?is unlikely to be the first and only stimulus package for the entire year.? The package includes substantial infrastructure spending, which will begin to lead to increased activity once weather allows construction to begin in the spring. ?The stimulus package provides a short-term buffer for the economy, and other policy measures such as health care and land reforms will be a long-term growth driver. This should help the stock market at least to stabilize in 2009,? said Yi Tang, general manager at Edmond de Rothschild Asset Management in Hong Kong. ?We are seeing some encouraging signs that institutional investors are starting to consider putting money back into equities in China and the rest of Asia, hopefully in the next month or two,? he said. ?But it will take longer for retail investors ? who are worried about their job prospects and the wider economy ? to go back into the market.? Jack Healy contributed reporting. From Dbachmozart at aol.com Sat Jan 3 08:57:34 2009 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 10:57:34 EST Subject: [Marxism] Obama's deadly silence Message-ID: Obama's deadly silence Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 2 January 2009 "I would like to ask President-elect Obama to say something please about the humanitarian crisis that is being experienced right now by the people of Gaza." Former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney made her plea after disembarking from the badly damaged SS Dignity that had limped to the Lebanese port of Tyre while taking on water. The small boat, carrying McKinney, the Green Party's recent presidential candidate, other volunteers, and several tons of donated medical supplies, had been trying to reach the coast of Gaza when it was rammed by an Israeli gunboat in international waters. But as more than 2,400 Palestinians have been killed or injured -- the majority civilians -- since Israel began its savage bombardment of Gaza on 27 December, Obama has maintained his silence. "There is only one president at a time," his spokesmen tell the media. This convenient excuse has not applied, say, to Obama's detailed interventions on the economy, or his condemnation of the "coordinated attacks on innocent civilians" in Mumbai in November. The Mumbai attacks were a clear-cut case of innocent people being slaughtered. The situation in the Middle East however is seen as more "complicated" and so polite opinion accepts Obama's silence not as the approval for Israel's actions that it certainly is, but as responsible statesmanship. It ought not to be difficult to condemn Israel's murder of civilians and bombing of civilian infrastructure including hundreds of private homes, universities, schools, mosques, civil police stations and ministries, and the building housing the only freely-elected Arab parliament. It ought not to be risky or disruptive to US foreign policy to say that Israel has an unconditional obligation under the Fourth Geneva Convention to lift its lethal, months-old blockade preventing adequate food, fuel, surgical supplies, medications and other basic necessities from reaching Gaza. But in the looking-glass world of American politics, Israel, with its powerful first-world army, is the victim, and Gaza -- the besieged and blockaded home to 1.5 million immiserated people, half of them children and eighty percent refugees -- is the aggressor against whom no cruelty is apparently too extreme. While feigning restraint, Obama has telegraphed where he really stands; senior adviser David Axelrod told CBS on 28 December that Obama understood Israel's urge to "respond" to attacks on its citizens. Axelrod claimed that "this situation has become even more complicated in the last couple of days and weeks as Hamas began its shelling [and] Israel responded." The truce Hamas had meticulously upheld was shattered when Israel attacked Gaza, killing six Palestinians, as The Guardian reported on 5 November. A blatant disregard for the facts, it seems, will not leave the White House with George W. Bush on 20 January. Axelrod also recalled Obama's visit to Israel last July when he ignored Palestinians and visited the Israeli town of Sderot. There, Obama declared: "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." This should not surprise anyone. Despite pervasive wishful thinking that Obama would abandon America's pro-Israel bias, his approach has been _almost indistinguishable from the Bush administration's_ (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9969.shtml) . Along with Tony Blair and George W. Bush, Obama staunchly supported Israel's war against Lebanon in July-August 2006, where it used cluster bombs on civilian areas, killing more than 1,000 people. Obama's comments in Sderot echoed what he said in a speech to the powerful pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, in March 2007. He recalled an earlier visit to the Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona near the border with Lebanon which he said reminded him of an American suburb. There, he could imagine the sounds of Israeli children at "joyful play just like my own daughters." He saw a home the Israelis told him was damaged by a Hizballah rocket (no one had been hurt in the incident). Obama has identified his daughters repeatedly with Israeli children, while never having uttered a word about the thousands -- thousands -- of Palestinian and Lebanese children killed and permanently maimed by Israeli attacks just since 2006. This allegedly post-racial president appears fully invested in the racist worldview that considers Arab lives to be worth less than those of Israelis and in which Arabs are always "terrorists." The problem is much wider than Obama: American liberals in general see no contradiction in espousing positions supporting Israel that they would deem extremist and racist in any other context. The cream of America's allegedly "progressive" Democratic party vanguard -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Howard Berman, New York Senator Charles Schumer, among others -- have all offered unequivocal support for Israel's massacres in Gaza, describing them as "self-defense." And then there's Hillary Clinton, the incoming secretary of state and self-styled champion of women and the working classes, who won't let anyone outbid her anti-Palestinian positions. Democrats are not simply indifferent to Palestinians. In the recent presidential election, their efforts to win swing states like Florida often involved espousing positions dehumanizing to Palestinians in particular and Arabs and Muslims in general. Many liberals know this is wrong but tolerate it silently as a price worth paying (though not to be paid by them) to see a Democrat in office. Even those further to the left implicitly accept Israel's logic. Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive, criticized Israel's attacks on Gaza as a "reckless" and "disproportionate response" to Hamas rocket attacks that he deemed "immoral." There are many others who do nothing to support nonviolent resistance to Israeli occupation and colonization, such as boycott, divestment and sanctions but who are quick to condemn any desperate Palestinian effort -- no matter how ineffectual and symbolic -- to resist Israel's relentless aggression. Similarly, we can expect that the American university professors who have publicly opposed the academic boycott of Israel on grounds of protecting "academic freedom" will remain just as silent about Israel's bombing of the Islamic University of Gaza as they have about Israel's other attacks on Palestinian academic institutions. There is no silver lining to Israel's slaughter in Gaza, but the reactions to it should at least serve as a wake-up call: when it comes to the struggle for peace and justice in Palestine, the American liberal elites who are about to assume power present as formidable an obstacle as the outgoing Bush administration and its neoconservative backers. Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah is author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse (Metropolitan Books, 2006). This essay was first published in The Guardian's Comment is Free and is republished with the author's permission. _http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10097.shtml_ (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10097.shtml) **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From PoliticNow at aol.com Sat Jan 3 09:11:02 2009 From: PoliticNow at aol.com (PoliticNow at aol.com) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:11:02 EST Subject: [Marxism] France: New Anti-Capitalist Party `a very exciting initiative' Message-ID: It seems that the LCR is not following any sort of sectarian path here but realizing that it needs to dissolve itself into a broad non-sectarian political movement and a new party that can emerge from this movement if this isn't just some sort of strategic plan that just involves shape shifting and getting its cadres into a better position. Most sects as you point out below aren't interested in taking the risk of shape shifting and want to remain as separate tight knit organizations. So I am willing to give this new party a chance and see what it is really developing. Mark In a message dated 1/3/2009 8:58:37 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, marxism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu writes: What's sad about Mullen's cluelessness is that it is most certainly shared by the Australian DSP that printed this interview in Links. When I proposed that the DSP should have dissolved itself as the LCR is now planning to do, one of their members (or ex-members, I am not sure) shrieked about how I had an answer for everything. I don't have an answer for everything, but I am pretty damned sure about the sectarian business. **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From binesi at gvtel.com Sat Jan 3 09:38:00 2009 From: binesi at gvtel.com (David Thorstad) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 10:38:00 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] Petras on Israel's total war Message-ID: <495F9468.6020703@gvtel.com> [A powerful cri de coeur marred only by Petras's use of "principle" for "principal."] DT ========================================================================= ** *The Politics of An Israeli Extermination Campaign: Backers, Apologists and Arms Suppliers James Petras, January 2, 2009 * *Introduction* Because of the unconditional support of the entire political class in the US, from the White House to Congress, including both Parties, incoming and outgoing elected officials and all the principle print and electronic mass media, the Israeli Government feels no compunction in publicly proclaiming a detailed and graphic account of its policy of mass extermination of the population of Gaza. Israel?s sustained and comprehensive bombing campaign of every aspect of governance, civic institutions and society is directed toward destroying civilized life in Gaza. Israel?s totalitarian vision is driven by the practice of a permanent purge of Arab Palestine informed by Zionism, an ethno-racist ideology, promulgated by the Jewish state and justified, enforced and pursued by its organized backers in the United States. The facts of Israeli extermination have become known: In the first six days of round the clock terror bombing of major and minor populations centers, the Jewish State has murdered and seriously maimed over 2,500 people, mostly dismembered and burned in the open ovens of missile fire. Scores of children and women have been slaughtered as well as defenseless civilians and officials. They have sealed off all access to Gaza and declared it a military, free fire zone, while expanding their target to include the entire population of 1.5 millions semi-starved prisoners. According to the Boston Globe (December 30, 2008): Israeli military officials said their target lists have expanded to include the vast support network on which the Islamist movement relies to stay in power ?we are trying to hit the whole spectrum, because everything is connected and everything supports terrorism against Israel. A top Israeli in its secret police apparatus is quoted saying, "Hamas? civilian infrastructure is a very sensitive target" (ibid). What the Israeli Jewish politicians and military planners designate as "Hamas" is the entire social service network, the entire government and the vast majority of economic activity, embracing almost the entire 1.5 million imprisoned residents of Gaza. Israel?s "target" list thus involves the _total population_, using the totality of its non-nuclear weaponry and for an unlimited time period (until the "bitter end" according to the Israeli Prime Minister). Israel?s defense ministry spokesman has emphatically reiterated the Jewish state?s totalitarian war concept emphasizing the targeting of civilians: "Hamas has used ostensibly civilian operations as a cover for military activities. Anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target." Like all totalitarians in the past, the Jewish state boasts of having systematically pre-planned the extermination campaign ? months in advance ? up to and including the precise hour and day of the bombing to coincide with inflicting the maximum murder of civilians: The rockets and bombs fell as children were leaving school, as graduating police cadets were receiving their diplomas and as frantic mothers ran out from their homes to find their sons and daughters. The mass military extermination campaign was a follow up of its non-stop total economic embargo and unremitting selective assassination campaign of the previous two years: Both were designed to purge Palestine of its Arab population, first via puppet Abbas. When they discovered that mass hunger and selective Israeli murder only strengthened the population?s links to its democratically elected government and the resolve of the Hamas government to resist Israel, the Israeli regimes unleashed its entire arsenal of weapons, including its new "American gifts" up-to-date 1000 pound "bunker buster" bombs and high tech missiles to incinerate large numbers of human beings within their deadly radius and to obliterate Palestinian civilization. Moving directly from its totalitarian vision to its military blueprint to the savaging of Palestinian population centers, the Jewish state destroyed the principle university with over 18,000 students (mostly women), mosques, pharmacies, electrical and water lines, power stations, fishing villages, fishing boats and the little fishing port that provided a meager supply of fish for the starving population. They destroyed roads, transport facilities, food warehouses, science buildings, small factories, shops and apartments. They destroyed a women?s dormitory at the university. In the words of the Israel leader: "?because everything is connected to everything?" it is necessary to destroy each and every facet of life, which allows humans to exist with some dignity and independence. The Israeli totalitarian leaders knew with confidence that they could act and they could kill with impunity, locally and before the entire world, because of the influence of the US Zionist Power Configuration in and over the US White House and Congress. They knew they had the full backing of all the major Israeli political parties (Right, Left and Center), trade unions, mass media and especially public opinion. Israeli state terror is backed by 81% of Jewish Israelis according to a poll taken by Israel?s Channel 10 (Financial Times December 30, 2008). Israeli totalitarian violence and extermination of Palestinians is extremely popular among the Jewish electorate, especially in raising support for the Labor Party candidate Minister Ehud Barak. They knew they would "succeed" with virtually no casualties because they bombed, burned and dismembered a defenseless population totally lacking the minimum means to defend themselves from F16 bombers, helicopter gun ships and missile assaults. The vile depravity of the assault on the defenseless population is matched by the utter cowardice of the Israeli military command and its cheering bloodthirsty public ensconced behind their aerial monopoly. They suffered no threats of aerial retaliation, no wounded or dead pilots, helicopter gunners, as wave after wave swept in and over a defenseless imprisoned population in a crowded and besieged ghetto. Hundreds of tanks and armored carriers are prepared to invade once the cities and towns have been leveled, once the population is too weakened by starvation to resist, once the leaders and fighters have been murdered and the normal Palestinian institutions of law and order have been pulverized, making way for the corrupt thuggish collaborators of the so-called Palestinian Authority ? then and only then, will the Israeli General staff risk the skin of a precious Jewish "soldier" and risk the anxiety and worry of their kin in Israel and the US. *Overseas Allies: The Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations (PMAJO) *>From the moment that the Israeli Government decided it would destroy the newly elected Hamas government and punish the democratic electorate of Gaza with starvation and murder, the entire Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) in the US, including the PMAJO, pulled all stops in implementing the Israeli policy. The PMAJO encompasses the fifty-two Jewish organizations with the largest membership, with the greatest financial clout and the most influential backers. The most prominent lobbyist within the PMAJO is AIPAC, which has over 100,000 members and 150 full-time operatives in Washington actively pressuring the US Congress, the White House and all administrative agencies whose policies may relate to the interests of the State of Israel. However Israeli political influence extends far beyond its non-governmental agencies. Over two score legislators in the Congress and over a dozen senators are committed Zionists who automatically back Israel?s policies and push for US funding and armaments for its military machine. Top officials in key administrative positions, in Treasury, Commerce and the National Security Council, senior functionaries in the Pentagon and top advisers on Middle East affairs are also life-long, fanatically committed Zionists, who consistently and unreservedly back the policies of the State of Israel. Equally important, the majority of the largest film, print and electronic media are owned or deeply influenced by Jewish-Zionist media moguls who are committed to slanting the "news" in favor of Israel. The composition and influence of the ZPC is central to understanding three main characteristics of Israel?s power: (1) Israel can commit what leading United Nations and international human rights experts have defined as "crimes against humanity" with total impunity; (2) Israel can secure an unlimited supply of the most technologically advanced and destructive weapons and use them without limit on a civilian population in violation of even US Congressional restrictions and (3) scores of almost unanimous United Nations condemnations of the construction of genocidal apartheid barriers against a native population, starvation embargoes and the current extermination campaign in Gaza are always vetoed by the US representative. Many critics of Israel?s genocide in Gaza also condemn what they call "the complicity" of Washington or the United States without clearly identifying the actual socio-political forces influencing policy-makers or the _dual_ political loyalties and identities of the American politicians who have long-standing and deep allegiances to Israel. As a consequence, most critics fail to counter, protest or even identify the ideology and politics of the organized power configurations which define US complicity with Israel, who intimidate potential critics, who write and mouth the pro-Israel editorials in the mass media and who filter out any criticism, any truth ? even when Israel engages in sustained bloody extermination campaigns. *The ZPC and the Israeli War of Extermination in Gaza* The ZPC played a major role in all stages of Israel?s extermination campaign against Gaza including a sustained propaganda effort. The ZPC orchestrated a massive successful campaign through the extensive network of American mass media, which it controls and influences. It fabricated an image of the Hamas administration in Gaza as a terrorist organization, which allegedly seized power through violence ? totally denying its rise to power through internationally supervised, democratic elections and its defense of its electoral mandate against a US-Israeli backed PLO military takeover. The entire Zionist Jewish leadership backed Israel?s land grabs, its ghetto wall around Palestinians, the hundreds of road blocks, the Jewish settlers violently taking over Palestinian homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the criminal, genocidal Israeli economic embargo on Gaza designed to systematically starve the Palestinians into submission. Throughout the two years of this Israeli extermination campaign, American Zionists played a major role in leading the servile US government at home and abroad in backing each totalitarian measure: The vast majority of local synagogues became bully-pulpits defending the starvation and degradation of 1.5 million Palestinian refugees in Gaza caged on all sides by deadly force and the "walling off" into economically and socially devastating cantons of the 4.5 million West Bank Palestinian population under foreign occupation. The US Congress shamelessly followed the Zionist lead, backing every single criminal measure taken by the State of Israel and approving dozens of resolutions, which in most cases were entirely written by AIPAC lobbyists acting as unregistered agents of the Israeli government (contrary to US federal statute, which requires foreign agents and lobbyists to be registered as such). Israel?s demands for the most up-to-date US warplanes, including F-16s, Apache helicopter gun ships, and 1,000 pound bombs were secured by dint of effort of the AIPAC lobbyists and their clients in the US Congress. In other words, the American ZPC created the ideological cover and military instruments for Israel?s "total war" against the defenseless Palestinian population. Equally important, prominent Zionist leaders in the US Congress and members of the foreign policy establishment blocked or vetoed any international criticism of Israel ? securing its impunity and immunity from any of the Congressional sanctions usually enacted against criminal states. In other words, Israeli policy makers operated with the knowledge that there would be no negative economic, diplomatic and military repercussions to their launching the planned Gaza extermination campaign because they knew, in advance, that "their people" were in total control of US Middle East policy to the extent of actually repeating verbatim each and every propaganda lie in defense of Israel?s total war against the entire population of Gaza. *In Defense of Israel?s War of Extermination *The Zionist-controlled US print media, in particular the New York Times and the Washington Post, systematically fabricated an account that fit perfectly with Israel?s official line defending its massive assault on Gaza: Omitting any historical account of the hundreds of Israeli armed incursions and _targeted_ assassinations of Palestinian leaders and officials (even in their own homes) which repeatedly violated the "cease fire" agreed by Hamas and provoked its retaliation in self-defense of its people; omitting the years of an Israeli enforced starvation embargo of food and essentials that threatened the lives of 1.5 million Palestinians and led to the desperate efforts of the elected Hamas leadership to secure supplies for the people?s survival via tunnels across the Egyptian border and through missile attacks against Israel to pressure the Jewish state to negotiate an end of the criminal blockade. The Conference of President of the Major American Jewish Organizations, and the vast majority of Jewish communal groups and congregations, gave enthusiastic and unanimous support to Israel?s total war, its extermination campaign against the captive Palestinian population of Gaza. Even as images and reports of the massive destruction, killing and wounding of over 2,500 defenseless Palestinians filtered in the mass media, not a single major Jewish organization broke ranks; only individuals and small groups protested. All the "Majors" persisted in the politics of the Big Lie: the destruction of hospitals, mosques, universities, roads, apartments, pharmacies and fishing ports were all labeled "Hamas targets". The systematic all-out assault by uncontested helicopter gunships against 1.5 millions civilians was erased by tendentious accounts of Hamas? homemade missiles falling ineffectively near Israeli towns. A close reading of the most important propaganda organ of the PMAJO, The Daily Alert (TDA), during the first 5 days of Israel?s assault, reveals the propaganda tack taken by the leadership of the pro-Israel power configuration. TDA systematically worked to achieve the following: 1. Exaggerate the threats to Israel by the Palestinian missiles from Gaza, citing 4 Israeli deaths, while omitting any mention of the 2,500 Palestinian dead and wounded and the total destruction of their economy and living conditions (without safe water, electricity, food, cooking fuel, medicine and heat in the winter). 2. Promote Israel?s military assault as "defensive", directed at eliminating Hamas rocket attacks while omitting mention of Israel?s clearly stated purpose of destroying all civil organizations, social welfare agencies, educational facilities, medical clinics and public security institutions connected in any way with the elected Hamas government and any auxiliary agencies. 3. Cite select statement from Israel?s allies and clients (Washington, the US media, Germany and the UK) blaming Hamas for the conflict without mentioning the vast majority of countries in the United Nations General Assembly condemning Israel?s brutality. 4. Reproduce Israeli slanders against any and all international human rights leaders and organizations that condemn the Jewish state?s policy of genocide against the native Palestinians. In this regard, TDA is the foremost "genocide denier" in the United States and, perhaps outside of Israel, in the world. 5. Repeatedly cite Israeli political and military leaders? claims of acting "with restraint", "safeguarding civilians", and "targeting military objectives", even in the face of reports and images of mass civilian destruction and loss of life documented in the vast majority of (non-US) Western media. 6. Defend every Israeli bombing mission, every day, every hour, of every building, every home, and every economic, religious and educational institution in Gaza as "defensive" or a "reprisal", all the while quoting some of the most notorious, unconditional, perennial apologists of Israeli violence as if they were unbiased intellectuals, including Benny "Nuke Tehran" Morris, Marty Peretz and Amos Oz. 7. The Daily Alert quotes US writers, journalists and editors who praise and defend Israel?s "total war" without identifying their long-standing affiliation and identification with Zionist organizations, giving the false image of a wide spectrum of opinion behind the assault. Never has even the most moderate Jewish or Gentile critic of Israel?s massive extermination campaign appeared in any issues of The Daily Alert. The principle American Jewish organizations have bombarded the US Congress, influencing, intimidating and purchasing the craven so-called "representatives" of the American people, the media and public notables with lies in defense of Israel?s total war to exterminate a people. Their public, brazen, open complicity in genocide can be considered crime against humanity: The willful promotion of acts of a state designed to destroy an entire people. And yet these willing accomplices, these "willing executioners" of state mass murder go uncontested within the US political class. One of their leading mouthpieces in the incoming Obama Administration, Chief Presidential Adviser David Axelrod, even cites an Obama campaign speech defending Israeli assaults on the people of Gaza. Israel arrogantly repudiates all calls to end this mass murder, because Israel knows that "its people" are still in control of US policy toward the Middle East and will use their power in the new president?s administration to block any condemnation of this crime. To date the entire human rights and anti-war movements have failed to even mention, let along challenge, the most powerful propaganda and political organizations, which influence US policy and manipulate the mass media in favor of Israel?s extermination campaign. They will play no restraining role on Israel?s totalitarian policies as long as its principle US backers are free to lie, manipulate and defend each and every crime. There is little hope for an independent US Congressional policy as long as Israel?s war of extermination in Gaza can be defended by the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (and Zionist zealot) Congressman Howard Berman in the following terms: "Israel has a right, indeed a duty, to defend itself in response to the hundreds of rockets and mortars fired from Gaza over the past week. No government in the world would sit by and allow its citizens to be subjected to this kind of indiscriminate bombardment. The loss of innocent life is a terrible tragedy and the blame for that tragedy lies with Hamas." Thus Congressman Berman cynically omits the 2 years of Israel?s embargo, the daily "targeted" assassinations of Palestinians, the "targeted" missile attacks against civilians, the land, sea and air blockades and the blatant "targeted" destruction of the infrastructure of Gaza. No government, indeed a democratically elected Islamist government, can stand by while its people are starved and murdered into submission. But according to the respected Congressmen Bermans of the world, only the lives of Jews matter, not the growing thousands of murdered, dismembered and mutilated citizens of Gaza ? they do not count as people! *What is to be Done* Israel?s crimes against humanity demand a public response: social action, which will force it to cease and desist from its campaign to exterminate the people of Gaza. Because the Jewish state has assaulted a vast array of Palestinian social institutions, which resonate with those in our own society, we can and should mobilize them to condemn and boycott their counterparts in Israel: 1. We should urge the entire academic community to denounce Israel?s bombardment of the Islamic University of Gaza and the total destruction of all of its science facilities. An organized boycott of Israeli universities and all academic exchanges, especially scientific, should become university policy throughout the country. Special attention should be paid to the 450 US university presidents, who in the recent past, denounced a call by British academics for a boycott and who remain silent and complicit in the face of Israel?s total physical annihilation of all ten faculties for 20,000 Palestinian university students. 2. All American health workers, doctors, nurses, technicians, should organize and denounce Israel?s medical embargo against the 1.5 million Palestinians crowded into the Gaza Strip. They must condemn Israel?s bombardment of Gaza?s Children?s Hospital, the neighborhood pharmacies and the attacks on any transport of those critically wounded Palestinian victims of its aerial and missile attacks. Medical personnel should raise the fundamental ethical issues regarding the collaboration of US medical personnel and programs with the Jewish State?s "total war" policies of extermination. 3. All citizens should demand the end of all US military aid to Israel, especially F-16 fighter planes, Apache attack helicopters, missiles, 1000 pound "bunker buster" bombs used by the Israeli armed forces on the civilian infrastructure of Gaza and the murder and maiming of over 2,500 Palestinians, civilians, civil servants, police and national militia. In pursuit of a cutoff of US military aid to Israel, every effort should be made to target and denounce the most forceful, aggressive and successful Zionist advocates and lobbyists who influence the elected members of the US Congress and White House on foreign military aid budgets. No progress in ending US military aid for Israel?s ethnic cleansing will succeed unless the peace movement and others appalled by Israel?s mass murder tackles the Zionist lobby head on. This includes boycotts, rebuttals and demonstrations against the AIPAC, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League and the other 50 leading American Jewish organizations, which initiate and secure US governmental endorsement of Israel?s extermination policies. 4. US religious institutions should forcefully denounce Israel?s crimes against humanity, including its demolition of 5 mosques, uniting all faiths (Christian, Moslem, Buddhist) and especially reaching out to the tiny minority of rabbis and observant Jews willing to forthrightly denounce the totalitarian practices of the Israeli state. 5. Port and long shore workers, sailors and other maritime workers and officials should boycott the handling of all trade with Israel and denounce its Navy?s violent illegal assault, in international waters, of civilian fishing boats and vessels carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza. No ships carrying Israeli products should be loaded or unloaded as long as Israel maintains its criminal military blockade of the port facilities of Gaza. 6. Tens of millions of US citizens subject to the one-sided pro-Israel bias of the electronic and print media, the lop-sided presentations of Zionist op-ed writers, news reports and the self-styled Middle East experts, should demand equal time, coverage and reportage for non-Zionist specialists, analysts and commentators. We should demand the end of euphemisms and fabrications, which convert victims into aggressors and exterminators into victims. 7. We should wage a battle of ideas everywhere (in every public forum) against the efforts by the Zionist Power Configuration to monopolize discussion over the Israeli policy of genocide, to censor, intimidate and slander critics of Israeli apartheid ? as UN General Assembly President Manuel d?Escoto so aptly calls Israel?s Ghetto Wall surrounding Palestinian villages. The outpouring of public ?protest over Israel?s war of extermination is an enormous step forward in countering the Zionist monopoly of the mass media and encouraging the tens of millions of Americans who clearly recognize and privately despise Israel?s crimes against humanity and resent the local Zionist elite?s thuggery against those who speak out. Mass pressure on elected representative may sway some to reconsider their abject servility to their Zionist contributors and their Israel First Congressional colleagues. 8. A patriotic nationwide campaign should demand that the Israel lobby, especially AIPAC, come clean and register as a foreign agent of the State of Israel. This might undermine the Lobby?s appeal to American Jews, reduce its influence over Congress and open up judicial processes and investigations over its abuse of tax-exemptions, money-laundering and lead to revelations over its treasonous procurement of confidential US state documents for a foreign power. There is a powerful political and legal basis for such a denial of the Lobby?s tax-exempt status and legality, apart from the transparent and overwhelming evidence that all Zionist organizations act as transmission belts for Israeli state policies: In the early 1950?s up to 1963, the forerunner of AIPAC was obligated to register as a foreign agent of the State of Israel. More recently, an Israeli prosecutor presented evidence that the Israeli-Jewish Agency and its US counterparts were laundering billions of dollars especially for the funding of Israeli colonial settlements on occupied Palestinian land, condemned as illegal under international law. Congressional hearings, law suits and further published research would reveal the role of the Lobby as a Fifth Column for the State of Israel against the interest of the people of the United States. Until we neutralize the pervasive power of the Zionist Power Configuration in all of its manifestations ? in American public and civic life ? and its deep penetration of American legislative and executive offices, we will fall short of preventing Israel from receiving the arms, funding and political backing to sustain its wars of ethnic extermination. When told that the great majority of the world?s people are sickened and incensed by Israel?s mass murder of the citizens of Gaza, we can easily imagine the contemptuous dismissal by Israel?s top leaders, paraphrasing Joseph Stalin: How many bombers, missiles, fighter planes and powerful lobbies do they (the outraged people of the world) have? ** *James Petras is the author of Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power, Clarity Press 2008.* -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Attached Message Part Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/attachments/20090103/5909c31c/attachment.txt From hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org Sat Jan 3 11:06:15 2009 From: hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org (Hunter Gray) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:06:15 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] Valkyri -- and some further-alongr personal reflections Message-ID: <016c01c96dcd$fbbef990$0400a8c0@computer> NOTE BY HUNTER BEAR [JANUARY 3 2009] The local weather around here -- Eastern Idaho -- has been, as it seems to be nationally, wild and rough. Yesterday afternoon saw us in the midst of rain and snow, along with unusually warm periods followed by a freezing temps, icy slush. When three members of our family, Josie [our youngest daughter] and her Cameron and visiting grandson/son Thomas [he to leave that very evening after an excellent visit] prepared to see Valkyrie -- focused on the last and the best prepared plot to assassinate Hitler -- they urged me to join them. When I sought to politely decline -- it was six years since I was actually in a movie theatre -- Josie, characteristically, pushed with intensity and her usual success. So I went and I'm quite glad I did. It's a good, solid film -- not really, given the focus, enjoyable -- but fascinating. It won't satisfy those who see any Hollywood production as something to be viewed with inherent suspicion nor those who relish especially "arty arty" films, often those with psychiatric subtleties. My film tastes, which as I've previously noted, focus these days on HBO and IFC for the most part, are pretty catholic, diverse. I do make my measure of a flick on such matters as a reasonably worthwhile message [but not necessarily explicit], basic adherence to the primary historical/cultural currents, and good acting. Valkyrie does well on all of those counts. It's a straight-forward, hard-hitting account with -- as was certainly the historical fact -- lots of violence. My personal awareness of the courageous effort in 1944 by some German officers and a few civilians of well-placed social status -- sickened from a number of perspectives by Hitler's irrationality and brutality --- has been mostly limited to my interest in Erwin Rommel and his career and his supportive position in this good Conspiracy. So I learned more about the careful organization of the effort, the plans for an immediate post-Hitler coup, and something of the interesting personalities involved. Tom Cruise does an excellent job as a key participant in The Plan and the key action person -- in his case depicting Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg who, "to the manor born," achieved the status of genuine war hero but whose troubled conscience remained. Other acting is likewise well done. In the end, as many of us are aware, the effort failed and Hitler extracted lethal revenge -- very pervasively. Within a few months, the Allied forces had closed on him and he took the route of suicide. A few critics of Valkyrie have shot at it on the grounds that it seeks to excuse Germany's hideous conduct. That's twaddle. The horrors of Nazism are clearly set forth. When the film was being made in Germany, some Germans objected to it on the grounds that it opens old wounds. But most thoughtful folks would certainly agree that the more we all -- whoever we are -- know about these things, the better -- and the more improved our chances of avoiding those catastrophic socio-political -- and genocidal -- Horrors. Valkyrie is being widely shown in this country and one will hope it is in, say, Israel -- among many others. A couple of personal reflections: Most Americans have never lived in a totalitarian system -- and can obviously be thankful they haven't. The closest thing to this on these shores -- North America [north of Mexico] -- was old Mississippi, a police state complete with official orthodoxy, police power, eager vigilante support -- laced through and through with a numbing fear and a willingness on the part of most white people to "look away" from the endless atrocities. There were plenty of other parts of the South just as bad as Mississippi, but not pervasively so in the state-wide sense -- often because their states had a measure therein of outside-based Northern industry and thus some [relatively] "moderate" influences. Mississippi was a state-wide racist/segregationist complex. I've kept up with Changing Mississippi and some other Southern settings as best I can. In time, I've met some of the old adversaries with whom I've become friends. See a few examples of this in some of my website writings, e.g. http://hunterbear.org/forces_and_faces_along_the_trail.htm A fairly common phenomenon involves white Southerners who, like those contemporary Germans on Valkyrie, simply don't want to hear of The Troubles -- the Bad Old Days. This can be very true if they were adults during that grim epoch. But many younger white Southerners do [and I suspect many young Germans as well] -- often commenting to me that their elders refuse to discuss any of it. To them, I've said, "It was a terrible time, obviously for Blacks -- but also hard, in its own way, for most whites as well. Don't be too tough on your folks. Look ahead -- cut your own trail." Then I'll suggest some solid reading sources, such as Jim Silver's classic, Mississippi: The Closed Society -- along with some of the more thoughtful and personally grounded works by Movement writers. There were a lot of outsiders who came into the South -- and certainly Mississippi -- after the shooting war of the 60s was basically over and things were fairly safe. While many of these were certainly more or less OK, there were two carpetbagger species for whom I've always had quiet contempt. The first were those, best termed "pie-card artists," who came to rip-off the never very flush "Reconstruction" poverty programs. The second species involved generally sectarian presumed leftists who had sat out the Movement safely in the North, coming into, say, Mississippi beginning in the early 70s. In an obvious effort to vicariously experience the Movement they'd missed, they prattled [and some still do] in shrill and sanctimonious terms. Sometimes they liked to "expose" a public official who allegedly once belonged to the white Citizens' Council. Aside from the fact that most of the old Mississippi establishment once belonged to the "White Councils", many of us felt and feel that that "exposure" is simply a pure waste of time. In the end, Real Radicalism focuses on social justice -- now and forevermore. We can learn much from looking thoughtfully back -- but let's not be trapped by old spiderwebs. Personally, I've come to appreciate principled reconciliation -- if and when social justice has, in the matter at hand, actually been essentially achieved. Desmond Tutu has set a fine example on that. Fight hard for justice -- always hard. But, in the last analysis, we can never -- much as our adversaries may -- forget that we, whatever our virtues and whatever our sins, ultimately have to live with one another. Solidarity - Hunter [Hunter Bear] HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk Protected by Na?shdo?i?ba?i? and Ohkwari' Check out our Hunterbear website Directory http://hunterbear.org/directory.htm [The site is dedicated to our one-half Bobcat, Cloudy Gray: http://hunterbear.org/cloudy_gray.htm For a good feel for some of the civil liberties challenges faced by an effective organizer, see this cluster of four related pages: http://hunterbear.org/a_bizarre__1979_fbi_smear_effort.htm And see Hunter's Movement Life Interview: http://hunterbear.org/HUNTER%20BEAR%20INTERVIEW%20CRMV.htm From dwaltersMIA at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 12:02:53 2009 From: dwaltersMIA at gmail.com (nada) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 11:02:53 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Petras on Israel's total war Message-ID: <495FB65D.2070700@gmail.com> Given Petra's penchant for counting Jews everywhere, his "Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC)" seems headed for the "Zioninst Occupied Gov't (ZOG) of the Turner Diaries. He seems more concerned about condemning Jews than condemning the Zionist assault on Gaze, the latter giving a reason to go after the former. And, he is inaccurate: Anti-war organizations HAVE condemned the assault on Gaza. David From binesi at gvtel.com Sat Jan 3 12:52:27 2009 From: binesi at gvtel.com (David Thorstad) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 13:52:27 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] =?utf-8?q?Ra=C3=BAl_Castro_says_hopes_in_Obama_are_=22e?= =?utf-8?q?xcessive=22?= Message-ID: <495FC1FB.1010108@gvtel.com> Ra?l Castro, even as his comments are restrained by requirements of diplomacy, makes more sense than the many who are gaga over His Hopefulness. ========================================================================================= * * *http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090103/wl_nm/us_cuba_castro_obama;_ylt=AquQBme0IeADZDQwdPTDtC5m.3QA* * Raul Castro says hopes too high for Obama* * /Reuters ? The number 50 is seen on the Cuban Transport Ministry building in Havana January 2, 2009. //Cuba// celebrated ? / HAVANA (Reuters) ? U.S. President-elect Barack Obama appears to be an honest and sincere man, but his election has awakened "excessive hopes" that the United States will change, Cuban President Raul Castro said in a television interview broadcast on Friday. Castro repeated previous assertions that he is open to talks at any time with Obama, who takes office on January 20, but said he is not desperate to do so. Obama has said he wants to ease the 46-year-old U.S. trade embargo against Cuba and meet with Cuban leaders as first steps toward normalizing relations with the Communist-run island 90 miles off U.S. shores. "Now there is a president who has raised hopes in many parts of the world -- I think excessive hopes," Castro said in an interview on state-run television. "Because even if he's an honest man -- and I believe he is -- a sincere man -- and I believe he is -- one man alone cannot change the destiny of a country and much less the United States," said Castro, who replaced his ailing older brother Fidel Castro as president in February. "I hope I'm mistaken in my assessment. I hope Mr. Obama has success," he said. "He can do much, he can take positive steps, he can put forth more just ideas, he can put a stop to the tendency of almost all U.S. presidents to have their war, or wars," he said. The interview was taped on December 31, a day before Castro led celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the revolution that put his brother in power and turned Cuba to Communism at the height of the Cold War. In a speech on Thursday, he spoke in harsh terms about U.S. treatment of Cuba and said the island can expect 50 years more of "incessant struggle" with an "enemy" that "will never cease to be aggressive, treacherous and dominant." In the interview, he said Cuba would talk with the United States whenever the U.S. wants, but only as equals, "without the smallest shadow over our sovereignty." "We're willing to do it when they say, without intermediaries, directly, but we're in no hurry, we're not desperate," Castro said. (Reporting by Jeff Franks) -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Attached Message Part Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/attachments/20090103/f1c03b83/attachment.txt From ectoren at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 3 13:08:47 2009 From: ectoren at sbcglobal.net ( Erik Carlos Toren) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 14:08:47 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] [Bulk] Che's view on hoods ? References: <394006.24783.qm@web24608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Have u tried searching at the following sites: http://www.marxists.org/ www.revleft.com por el socialismo, Erik ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anonym Need" > It's not my quote, it's by CP of Greece (claiming it's by Guevara) so as > to disavow the recent riots in Greece. > I think it's a forgery and I would be pleased if you could help instead of > attacking me. > I don't see any reason for anyone to be offensive. From lnp3 at panix.com Sat Jan 3 13:32:56 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 15:32:56 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Che's view on hoods ? In-Reply-To: <394006.24783.qm@web24608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <394006.24783.qm@web24608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <495FCB78.2020701@panix.com> Anonym Need wrote: > "Real revolutionaries do not go about wearing hoods(=capuchas) for one more > reason : At the time of revolution the people must recognise in the > faces of the revolutionaries its vanguard. The people doesn't value > meddling with hooded ones(=encapuchados)." > > > It's not my quote, it's by CP of Greece (claiming it's by Guevara) so as to disavow the recent riots in Greece. > I think it's a forgery and I would be pleased if you could help instead of attacking me. > I don't see any reason for anyone to be offensive. You have to use your common sense here. Were there any hooded radicals back in the early 1960s? Apparently some of the anarchist youth in the recent Greek rebellion were wearing hoods in the style of the Black Block. So instead of simply denouncing the youth as being too radical (in other words, refusing to toe the spineless line of the CP), the CP dragged Che Guevara into the equation because he is a hero to the people that were in the streets. That's my take on it, anyhow. From jeanmarat1793 at yahoo.gr Sat Jan 3 13:44:06 2009 From: jeanmarat1793 at yahoo.gr (Anonym Need) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 12:44:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] Che's view on hoods ? In-Reply-To: <495FCB78.2020701@panix.com> Message-ID: <605497.61309.qm@web24602.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >You have to use your common sense here. Were there any hooded radicals >back in the early 1960s? Apparently some of the anarchist youth in the >recent Greek rebellion were wearing hoods in the style of the Black >Block. So instead of simply denouncing the youth as being too radical >(in other words, refusing to toe the spineless line of the CP), the CP >dragged Che Guevara into the equation because he is a hero to the people >that were in the streets. That's my take on it, anyhow. 1)I've checked almost everywhere in the internet and as many books I could get my hands on. Mo result up to now. 2)I'm looking for an answer that goes beyond "common sense". I do agree with your post.But I need more evidence that this quote doesn't exist. ___________________________________________________________ ?????????????? Yahoo!; ?????????? ?? ?????????? ???????? (spam); ?? Yahoo! Mail ???????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????????? ???? ??? ??????????? ????????? http://login.yahoo.com/config/mail?.intl=gr From Dbachmozart at aol.com Sat Jan 3 13:44:22 2009 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:44:22 EST Subject: [Marxism] Ilan Pappe - Israel's righteous fury and its victims in Gaza Message-ID: ISRAEL'S RIGHTEOUS FURY AND ITS VICTIMS IN GAZA By Ilan Pappe, The Electronic Intifada, 2 January 2009 My visit back home to the Galilee coincided with the genocidal Israeli attack on Gaza. The state, through its media and with the help of its academia, broadcasted one unanimous voice -- even louder than the one heard during the criminal attack against Lebanon in the summer of 2006. Israel is engulfed once more with righteous fury that translates into destructive policies in the Gaza Strip. This appalling self-justification for the inhumanity and impunity is not just annoying, it is a subject worth dwelling on, if one wants to understand the international immunity for the massacre that rages on in Gaza. Ilan Pappe comments for The Electronic Intifada. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10100.shtml ---------------------------------------------------------- PALESTINE : OPINION/EDITORIAL: ON COLLABORATION AND RESISTANCE OF THE OPPRESSED By Ziyaad Lunat, The Electronic Intifada, 3 January 2009 As Israel massacres the Palestinians in Gaza once again, one may ask what has happened to the Arab voice. It is no surprise that the world's super powers condone Israel's genocidal acts in Gaza. Colonization, slavery, apartheid, genocide and ethnic cleansing have been constants in western colonialist adventures. What has now reached new levels is the open, vocal and active support of Arab governments to the massacre of the Palestinian people. As the Indian sepoys once did, new collaborators have joined the chorus of voices condoning the carnage. Ziyaad Lunat comments for The Electronic Intifada. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10103.shtml **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From dwaltersMIA at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 13:53:16 2009 From: dwaltersMIA at gmail.com (nada) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 12:53:16 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] GROUND INVASION OF GAZA STARTED! Message-ID: <495FD03C.6070800@gmail.com> CNN is reporting that ground invasion of Gaza has started. D. From markalause at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 13:54:30 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:54:30 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Che's view on hoods ? In-Reply-To: <605497.61309.qm@web24602.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <495FCB78.2020701@panix.com> <605497.61309.qm@web24602.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: You're choice what you wish to do with your time, of course, but my advice is to go with the common sense answer. Unless you have everything that Che ever said, how do you know he didn't say that? You're trying to prove a negative. In this particular case, who's going to be convinced the CP line is screwed up on the basis of a quote? Those who believe the CP line will still believe it, those who don't will get no more than a confirmation, and those very few (if any) convinced by the legitimacy of quotes are probably not worth having, because they'll go wandering off after the next scriptural quotes. Just make the best case on the basis of its merits or lack thereof. Leave the bible-thumping to the fundamentalists. ML From jbustelo at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 14:02:03 2009 From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 16:02:03 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Che's view on hoods ? In-Reply-To: <394006.24783.qm@web24608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <394006.24783.qm@web24608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Anonym Need: "It's not my quote, it's by CP of Greece (claiming it's by Guevara) so as to disavow the recent riots in Greece. "I think it's a forgery and I would be pleased if you could help instead of attacking me. "I don't see any reason for anyone to be offensive." If you had said THAT to begin with, rather than the "I'm taking a survey" query, which had been posted in at least two other places I'm aware of, the response would have been different. I've probably read as much Che as anyone on this list, but I cannot GUARANTEE you he never said/wrote such a thing, quite simply because it is impossible to PROVE a negative fact. That said, based on what you say, I believe the Communist Party of Greece has engaged in a fabrication and a fraud. I can't possibly imagine what the occasion would have been for Che to have made such a remark, but even if he had, it certainly would never have been in the context of treacherously stabbing protesting young rebels in the back in order to uphold some Stalinist's self-anointed status as "the vanguard." Joaquin From cbcox at ilstu.edu Sat Jan 3 14:05:09 2009 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 15:05:09 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] Dueling Powers and Capitalist Property in theUnitedStates by Matt Russo References: <7b8a676d0901021919x664b0d49n779d6bdca6d2301e@mail.gmail.com> <11994206EFED441F8018376EB49A1405@albanta> Message-ID: <495FD305.AECBDA12@ilstu.edu> Joaquin Bustelo wrote: > > Anthony Boynton wrote: "I think houses that are bought and sold in markets > like any other commodity are clearly a form of capital." > > Yeah, that's what the ruling class has been preaching for decades, and I > guess some "Marxists" have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The > "ownership" society and all that. > > Boynton's blog post argues that people buy houses expecting to profit. > > "Every person who buys a home in the United States, or at least every person > who bought one in the past, expected to gain a portion of the surplus value > generated throughout the society. The belief that real estate prices > inevitably and inexorably rise is deeply held in all layers of society in > the United States. And, over the long run, it has been historically true." > > It is not true that people automatically assumed they could make a killing > by buying a house. "Desirable" neighborhoods are in a constant state of > flux, as developers and local banks (the latter until the last decade or > two, when local banking was gradually abandoned) manipulated local > governments to create ground rent differentials. You give away too much to Boynton's absurdities in this paragraph. It would not make houses capital even if it were true that "that people automatically assumed they could make a killing by buying a house." Merely buying and selling, even if done _only_ for purposes of gain, has nothing whatever to do with capital or capitalism. The lack of understanding by most marxists of what makes capitalism capitalism is truly pathetic, and is a constant barrier to clear strategic thinking. My eyesight is ruined and I can no loger read printed texts for myself. But awarness of this deficiency in our understanding has led me to be currently paying $18 an hour to a grad student to read to me _Time, Labor, and Social Domination_, by Moishe Postone. It sounds promising. I have some reason to believe that Postone's own political grasp is deficient, but be that as it may, he seems to offer a better road to understanding our enemy than do the vulgar and moralistic understandings of capitalism commonly expressed on this list. Private property plus markets plus exploitation plus oppression DO NOT ADD UP TO CAPITALISM. Capitalism is an absolutely unique social order, differing qualitatively from all other exploitatative and/or comercial systems. I hope I have enough years left, given my problems with vision, to begin to understand what this means. Carrol From jbustelo at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 14:18:29 2009 From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 16:18:29 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] GROUND INVASION OF GAZA STARTED! In-Reply-To: <495FD03C.6070800@gmail.com> References: <495FD03C.6070800@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3247E1CAAE9341C28DB5F546CC30BFFA@albanta> CNN International's network coverage is being streamed live here: http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream1 There should also be live streams on the web from Telesur in Spanish and Al Jazeera in English and Arabic, but I don't have those URL's to hand. From jeanmarat1793 at yahoo.gr Sat Jan 3 14:23:39 2009 From: jeanmarat1793 at yahoo.gr (Anonym Need) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:23:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] Che's view on hoods ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <131188.69263.qm@web24616.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Well I'm happy that you seem to know about the treacherous line of the CP of Greece (and it's stalinist stance too, by the way on the "theses on socialism" for their 18th congress they have re-embraced all Moscow Trials and Stalin). It's also true that it's not easy to? prove a negative claim. Well I did send the Youth of the CP and their official newspaper an email asking for the source(all quotes made by them up to now have no source) I didn't get an answer. I didn't expect to get one since the CP here is quite strong (8% on elections) and won't bother to answer any weird guy asking or judging their bulletins. ___________________________________________________________ ?????????????? Yahoo!; ?????????? ?? ?????????? ???????? (spam); ?? Yahoo! Mail ???????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????????? ???? ??? ??????????? ????????? http://login.yahoo.com/config/mail?.intl=gr From anthony.boynton at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 14:45:45 2009 From: anthony.boynton at gmail.com (Anthony Boynton) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 16:45:45 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Che Guevara and hoods Message-ID: <7b8a676d0901031345q65054dafpdfd329732a800082@mail.gmail.com> I just did a quick survey here in Colombia, and nobody I emailed ever heard of any such quote. HOWEVER, similar arguments against wearing hoods are used here against both the anarchist youth and the youth connected to the FARC. Here demonstrators often wear hoods to signal they are willing to fight back against the police when they attack demonstrators. Also, those who plan to attack the police first wear hoods. Those who oppose militant tactics of any sort, use arguments like those of the Greek CP. Anthony Anonym Need wrote: > "Real revolutionaries do not go about wearing hoods(=capuchas) for one more > reason : At the time of revolution the people must recognise in the > faces of the revolutionaries its vanguard. The people doesn't value > meddling with hooded ones(=encapuchados)." > > > It's not my quote, it's by CP of Greece (claiming it's by Guevara) so as to disavow the recent riots in Greece. > I think it's a forgery and I would be pleased if you could help instead of attacking me. > I don't see any reason for anyone to be offensive. From sartesian at earthlink.net Sat Jan 3 15:16:28 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 23:16:28 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] France: New Anti-Capitalist Party `a very excitinginitiative' References: Message-ID: <436FD3862E9D445BB22CF431884D336C@dmsthinkpad> Just returned from dinner with a friend well-versed in French left politics. His take is [statement of non-conflicting interest--he is a libertarian communist, currently working outside the established political groups, with an immigrant worker defense group]: 1. Big crisis in the Socialist Party 2. CP hardly exists any longer, and has lost considerable influence, support and membership in the CGT. CP has basically broken into factions, with the factions publicly identifying themselves as "____ faction of the CP." 3. LCR sees in the NPA, in a broad-based NPA, primarily an electoral vehicle-- given the frequency of elections in France, for municipal councils, senate, representatives, and the EU parliament, there are elections almost every year. In France, if a party obtains a certain percentage of the votes cast, it can receive payments from the state for each vote-- I think that for 5% of the vote, the payment is 1.5 euros per vote. With that money, the LCR?NPA can fund its internal administration, its organizers, its publications. 4. My friend thinks the LCR and the NPA are very good at getting publicity and saying the right things on television, but not too good at practical organization-- providing very little support to immigrant worker defense actions, among other things. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 3:06 PM Subject: [Marxism] France: New Anti-Capitalist Party `a very excitinginitiative' > From anthony.boynton at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 15:44:10 2009 From: anthony.boynton at gmail.com (Anthony Boynton) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 17:44:10 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Dueling Powers and Capitalist Property in the UnitedStates by Matt Russo Message-ID: <7b8a676d0901031444i589a1350k7ec2da9df229c777@mail.gmail.com> Re: [Marxism] Dueling Powers and Capitalist Property in the UnitedStates by Matt Russo I want to thank Joaquin Bustelo for taking the time to answer some of my comments. Unfortuantely, Joaquin's arguemtns have a few holes in them. The first is that he can not not add very well. He wrote, "So let's look at an example: I've lived in the same townhouse for 10 years. My down payment was around $5,000, the original mortgage was for around $82,000; I still owe something like $70,000. In this neighborhood right now you might get $120,000 for this house. But having been paying around $700 (including insurance and taxes) a month for the mortgage for 10 years I've laid out $84,000, not counting a ton of other expenses. So if I were to sell it for $120,000, I would get $113,000 (subtracting the commission for real estate agents) or $26,000 more than I "paid" for it ($87,000), and I'd have $43,000 left over after paying the mortgage. Even if the house had doubled in price over 10 years (7% average annual increase), selling for $174,000, there would be around $163,000 left after real estate commissions and $93,000 after the mortgage. So I've paid $84,000 in mortgage, $5,000 down, and even leaving maintenance etc, completely out of it, I got $93,000 BACK for my $89,000 PAID OUT. But it gets worse, since those original $5,000 were decade-ago dollars, worth something like $1.40 or $1.50 today, and then you'd have to do the corresponding calculation for each year's mortgage payment to translate to current dollars, and you will see you paid out A LOT MORE than you're getting back." To your $93,000 dollars you must add the rent that you otherwise would have had to pay for the same townhouse, had you not bought it. Being generous, let's say rent in Hoaquin's neighborhood, for a town house like his, is around $500/month. He says he has lived there ten years, or 120 months. That adds up to a $60,000 profit. The correct number, in nominal terms, for Joaquin's investment, is $93,000 plus aprox. $60,000. A nice profit, and not just in nominal terms. Joaquin's arguments apply as well to investments made by any capitalist in any real estate, not just to the purchase of a townhouse whereever he lives. In fact, most of his arguments about brokerage fees, inflation, etc. apply to any investment in anything by anbody: stocks, bonds, gold, a factory, wheat futures, etc- Come on Joaquin. You can do better than this.. Also, I know it is difficult for you to take quotes from Marx seriously, having lived through the SWP and hated it so much, but Marx had a lot of interesting insights. Anthony From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 15:44:17 2009 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 14:44:17 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] GROUND INVASION OF GAZA STARTED! In-Reply-To: <3247E1CAAE9341C28DB5F546CC30BFFA@albanta> References: <495FD03C.6070800@gmail.com> <3247E1CAAE9341C28DB5F546CC30BFFA@albanta> Message-ID: I don't have the stomach to watch CNN or Fox. I agree though with Abu Khalil that CNN is more infuriating because of its liberal pretensions. The butchery seems terrible once more. Haaretz is reporting dozens of "gunmen" killed. That France has condemned the ground invasion is good. The rumours of a failed Egyptian coup attempt (see angryarab) are heartening at one level. Though I am inclined to believe that rumours of a coup in Egypt are like reports of visions of the Blessed Virgin appearing. They signal the fatalistic desperation of the masses. For all that the Mubarak regime is in danger despite what Fisk would have us believe. comradely Gary From anthony.boynton at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 15:45:10 2009 From: anthony.boynton at gmail.com (Anthony Boynton) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 17:45:10 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] An answer to J. Bustelo Message-ID: <7b8a676d0901031445p49609b2fn88e6da2b731a2602@mail.gmail.com> Re: [Marxism] Dueling Powers and Capitalist Property in the UnitedStates by Matt Russo I want to thank Joaquin Bustelo for taking the time to answer some of my comments. Unfortuantely, Joaquin's arguemtns have a few holes in them. The first is that he can not not add very well. He wrote, "So let's look at an example: I've lived in the same townhouse for 10 years. My down payment was around $5,000, the original mortgage was for around $82,000; I still owe something like $70,000. In this neighborhood right now you might get $120,000 for this house. But having been paying around $700 (including insurance and taxes) a month for the mortgage for 10 years I've laid out $84,000, not counting a ton of other expenses. So if I were to sell it for $120,000, I would get $113,000 (subtracting the commission for real estate agents) or $26,000 more than I "paid" for it ($87,000), and I'd have $43,000 left over after paying the mortgage. Even if the house had doubled in price over 10 years (7% average annual increase), selling for $174,000, there would be around $163,000 left after real estate commissions and $93,000 after the mortgage. So I've paid $84,000 in mortgage, $5,000 down, and even leaving maintenance etc, completely out of it, I got $93,000 BACK for my $89,000 PAID OUT. But it gets worse, since those original $5,000 were decade-ago dollars, worth something like $1.40 or $1.50 today, and then you'd have to do the corresponding calculation for each year's mortgage payment to translate to current dollars, and you will see you paid out A LOT MORE than you're getting back." To your $93,000 dollars you must add the rent that you otherwise would have had to pay for the same townhouse, had you not bought it. Being generous, let's say rent in Hoaquin's neighborhood, for a town house like his, is around $500/month. He says he has lived there ten years, or 120 months. That adds up to a $60,000 profit. The correct number, in nominal terms, for Joaquin's investment, is $93,000 plus aprox. $60,000. A nice profit, and not just in nominal terms. Joaquin's arguments apply as well to investments made by any capitalist in any real estate, not just to the purchase of a townhouse whereever he lives. In fact, most of his arguments about brokerage fees, inflation, etc. apply to any investment in anything by anbody: stocks, bonds, gold, a factory, wheat futures, etc- Come on Joaquin. You can do better than this.. Also, I know it is difficult for you to take quotes from Marx seriously, having lived through the SWP and hated it so much, but Marx had a lot of interesting insights. Anthony From anthony.boynton at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 15:53:14 2009 From: anthony.boynton at gmail.com (Anthony Boynton) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 17:53:14 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] My profound apologies Message-ID: <7b8a676d0901031453v70b18213ucf01eb9c474c709c@mail.gmail.com> My profound apologies for mentioning a name in the subject line. That was an error. Anthony From anthony.boynton at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 16:14:01 2009 From: anthony.boynton at gmail.com (Anthony Boynton) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:14:01 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Gaza and media Message-ID: <7b8a676d0901031514u55624e3fx907823cfee6cf039@mail.gmail.com> Christiane Amanpour interviewed an Israeli spokesperon on CNN (the one out of London, not the Atlanta one) in which she repeatedly question the guy about the women and children who had were being killed. Otherwise London based CNN sounds like Isreali propaganda. This interview aired about four hours ago here in colombia, just after London based CNN start covering it. BBC, RAI, DW, and TV5 are also providing extensive coverage here. Anthony From anthony.boynton at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 16:17:21 2009 From: anthony.boynton at gmail.com (Anthony Boynton) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:17:21 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Dem leaders out of step with voters on Israel's attack on Gaza Message-ID: <7b8a676d0901031517g5be3a24fs2ece88f342b827be@mail.gmail.com> Dem leaders out of step with voters on Israel's attack on Gaza Recommend (29) Comments January 3, 2009 BY GLEN GREENWALD A new Rasmussen Reports poll -- the first to survey American public opinion specifically regarding the Israeli attack on Gaza -- strongly bolsters the severe disconnect between American public opinion on U.S. policy toward Israel and the consensus views expressed by America's political leadership. Not only does Rasmussen find that Americans generally "are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza Strip" (44 percent to 41 percent, with 15 percent undecided), but Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive -- by a 24-point margin. By stark contrast, Republicans, as one would expect (in light of their history of supporting virtually any proposed attack on Arabs and Muslims), overwhelmingly support the Israeli bombing campaign (62 percent to 27 percent). It's not at all surprising that Republican leaders -- from Dick Cheney and John Bolton to virtually all appendages of the right-wing noise machine -- are unquestioning supporters of the Israeli attack. After all, they're expressing the core ideology of the overwhelming majority of their voters and audience. Much more notable is the fact that Democratic leaders -- including Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi -- are just as lock step in their blind, uncritical support for the Israeli attack, in their absolute refusal to utter a word of criticism of, or even reservations about, Israeli actions. While some Democratic politicians who are marginalized by the party's leadership are willing to express the views that Democratic voters overwhelmingly embrace, the suffocating, fully bipartisan orthodoxy which typically predominates in America when it comes to Israel is in full force with this latest conflict. Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet the leaders of both parties adopt identical positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice? More notably still, is there any other position, besides Israel, where a party's voters overwhelmingly embrace one position (Israel should not have attacked Gaza) but that party's leadership unanimously embraces the exact opposite position (Israel was absolutely right to attack Gaza and the U.S. must support Israel unequivocally)? Equally noteworthy is that the factional breakdown regarding Israel-Gaza mirrors quite closely the factional alliances that arose with regard to the Iraq war. Just as was true with Iraq, one finds vigorous pro-war sentiment among the Dick Cheney/National Review/neoconservative/hard-core-GOP crowd, joined (as was true for Iraq) by some American liberals who typically oppose that faction yet eagerly join with them on Israel. Meanwhile, most of the rest of the world -- Europe, South America, Asia, the Middle East, the U.N. leadership -- opposes and condemns the attack, all to no avail. The parties with the superior military might -- the U.S. and Israel -- dismiss world opinion as essentially irrelevant. Even the pro-war rhetorical tactics are the same, just as those who opposed the Iraq war were said to be "pro-Saddam," those who oppose the Israeli attack on Gaza are now "pro-Hamas." There are certainly meaningful differences between the U.S. attack on Iraq and the Israeli attack on Gaza (most notably the fact that Hamas does shoot rockets into Israel and has killed Israeli civilians and Israel is blockading and occupying Palestinian land, whereas Iraq did not attack and could not attack the U.S. as the U.S. was sanctioning them and controlling their airspace). But the underlying logic of both wars is far more similar than different: military attacks, invasions and occupations will end rather than exacerbate terrorism; the Muslim world only understands brute force; the root causes of the disputes are irrelevant; diplomacy and the U.N. are largely worthless. It's therefore entirely unsurprising that the sides split along the same general lines. What's actually somewhat remarkable is that there is even more lock-step consensus among America's political leadership supporting the Israeli attack on Gaza than there was supporting the U.S. attack on Iraq. salon.com From sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com Sat Jan 3 16:29:31 2009 From: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com (sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 18:29:31 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Invasion and Resistance Message-ID: <20090103232931.CF61F1A003A@smtp.hushmail.com> The following brief report was posted on the invasion from the PFLP. There was a militant demonstation already in Dearborn organized by the Michigan Citizens for Palestinian Rights. Resistance confirms casualties to Israeli occupation soldiers in the first hour of the invasion PFLP sources confirmed on January 3, 2009 that in the first hour of the ground invasion of Gaza, Israeli occupation soldiers have already suffered a number of casualties due to the courageous fighting of the resistance forces in Gaza. The Israeli forces as they continue their ground invasion have been targeting largely women and children. Doctors and medical personnel at Palestinian hospitals are reporting severe injuries and bodies are coming with the kinds of injuries seen from cluster bombs or other types of severely destructive weapons that target human flesh, the so-called anti-personnel weapons. Also, the occupier's targeting of gas resources are causing large gas fires that are poisoning our people and causing an environmental catastrophe. In the face of these continuing horrific crimes of the occupier, the resistance is continuing to confront the occupier and prevent it from eliminating our resistance. We are continuing to launch missiles into the heart of the occupation and will continue to do so. A roadside explosive device has exploded an occupation tank as it attempted to advance into Gaza and occupation soldiers have suffered serious casualties at the hands of resistance fighters in three sections of Gaza where they are attempting to invade. The PFLP further warned against attempts at psychological warfare by the enemy in order to demoralize our steadfast people. Towards victory! -- Start a rewarding Medical Transcriptionist career. Click to find affordable and flexible programs. http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/PnY6qxthN5URyt4GptK2i7VCpAyRjaammqAtBusHZzjA0t1CrIion/ From sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com Sat Jan 3 16:43:27 2009 From: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com (sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 18:43:27 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Palestine and Revolution Message-ID: <20090103234327.8926F118049@smtp.hushmail.com> John wrote: >No, for Sobaud and his co-thinkers the essential >struggle is between the Palestinians themselves, >between the secular forces and those he denounces >as Islamo-fascists. You are a piece of work John . ?Islamo-fascists?? ?My associates?? What in hell are you talking about? ?Islamo-fascism? is a stupid, a historical term fit only for Fox News, Christopher Hitchens, and yourself. I have never used it and if you had actually read my posts you would discover I wasn?t even that hard on Hamas. I said I did not support their program for establishing an Islamic state because this goal is a repudiation of the concept of a secular, democratic state in all of Palestine. As I hope you are aware of now, the fight for a secular democracy has always been the foundation of the revolutionary struggle against Zionism. I know why Hamas won the election in 2006 against Fatah and that does not change the simple historical fact that states based on religious confession and enforcing religious law are a bad idea. That simple observation has nothing to do with your raves about neo-liberalism or whether I support the Palestinian resistance in the armed against Israeli aggression. Okay, I promised no more exchanges with John on Palestine (does he know Walter by any chance?) and I mean it this time. There are far more important things going on now with the news of the invasion and the mobilizations that are already taking place. Revolution until victory! Generation after generation until total liberation! P.S. My name is O?Buadhaigh and don?t worry about the proper accent marks. -- Start providing for your family by becoming a paralegal. Click Now. http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/PnY6qxt7fLMarGLOSyKxNSH6gaDilyboBuFRIkFNy5FvaNcqAHFZl/ From sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com Sat Jan 3 17:10:52 2009 From: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com (sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:10:52 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism Message-ID: <20090104001053.119B520040@smtp.hushmail.com> John wrote: > James Connolly understood this when he brought his >volunteers into alliance with Irish Nationalists, >Catholic fundamentalists to the core, in his struggle >against British imperialism in 1916. Not surprisingly, John?s uninformed comments on Ireland are deeply offense. The only people I know who allege that the Irish nationalists of 1916 were ?Catholic fundamentalists to the core? are the religious bigots in the Unionist strongholds of Ulster. That was the rationale then for threatening a civil war over home rule legislation and it is their rationale now for the tight embrace of British imperialism. Connolly did not ?ally? with Irish nationalists because he was an Irish nationalist, to the core, as well as being a revolutionary socialist. Remember the PFLP document I shared with John that discussed the class struggle that occurs simultaneously with the national struggle? Read it again. Modern Irish nationalism arose in the era of the French Revolution largely initiated, and lead, by Protestants. The tri-color of the Irish Republican movement is patterned after the flag of revolutionary France. There are no religious symbols on it. If you were to examine the 1916 proclamation, read by Pearse, on the steps of the GPO, you will note the first person to sign it was Thomas Clark. Clark was not religious and he met his fate, in front of a firing squad, without confessing and reconciling himself to the church. His name was first because it was he, and not Pearse, who was the driving force behind the Easter Rising, and without him it would not have happened. Now that you have the proclamation of the Irish Republic in front of you, read the whole thing and prove to me it is the program of a Catholic fundamentalist movement. Let?s see, it does use the word ?God? twice, once in the beginning and once at the very end, but there is no overt religious dogma anywhere. Connolly?s socialist influence is clearly evident in the famous phrase, ?We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies...? As to the division of the Irish people between Catholic and Protestant, these so-called ?fundamentalists" proclaim equality and complete religious liberty. ? The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.? It was an inspiring call to arms and worthy of unqualified revolutionary support. Stiofan -- Earn up to $150/hour as a paralegal. Click to get trained now. http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/PnY6qxt7fLCOPZyuvn2CU2GLCwBJw92z1uR5DFoXgViQ7HDmdMdUT/ From russo.matthew9 at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 17:29:27 2009 From: russo.matthew9 at gmail.com (Matthew Russo) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 16:29:27 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Dueling Powers and Capitalist Property in the UnitedStates by Matt Russo (Joaquin Bustelo) Message-ID: <1b7033e60901031629l5bef4e8ao2b1952b7529fc80a@mail.gmail.com> Hey Joaquin, Because ideological posturing is more important than comprehending facts, you've blinded yourself to the simple distinction between the social reality of mass home ownership, including worker home ownership, and whether or not it is a winning business proposition in all times and places. In the latter case it certainly is not in the majority of cases, just as is the case with any small business proposition under capitalism. Hence your several paragraphs of explanation concerning this case are entirely wasted, as this is not the case being made, neither by Anthony nor in Dueling Powers and Capitalist Property. You've also confused the fact that this must be a (petty) form of capitalist property like everything else under capitalism, including by the way capitalist state property, with the fact of the overall social determinations of the owner of that property, whose concrete social character is the product of a multiplicity of determinations in which one of them, if they are a wage worker, is dominant. But here is a little fact to chew on, in a survey presented by the U.S. Census Bureau as of 2005: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs05/tab3-15.pdf Go to page 22. This counts only owner-occupied housing, so it fits exactly the case under consideration here. See how out of 74,931 surveyed units, 24,776 own free and clear, without any mortgage or lien whatsoever. That is over 30% of owner-occupied housing, people (of unknown class composition) who live rent free, paying only taxes, insurance and maintenance. The percentage is slightly higher in the South and in rural areas, but is not substantially lower even in the "inner cities". Now maybe these are evil government lies, but I doubt it. There ARE politically manipulated stats, but these are high profile: the CPI, the GDP, and the unemployment rate. I do recall Marx was big on the productions of the British government in his time though. But the basic questions here are: 1) Is there a labor aristocracy of privileged workers in the imperialist countries? 2) If so, what is their TOTAL relationship to the capitalist class? Yes, it is precisely the point here that capital is a social relation, and for precisely that reason the wage worker who is privileged to own capitalist property no matter how petty (successfully of course), stands in more that purely a wage earning, unpaid surplus value providing relation to the capitalist class. -Matt From lnp3 at panix.com Sat Jan 3 17:38:35 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:38:35 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Dueling Powers and Capitalist Property in the UnitedStates by Matt Russo (Joaquin Bustelo) In-Reply-To: <1b7033e60901031629l5bef4e8ao2b1952b7529fc80a@mail.gmail.com> References: <1b7033e60901031629l5bef4e8ao2b1952b7529fc80a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4960050B.2060701@panix.com> Matthew Russo wrote: > > Yes, it is precisely the point here that capital is a social relation, and > for precisely that reason the wage worker who is privileged to own > capitalist property no matter how petty (successfully of course), stands in > more that purely a wage earning, unpaid surplus value providing relation to > the capitalist class. > These are basically the same points that Engels made in "The Housing Question". (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/housing-question/index.htm) Back in 1981 when I first hooked up with Peter Camejo, I introduced him to an old friend in NYC who is no Marxist but pretty sophisticated politically. He told Peter that there will never be a revolution in the USA because workers owned their own houses and thought like the bourgeoisie even though their property was negligible. To my surprise, Camejo agreed with him although he advised my friend that never is a very long time. One of the reasons I find these arguments dubious is that they are endorsed by the SWP which stated in the Militant newspaper that is incorrect to fight against foreclosures. That took a lot of chutzpah considering that the SWP leader lived in a million dollar condo in the West Village. Maybe I'll try to find some time in the next week or so to see what other post-Engels Marxists had to say on the question of housing. From Jscotlive at aol.com Sat Jan 3 17:47:14 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 19:47:14 EST Subject: [Marxism] Palestine and Revolution Message-ID: Sobaud: said I did not support their program for establishing an Islamic state because this goal is a repudiation of the concept of a secular, democratic state in all of Palestine. As I hope you are aware of now, the fight for a secular democracy has always been the foundation of the revolutionary struggle against Zionism. Reply: Again, you fail completely to grasp the fact that at this moment in time the historic task is not the establishment of a secular, democratic state in all of Palestine, which under existing material conditions is nothing more than political posturing, it is nothing less than the survival of the Palestinian people and their resistance to ethnic cleansing. And despite your smug assertion, you have made me aware of nothing except a woeful analysis which attempts to substitute metaphysics for dialectics. The fight for secular democracy was at one time the foundation of the struggle against Zionism. Now it is not, except perhaps in your own head. At this given moment, I repeat, the important thing is not the form which the resistance takes but resistance itself. Sobaud: I know why Hamas won the election in 2006 against Fatah and that does not change the simple historical fact that states based on religious confession and enforcing religious law are a bad idea Reply: Yep, those pesky lil Palestinian chitlens really don't know what's good for them, do they? Nothing of course to do with the expression of resistance under prevailing material conditions, nothing to do with the vacuum left by the removal of secular resistance movements across the Arab world as a result of their defeat at the hands of imperialism combined with the mistakes of their leaders, resulting in their degeneration. No, decades of the ebb and flow of struggle which resulted in the emergence of Hamas and the rise of Political Islam in general is summed up by Sobaud in just three words - 'a bad idea. From mdriscollrj at charter.net Sat Jan 3 18:28:43 2009 From: mdriscollrj at charter.net (Ralph Johansen) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:28:43 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] # Dem leaders out of step with voters on Israel's attack on Gaza Message-ID: <496010CB.1070402@charter.net> It puzzles me that we're not seeing on the web and anywhere else available, over and over again on behalf of the Palestinian cause, those maps of the area showing how Israel has stolen more and more Palestinian land, year by year - how the squeezing of the Palestinians into apartheid areas has systematically developed. That to me is the most graphic and shocking illustration of the power relations, the Zionist design and the deliberate and fundamentally unfair nature of Israel's and US conduct and official policy. Also, to casually compare this in justification as some pro-Israeli commentators often do to what the US has done historically on the North American continent doesn't cut it. Aside from its comparison of two unacceptables, the events are not comparable in time and place, and no comparable avenues of protest existed then: at the time of the extermination of the Native Americans, there was little or no on-the-scene reporting, little or no democracy, little or no developed international law (however unenforceable), no history of apartheid, few universally accepted standards of humane conduct or popular international input of any depth and no instantaneous communication through the various world media. Where would I find those maps? Ralph Johansen Anthony Boynton wrote: Dem leaders out of step with voters on Israel's attack on Gaza January 3, 2009 BY GLEN GREENWALD A new Rasmussen Reports poll -- the first to survey American public opinion specifically regarding the Israeli attack on Gaza -- strongly bolsters the severe disconnect between American public opinion on U.S. policy toward Israel and the consensus views expressed by America's political leadership. Not only does Rasmussen find that Americans generally "are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza Strip" (44 percent to 41 percent, with 15 percent undecided), but Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive -- by a 24-point margin. By stark contrast, Republicans, as one would expect (in light of their history of supporting virtually any proposed attack on Arabs and Muslims), overwhelmingly support the Israeli bombing campaign (62 percent to 27 percent). (---) From Jscotlive at aol.com Sat Jan 3 18:29:34 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 20:29:34 EST Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism Message-ID: The originators of the modern Irish nationalist movement - men like Wolfe Tone and Robert Emmett - were Protestant and inspired by the example of the French Revolution. And Padraig Pearse, the de facto leader of the 1916 Easter Rising, along with the other seven signatories of the Proclamation, was certainly inspired by the republican ideals espoused by them. But he was also committed to the Gaelicising of Irish society, its culture, language, and education, which was then, and is now, both undeniably and inextricably linked to a Catholic identity. Yes, the progressive clauses included in the Proclamation were at the insistence of Connolly, which is exactly the point I was making with regard to his alliance with the Irish nationalists. He understood that though he shared fundamental differences with regard to the political and social forces he was aligning with, those differences paled in comparison to the immediate task of the struggle against British imperialism. He joined forces with Pearse et al without holding any illusions that if they should succeed in ending British rule he would then face his allies as enemies in the struggle to move from political to social emancipation. And while the central role of the Catholic Church in the Irish Free State may not have been the original aim or intention of the signatories of the Proclamation in 1916, it is hard to see how such religious conservatism, especially in matters of social policy, would not have been as rigid should they have survived to see their dream of Irish nationhood come to pass. From nchamah at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 18:48:23 2009 From: nchamah at gmail.com (nchamah miller) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 20:48:23 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] QUESTION ON CHAVEZ Message-ID: Does anyone have Chavez's statement on the current crisis in Gaza? From anthony.boynton at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 19:01:15 2009 From: anthony.boynton at gmail.com (Anthony Boynton) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 21:01:15 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Dueling Powers and Capitalist Property in the UnitedStates by Matt Russo Message-ID: <7b8a676d0901031801o7d83c796rddc5a1885e5f56d8@mail.gmail.com> Re: [Marxism] Dueling Powers and Capitalist Property in the UnitedStates by Matt Russo I have always thought the SWP was off base, and in recent years in outerspace. (I am referring to Louis Proyect's post ( *Subject*: Re: [Marxism] Dueling Powers and Capitalist Property in the UnitedStates by Matt Russo (Joaquin Bustelo) ) Just to be clear I think fighting against foreclosures is a good idea, even if the owners are not workers. If someone tries to kick the shop keeper down the street out of his shop, or out of his house, all of the neighbors should mobilize to keep the neighbor shopkeeper in, and stop the evicition. And so should the unions, and so should the churches. Socialist revolution, if it is ever to happen again, will require the mobilization of more than the poor proletarian masses, it will require the mobilization of the labor aristocracy who own their own homes, and a big part of the pure petty bourgeoisie as well. Without the mobilization of the peasantry, what would have happened to the French revolution, or the Russian revolution, or the Chinese revolution, or the Mexican revolution? Look at the land struggles throughout the "third world", including here in Colombia. I am without reservation on the side of those trying to occupy a little plot of land, whether it is currently owned by a big landowner, the government, or without proper deed at all, and unreservedly against the big land-owners, drug dealers, and agents of the government (same thing). Just like in the wild west. Anybody who thinks they are for a revolution, whether or not they think they are a Marxist, should be for the oppressed against the oppressor. This is the ABC of Morenoism, and for my nickel, of all truly revolutionary tradition. One of the reasons I find these arguments dubious is that they are endorsed by the SWP which stated in the Militant newspaper that is incorrect to fight against foreclosures. That took a lot of chutzpah considering that the SWP leader lived in a million dollar condo in the West Village. Maybe I'll try to find some time in the next week or so to see what other post-Engels Marxists had to say on the question of housing. Anthony From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 19:01:30 2009 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:01:30 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Aborigines & the identity question a comment to Noel Pearson Message-ID: * * Along with some indigenous friends I am engaged in a long term project of critquing the work of the right wing think tank, The Cape York Institute, run by the Indigenous intellectual Noel Pearson. These are my initial responses to a 2006 paper he delivered in Brisbane * * *Paper 1 LAYERED IDENTITIES AND PEACE ; **Earth Dialogue ; Brisbane Festival; Sunday 23 July 2006 * *Located at www.cyi.org.au/www.cyi.org.au/* This piece owes much to Amartya Sen. It also interestingly seems to acknowledge ontological depth in its talk of layered identities. But I feel that the talk on identities does not acknowledge some important salient facts. Identities do cause wars etc. They do provide bonds and they do blow up bridges between people. What is the solution here? Pearson as befits a true son of the postmodern impulse seeks diversity. So he gives us a model of the individual as the layered site of "competing" identities. This is the "many" of the ancient the One versus the "many" of philosophical debate. The notion of competing identities is meant to prevent the development of a mono-identity at any level. Fragmentation is supposed to exist at the individualistic level. I would counter this with a model which restores the notion of the one at a deeper existential level. We are both many and one. There is only one race and that is the human race. So at a depth level we all share a universal & common core humanity. But this is a concrete universal. It is realized in the individual who is subject to many other mediations. However the sad fact is that for many individuals the universal identity is abstract rather than concrete. To the impoverished Aborigine who has been driven out of Cairns or Townsville by the police and the local authorities and has nowhere to go, talk of a universal identity is very abstract indeed. He has become the despised other of White society and no pious talk can gainsay that. Again what is the answer here? I think the answer is to acknowledge that yes identities are layered. But not all layers are equal. The correct metaphor is not that of the smorgasbord where we can go out in the morning and select the appropriate identity for that day. That is the dream of the postmodernist intellectual, but it is an insult to try and peddle that to the people of Weipa or Aurukun. They are thrown into the identity of the Despised Other and must seek to reject it or succumb to the multiple miseries of Capitalist modernity. If we acknowledge that not all identities are equal nor are they all chosen freely, then we are I think closer to a more nuanced model of the choices facing all of us and in particular those who are thrown into the identity of the Despised Other. The salient fact is that some identities will emerge as the dominant or important one and the individual is not always free to choose which identity will emerge as the existentially crucial one. Identities emerge from contexts or to be more accurate from social struggles. Thus under the Third Reich the distinction between secular and religious Jews was dissolved in the furnace of Nazi hatred. Similarly in Gaza today all differences between Palestinians have been elided by the Zionist war machine. Pearson's musing on identities would also have been helped by a realization that identities can be real but also false. Chris Sarra's research documented the continued existence of the Aborigine as Despised Other. The notion that Aborigines are filthy, lazy, unreliable etc is still strong within our society. It is then real in that it is efficacious. But it is of course also deeply false. But in addition to being false the identity of the Aborigine as the Despised Other is also necessary. In other words in Bhaskarian terms it is deeply ideological. Its necessity of course lies with the role it performs in the continued project of the expropriation and oppression of Indigenous Australians. Finally I would argue that what we need is not a model of competing identities but rather a struggle for all individuals and societies to construct a complex of compatible identities. We are all human and as such we are heir to a universal identity based on love and creativity, what Bhaskar has termed as our ground states. But we are all born into a particular biological, social and political conjuncture and it is this conjuncture that determines which range of identities is open to us and the relationships that hold between the identities. Arguably the present situation in the Middle East is demonstrating with horrific intensity that the identity of being a Zionist is not compatible with the identity of being a true human being. While of course the identity of being a Jew is compatible with all that is best in humanity. Similarly I think that Australian history shows, for instance, that the identity of being an Aboriginal Australian is compatible with that of being a true human being, while the identity of being a white colonist is not. comradely Gary From nchamah at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 19:22:24 2009 From: nchamah at gmail.com (nchamah miller) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 21:22:24 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Che's view on hoods ? In-Reply-To: <704103.55929.qm@web24604.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <704103.55929.qm@web24604.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I believe it cannot be attributable to El Che but it is a critique i have heard from Latin American revolutionaries in respect of this practice and the neo EZLN nchamah 2009/1/2 Anonym Need : > > > I'm conducting a survey. And I wanted to know if Che Guevara wrote or said anything like this : > > > > > > "Real > revolutionaries do not go about wearing hoods(=capuchas) for one more > reason : At the time of revolution the people must recognise in the > faces of the revolutionaries its vanguard. The people doesn't value > meddling with hooded ones(=encapuchados)." > > > > > > If there is any kind of writing or speech of Che on "encapuchados"/hooded ones please answer. > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > ?????????????? Yahoo!; > ?????????? ?? ?????????? ???????? (spam); ?? Yahoo! Mail > ???????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????????? ???? ??? ??????????? > ????????? http://login.yahoo.com/config/mail?.intl=gr > ________________________________________________ > 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 glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Sat Jan 3 19:07:42 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 13:07:42 +1100 Subject: [Marxism] France: New Anti-Capitalist Party `a very exciting initiative' In-Reply-To: <495F74D7.3070102@panix.com> References: <495F74D7.3070102@panix.com> Message-ID: <496019EE.2080607@greenleft.org.au> I'd like to point out that any article that appears at Links does not imply agreement or disagreement with it by the DSP (Z). Links has had extensive coverage of the French New Anti-Capitalist Party from a variety of revolutionary left viewpoints. Please see http://links.org.au/taxonomy/term/318, most recently an article by leading LCR veterans (at http://links.org.au/node/835) Louis Proyect wrote: > What's sad about Mullen's cluelessness is that it is most certainly > shared by the Australian DSP that printed this interview in Links. When > I proposed that the DSP should have dissolved itself as the LCR is now > planning to do, one of their members (or ex-members, I am not sure) > shrieked about how I had an answer for everything. I don't have an > answer for everything, but I am pretty damned sure about the sectarian > business. > > > From lnp3 at panix.com Sat Jan 3 19:46:58 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 21:46:58 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] France: New Anti-Capitalist Party `a very exciting initiative' In-Reply-To: <496019EE.2080607@greenleft.org.au> References: <495F74D7.3070102@panix.com> <496019EE.2080607@greenleft.org.au> Message-ID: <49602322.2090802@panix.com> glparramatta wrote: > I'd like to point out that any article that appears at Links does not > imply agreement or disagreement with it by the DSP (Z). Links has had > extensive coverage of the French New Anti-Capitalist Party from a > variety of revolutionary left viewpoints. Please see > http://links.org.au/taxonomy/term/318, most recently an article by > leading LCR veterans (at http://links.org.au/node/835) > > Well, there's one thing to be said about Norm Dixon in the 10 years that he has been a Marxmail subscriber and that is his steadfast refusal to take a position on anything other of course than his tacit approval of the DSP positions on various questions. In my mind's eye, this is the way I imagine him looking in real life: http://daisydownunder.com/images/M-spockA.jpg From walterlx at earthlink.net Sat Jan 3 19:53:18 2009 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 21:53:18 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [Marxism] Mariela Castro on the Future of Sex and Socialism in Cuba Message-ID: <26388692.1231037598429.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Thanks to Yoshie Furuhashi who posted this to CubaNews tonight. //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Interview with Mariela Castro on the Future of Sex and Socialism in Cuba by Anastasia Haydulina Mariela Castro is Director of the National Center for Sex Education in Cuba. Anastasia Haydulina: One day your uncle Fidel Castro . . . is going to die. Do you think his death will change the status quo of your Cuba? Mariela Castro: First of all, the death of Fidel will bring great suffering for the Cuban people, and it will be an enormous loss. But as far as I can see, the Cubans are willing to continue on the path of socialism even when our Comandante is no longer with us, even when my father and other forefathers of the revolution are not. Our people want socialism. Of course, we're very self-critical, so what we need is a better and rich socialreform that will resolve most of the existing contradictions. People themselves are proposing actions necessary for the survival of our socialist society, a society that should always guarantee social justice, equality, and solidarity within the nation, as well as in relations with others. We want welfare, but not as exaggerated as that of consumer societies. I think that socialism in Cuba will survive and become what we have considered to be a utopia. Anastasia Haydulina: Same-sex unions in a Communist, originally Catholic, state? Mariela Castro: Yes, I believe that, in societies like ours, same-sex unions are possible. It's true that, in the history of countries that have tried to create socialism, sexuality-related prejudices from the capitalist past have persisted. But in the Cuban version of socialism it will surely be possible to make fundamental changes in the lives of men and women according to their sexual orientation and other elements of their sexuality that haven't been contemplated by other socialist nations to date. Of course there are very strong influences of religions predominant in our cultures, but they are not going to become obstacles to achieving the aim of guaranteeing human rights socialism must guarantee. That is why we proposed a bill to legalize same-sex unions to parliament. Anastasia Haydulina: What makes you feel you can overcome the stigma within the Communist Party and legislative barriers to pass it as well? Mariela Castro: As head of the National Center for Sex Education, not as daughter of the president, I presented an educational strategy strongly based on the mass media to bring the attention of the Cuban society to various expressions of sexuality within it. Anastasia Haydulina: Realistically, when do you think we are going to see this bill passed here in Cuba? Mariela Castro: We've already accomplished a lot. For example, we've achieved a resolution by the public health ministry that guarantees transsexuals specialized attention, including sex change surgeries. The first of these types of operation are about to begin. They were first performed in 1988 but were interrupted due to people's incomprehension. We're proposing important changes to the family code that include the right of people of the same sex to legalize their unions. We're also working on a gender identity decree law that will make it easier for transsexuals to change their sex and identity papers, regardless of the sex change surgery. Because not all of them are automatically eligible for this operation, but nevertheless people do need society to recognize them in accordance with their gender identity, not by biological sex. Anastasia Haydulina: Tell us more about the history of homophobia in this country. Mariela Castro: Just like any other patriarchal societies in the world, Cuban society is homophobic. In the 1960s and 70s, it expressed itself as a political decision that discriminated against homosexuals, especially men. That was a general criterion coming from not only religions but even from sciences. Psychiatry classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. There were even therapists to change homosexuals into heterosexuals, since that's what was considered normal and healthy. So, the Cuban politicians, educationalists, and doctors acted in accordance with the scientific precepts of the time as well. Neither teachers nor doctors could be gay. Today, no military person can be gay either. But there are homosexuals everywhere, whether out in the open or not. So we attend to them in our center, because humanity is about diversity. The most important thing here is that there have been discussion and change ever since. And in order to avoid this [homophobia] in the future, we've got to be explicit in our laws and policies. Homosexuality is a reality to be taken into account, not got rid of. Anastasia Haydulina: Two thirds of Cubans with HIV/AIDS are homosexual men. Are they provided due treatment? Are the Cubans with HIV provided the treatments they need? Mariela Castro: In 1983, when Fidel learned about the existence of AIDS, he asked the doctors of the Pedro Kour? Institute of Tropical Medicine to carry out research to avoid the tragedy on our island. Since then the state began designing its policies for HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention. Each patient infected with the virus is provided with all the medical assistance at the cost of the state. Although the medicines are very expensive, as well as prevention matters, these are fundamental to avoid the spreading of the epidemic. Even though Cuba maintains the lowest level [of infection] in the region and in the world, it keeps rising, so we need much more effective prevention and treatment. For example, the island buys condoms for the pharmacies, but many are donated and distributed free of charge as part of the center's educational activities across the country. Thanks to this efficient work, [HIV] infection hardly occurs among adolescents. Unfortunately the existing prejudices impede us from many of the educational activities planned for the homosexual male population. Anastasia Haydulina: Is your father supportive of your work? Mariela Castro: Yes, he's supportive of my work, thanks to the past influence of my mother, on sexual education, and mine. Of course, from time to time we have discussions meant to convince him of the need for quicker solutions. He's also influenced by other people that disagree with my work, and it's those people who create obstacles. But I believe that dialogue is fundamental to progress, so whenever I have a chance to sit down and talk with my father to convince him, I do so. Anastasia Haydulina: Your mother was an internationally recognized champion of women's rights. What challenges remain for women in Cuba? Mariela Castro: There are still the remains of machismo and inequality between men and women. Although there are few women in top governmental positions, we observe rising percentages of women technicians, lawmakers, vice ministers, ministers, as well as among the regional party leadership. Besides, in the last two hurricanes that hit the island, the actions of the women governing the two worst affected provinces made Cubans, and especially women, very proud. In troubled families, women keep returning to household chores and the upbringing up of children, because most of them still think that is our job, that "nobody can do it better than us." But men's participation in all these household duties is no less fundamental, especially in a time of crisis. Anastasia Haydulina: What other changes would you like to see in Cuba? Mariela Castro: I would like the US government to lift the financial, economic, and commercial blockade that it has imposed on our island for fifty years against the Cuban people and that has considerably prevented us from achieving our development goals. It has affected our economy, commercial relations, and financial mechanisms. Cuba doesn't receive credit from any bank, and it's very difficult for us to survive in the field of international economy. The companies that trade with Cuba are being penalized. We have big problems with the Internet without the access to optical fiber. It would be fundamental for life in Cuba to change, for its economy to grow, the salaries to rise. Then, we'd be able to produce, obtain, more materials and use the latest technologies. For example, I'd like to see improvements in democratic participation mechanisms on the island, so that our government could function more fluently. It has a very peculiar and good structure, like no other in the world, and we like its maturity. That's why we need to cultivate mechanisms for people's participation. It's one of the things that preoccupy me most and will bring about a whole range of other changes. This interview was broadcast by Russia Today on 1 January 2009. The text above is a partial transcript of the interview ========================================= WALTER LIPPMANN Havana, Cuba Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/ "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo" ========================================= From sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com Sat Jan 3 19:54:41 2009 From: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com (sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 21:54:41 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Al Jazeera in Gaza Message-ID: <20090104025441.83052158045@smtp.hushmail.com> Comrades are right that CNN coverage on the invasion sucks. Thankfully Al Jazeera has a team in Gaza and they are posting video reports (in English) on Youtube: The only good thing about CNN running IDF infomercials is that it affords a really good, close up look at every piece of American supplied equipment. I am looking for some sources so I can price out, in dollars, what every stock video clip running while the Israeli propaganda drones on, is costing the US citizen. Please forgive this fourth posting today. It was an emergency. -- Earn up to $150/hour as a paralegal. Click to get trained now. http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/PnY6qxt7fK5HeUvRkoPhED9WlUx6gx3X4slAvQmqrcHsvT6W6IrMb/ From walterlx at earthlink.net Sat Jan 3 20:04:39 2009 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 22:04:39 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [Marxism] Greenspan on the housing bubble (from LMD) Message-ID: <23354048.1231038279885.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Le Monde diplomatique ----------------------------------------------------- January 2009 `FEW EXPERTS WARNED THIS WEALTH WAS NOT REAL BUT VIRTUAL? Greenspan's view In his book The Age of Turbulence. Adventures in a New World (Penguin, New York, 2007) Alan Greenspan justifies his action in support of the property boom (p. 233): "I was aware that the loosening of mortgage credit terms for subprime borrowers increased financial risk, and that subsidised home ownership initiatives distort market outcomes. But I believed then, as now, that the benefits of broadened home ownership are worth the risk. Protection of property rights, so critical to a market economy, requires a critical mass of owners to sustain political support." He says too: "By early 2003, thirty-year mortgages were below 6 percent, the lowest they'd been since the sixties. Adjustable-rate mortgages cost even less. This spurred the turnover of houses that drove prices higher. Since 1994, the proportion of American households who became homeowners had accelerated. By 2006, nearly 69 percent of households owned their own home, up from 64 percent in 1994 and 44 percent in 1940. "The gains were especially dramatic among Hispanics and blacks, as increasing affluence as well as government encouragement of subprime mortgage programmes enabled many members of minority groups to become first-time home buyers. This expansion of ownership gave more people a stake in the future of our country and boded well for the cohesion of the nation, I thought. Home ownership resonates as deeply today as it did a century ago. Even in a digital age, brick and mortar (or plywood and Sheetrock) are what stabilise us and make us feel at home" (pp. 229-230). He reminds us that, according to The Economist, "between 2000 and 2005, the market value of residential property in developed nations rose from $40 trillion to more than $70 trillion. The largest share of that increase - $8 trillion - occurred in US single-family homes" (p 231). ________________________________________________________ ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ? 1997-2008 Le Monde diplomatique ========================================= WALTER LIPPMANN Havana, Cuba Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/ "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo" ========================================= From hyl0morphster at googlemail.com Sat Jan 3 20:14:07 2009 From: hyl0morphster at googlemail.com (Philip Dunn) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 03:14:07 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Petras on Israel's total war In-Reply-To: <495FB65D.2070700@gmail.com> References: <495FB65D.2070700@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1231038847.6228.9.camel@pdunn2-40gb> On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 11:02 -0800, nada wrote: > Given Petra's penchant for counting Jews everywhere, his "Zionist Power > Configuration (ZPC)" seems headed for the "Zioninst Occupied Gov't > (ZOG) of the Turner Diaries. He seems more concerned about condemning > Jews than condemning the Zionist assault on Gaze, the latter giving a > reason to go after the former. And, he is inaccurate: Anti-war > organizations HAVE condemned the assault on Gaza. > > David Are referring to this paragraph? "To date the entire human rights and anti-war movements have failed to even mention, let along challenge, the most powerful propaganda and political organizations, which influence US policy and manipulate the mass media in favor of Israel?s extermination campaign. They will play no restraining role on Israel?s totalitarian policies as long as its principle US backers are free to lie, manipulate and defend each and every crime." It is not about condemning the assault. Your remark that "he is inaccurate: Anti-war organizations HAVE condemned the assault on Gaza" is inaccurate. I do not like the smear tactics of your first sentence. From gdunkel at mindspring.com Sat Jan 3 20:18:27 2009 From: gdunkel at mindspring.com (Greg Dunkel) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 22:18:27 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [Marxism] France: New Anti-Capitalist Party `a very exciting initiative' Message-ID: <14018931.1231039107769.JavaMail.root@elwamui-milano.atl.sa.earthlink.net> I don't want to get into the debate about the DSP etcetera. But I noticed that the NPA and the CGT (which reflects the position of the PCF) held a militant, joint demonstration in Marseilles, where there was chanting in French and Arabic, against the Israeli attacks on Ghaza. What I am looking for is the LCR and the NPA to take on French imperialism/racism, which the PCF has done from time to time but certainly not in a sustained way. /greg From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Sat Jan 3 20:01:00 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:01:00 +1100 Subject: [Marxism] France: New Anti-Capitalist Party `a very exciting initiative' In-Reply-To: <49602322.2090802@panix.com> References: <495F74D7.3070102@panix.com> <496019EE.2080607@greenleft.org.au> <49602322.2090802@panix.com> Message-ID: <4960266C.5090409@greenleft.org.au> In my mind's eye, I picture this is what Louis looks like each time he hears the words ``DSP'': http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/photos/star_trek_chokes.jpg Actually I've taken many positions, not all with the DSP's prior approval: http://tinyurl.com/8woh7o (note: not every Norm listed is me, but most are) Louis Proyect wrote: > Well, there's one thing to be said about Norm Dixon in the 10 years that > he has been a Marxmail subscriber and that is his steadfast refusal to > take a position on anything other of course than his tacit approval of > the DSP positions on various questions. In my mind's eye, this is the > way I imagine him looking in real life: > > http://daisydownunder.com/images/M-spockA.jpg From menecraj at shaw.ca Sat Jan 3 20:25:49 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 21:25:49 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] # Dem leaders out of step with voters on Israel's attack on Gaza Message-ID: Ralph Johansen "Where would I find those maps?" I first saw these in Occupation Magazine (http://www.kibush.co.il ), and I grabbed them for a slide show on my website. I think these may be the ones you're referring to, Ralph: http://item.slide.com/r/1/60/i/VATlTBWl8gxPAK5MNiOqXw6oVd1TYnxH/ Richard Menec From dwaltersMIA at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 20:31:48 2009 From: dwaltersMIA at gmail.com (nada) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:31:48 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Petras on Israel's total war Message-ID: <49602DA4.6060009@gmail.com> I don't have to 'smear' Petras (he does a good enough job himself) but rather his inaccuracy in stating that anti-war organizations have not endorsed opposition to what is going on in Gaza. Here: "...To date the entire human rights and anti-war movements have failed to even mention, let along challenge..." ...what? The "zioninist controlled media"? Please. Every time someone marches for Gaza, or speaks out (is Petras doing this or preaching to the converted?) they as "challenging" the lies put of by the media. His paragraph is...what? Useless? It is a self-serving statement frought with implied ego on his part that only he could possible challange these news organizations. "They will play no restraining role on Israel?s totalitarian policies..." What a sanctimonious piece of shit. I read this and I would conclude "do nothing, go a home, read what I write, that's enough". He seems to be a writer that revels in, and sees pessimism, as a virtue. David From markalause at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 20:35:39 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 22:35:39 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Dueling Powers and Capitalist Property in the UnitedStates by Matt Russo (Joaquin Bustelo) In-Reply-To: <4960050B.2060701@panix.com> References: <1b7033e60901031629l5bef4e8ao2b1952b7529fc80a@mail.gmail.com> <4960050B.2060701@panix.com> Message-ID: I understand this as a short-cut analysis aimed at explaining the relative conservatiism of the US work force about class politics, but it's fundamentally flawed. It's already been made about pensions and insurance. No reason not to make the same argument, I suppose, about car ownership. But, in the end, it's about how the capitalists decide to arrange the housing, health care and transportation of its workers. People outside the US may have difficulties understanding it, but this country doesn't really have large scale decent public housing. We don't have socialized medicine, so the workers are often tied to private insurance companies and pensions. And if you have all the mass transportation the auto and petrochemical industries would permit, you will own a car. Of course, a lot of this "ownership" exists on sufferance. And, yes, it's a conservatizing force. Like Mrs. Premise and Mrs. Conclusion.... "I mean, how can I go off and join Frelimo when I've got nine more installments to pay on the fridge." But having to make payments on the fridge and being a member of the capitalist class are two very different things... ML From mdriscollrj at charter.net Sat Jan 3 20:43:13 2009 From: mdriscollrj at charter.net (Ralph Johansen) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:43:13 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Dem leaders out of step with voters on Israel's attack on Gaza Message-ID: <49603051.7010904@charter.net> Thanks, Richard Richard Menec wrote: Ralph Johansen "Where would I find those maps?" I first saw these in Occupation Magazine (http://www.kibush.co.il ), and I grabbed them for a slide show on my website. I think these may be the ones you're referring to, Ralph: http://item.slide.com/r/1/60/i/VATlTBWl8gxPAK5MNiOqXw6oVd1TYnxH/ Richard Menec From lueko.willms at t-online.de Sat Jan 3 13:48:09 2009 From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 21:48:09 +0100 (MEZ) Subject: [Marxism] Valkyri -- and some further-alongr personal reflections In-Reply-To: <016c01c96dcd$fbbef990$0400a8c0@computer> References: <016c01c96dcd$fbbef990$0400a8c0@computer> Message-ID: <002-09cf5f49-40031.022@lws-media.de> On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:06:15 -0700, Hunter Gray wrote: > When the film was being made in Germany, some Germans objected to it on the grounds that it opens old wounds. I am aware only of protests because of a member of the scientology cult playing the role of the bomb assasin von Stauffenberg, and worries that a Hollywood production could possibly not present the events in a "proper" way. While in the 1950ies the conspirators of the assasination attempt of July 20, 1944, have been regarded as bing guilty of high treason, nowadays they are extolled as the good spirit of the German military and are celebrated every year on July 20. Strange to hear that the celebrations of a bombing killing attempt when the next day the same people preach that violence can never be a means to achieve political goals and that terrorism is the worst danger to democracy, even of humanity as such. Comradely yours, L?ko Willms Frankfurt, Germany -------------------------------- From lueko.willms at t-online.de Sat Jan 3 20:47:25 2009 From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 04:47:25 +0100 (MEZ) Subject: [Marxism] Palestine and revolution Message-ID: <002-4d316049-23604.023@lws-media.de> On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 12:06:19 +0100 (GMT+01:00), s.artesian wrote: > What is clear in Palestine, as it was in Ireland, is > that the struggle against oppression and military barbarism > cannot be divorced from a class struggle; > that defense of all the Palestinians and real prospects > for rolling back the tanks, as opposed to bearing witness, > depends on exactly that evaluation of program, practice, > and history, so distasteful to some. Especially to our friend Sartesian. Since the real version of the above statement is that one cannot divorce the class struggle from the struggle for democracy and national sovereignty of the oppressed Arab people of Palestine. Once one thinks that one could lead a class struggle divorced from the national question, one falls into a deep trap of economism, of working class romanticism. But what can I say, nostalgia is also no longer what it once was. Comradely, L?ko Willms Frankfurt, Germany -------------------------------- visit http://www.mlwerke.de Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotzki in German From clashfan82 at bellsouth.net Sat Jan 3 20:49:11 2009 From: clashfan82 at bellsouth.net (Joe) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 22:49:11 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Movies, videos about Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. and/or the development of their ideas? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm looking for movies, videos, etc. dealing with any of the following: (1) the lives of Marx, Engels, Bernstein, Trotsky, Lenin, Mao, or any other important people in the Marxist tradition (2) the development of the ideas of any of the above folks (3) major theoretical debates in the history of Marxism Any suggestions? Thanks. --Joe P.S. I'm familiar The Battleship Potemkin, Ten Days That Shook the World, Reds, La Commune, etc., but movies such as these don't get at what I'm after: (intellectual) biographies of the major figures in the history of Marxism, major theoretical debates, etc. From sartesian at earthlink.net Sat Jan 3 21:11:52 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 05:11:52 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] Palestine and Revolution References: Message-ID: <7ED056FBFCDD409BBE5D27A0A6E5F2EA@dmsthinkpad> Perhaps we bring some light to this heat by recalling J's original admonition: This is no time for criticism. So let's ask John, prior to the Israel assault did you have any substantive criticisms of Hamas? Prior to November 5, 2008, did you have any substantive criticisms of Hamas? I have long felt that the demands for "silence" based on emergency circumstances are usually covers for defending a specific political position; a specific ideology; a specific group. Perhaps John is an exception to that "rule." No harm in finding out, is there? Due to the emergency circumstances I won't ask John to detail those substantive criticisms that he may have had prior to the emergency. I just want to know if he had any. Note to Luko: you need a better understand of economism, among other things. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 1:47 AM Subject: [Marxism] Palestine and Revolution From sartesian at earthlink.net Sat Jan 3 21:18:59 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 05:18:59 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism References: Message-ID: It might be important to point out here that the achievement of this Irish nationalism, this so-called grand alliance, was an Irish Free State that itself was a creation of imperialism, of a tactical accommodation by and TO British imperialism, "purchased" at the cost of the 6 counties, which were at the time, if I recall correctly, the most industrialized portion of Ireland. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 2:29 AM Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism From hyl0morphster at googlemail.com Sat Jan 3 22:12:51 2009 From: hyl0morphster at googlemail.com (Philip Dunn) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 05:12:51 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Petras on Israel's total war In-Reply-To: <49602DA4.6060009@gmail.com> References: <49602DA4.6060009@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1231045971.6228.17.camel@pdunn2-40gb> On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 19:31 -0800, nada wrote: > I don't have to 'smear' Petras (he does a good enough job himself) Ah, self-smearing. Very nasty. > but > rather his inaccuracy in stating that anti-war organizations have not > endorsed opposition to what is going on in Gaza. > > Here: > "...To date the entire human rights and anti-war movements have failed to > even mention, let along challenge..." ...what? The "zioninist controlled > media"? Please. Every time someone marches for Gaza, or speaks out (is > Petras doing this or preaching to the converted?) they as "challenging" > the lies put of by the media. > > His paragraph is...what? Useless? It is a self-serving statement frought > with implied ego on his part that only he could possible challange these > news organizations. "They will play no restraining role on Israel?s > totalitarian policies..." What a sanctimonious piece of shit. I read > this and I would conclude "do nothing, go a home, read what I write, > that's enough". He seems to be a writer that revels in, and sees > pessimism, as a virtue. > Whereas "we" are supremely optimistic at the the present juncture. no?. Let's relax and watch a video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6604775898578139565 From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 22:44:06 2009 From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 00:44:06 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Palestine and revolution In-Reply-To: <002-4d316049-23604.023@lws-media.de> References: <002-4d316049-23604.023@lws-media.de> Message-ID: <908b689f0901032144x312f97aen58cc826eb36876b@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 10:47 PM, L?ko Willms wrote: > On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 12:06:19 +0100 (GMT+01:00), s.artesian wrote: > >> What is clear in Palestine, as it was in Ireland, is >> that the struggle against oppression and military barbarism >> cannot be divorced from a class struggle; >> that defense of all the Palestinians and real prospects >> for rolling back the tanks, as opposed to bearing witness, >> depends on exactly that evaluation of program, practice, >> and history, so distasteful to some. > > Especially to our friend Sartesian. > > Since the real version of the above statement is that one cannot divorce > the class struggle from the struggle for democracy and national sovereignty > of the oppressed Arab people of Palestine. > > Once one thinks that one could lead a class struggle divorced from the > national question, one falls into a deep trap of economism, of working class > romanticism. That's not how he read the above. He was saying that: (A): the national struggle cannot be prosecuted successfully, if dissociated from the class struggle. But you're "versioning" that to read: (B): the class struggle can be prosecuted successfully, even if dissociated from the national struggle. Then you proceed to attack (B). But (B), while a highly dubious statement, does not follow from (A), nor was put forward by him as a claim. So, you're attacking a straw man. (B) From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 22:48:57 2009 From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 00:48:57 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] QUESTION ON CHAVEZ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <908b689f0901032148i2052a666k4254314abdc50fc9@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 8:48 PM, nchamah miller wrote: > Does anyone have Chavez's statement on the current crisis in Gaza? From: The following statement on Israeli aggression against the people of Palestine was issued by the Press Office of the Venezuelan President Hugo Ch?vez Fr?as on June 29. The translation is by Socialist Voice. The original can be found at: The president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Hugo Ch?vez Fr?as, condemned in the name of the Venezuelan people the most recent aggression that Israeli troops have waged against Palestine, as well as the violation of the airspace of Syria. He made his assertion this Thursday during an act celebrating the promotion of officers and sub-officers of the Presidential Honor Guard Regiment. He said that Israel must respect the Palestinian people, "a people who have struggled for years for peace and independence. We send our solidarity to Palestine's president and people." The Israeli army took over the south of the Gaza Strip and in the early morning dozens of tanks advanced from the north. The Israeli attack included the arrest of ten ministers, 20 parliamentarians, and members of the Palestine resistance. "They have been using the entire military power accumulated by the State of Israel with support from US imperialism to bomb, penetrate, and invade Palestinian territory in defiance of UN resolutions and world peace. Also, in defiance of the United Nations, they have violated the airspace of the Arab Republic of Syria with overflights of the residence of the Syrian president, using the excuse that Syria protects terrorists. Nothing, absolutely nothing can justify to anyone in this world the transgression of the sovereignty of states and of the liberty of peoples," the Venezuelan president said. "That's why and herein lies the importance of the battle we have been waging, our battle that we know has taken on or has extended itself into the world arena; our struggle is for peace, our struggle is for a world in equilibrium, as Bolivar said." From david at miradoiro.com Sat Jan 3 22:52:22 2009 From: david at miradoiro.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?David_Pic=F3n_=C1lvarez?=) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 06:52:22 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] Che's view on hoods ? References: <394006.24783.qm@web24608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In any event, isn't it the CP's business as the asserting party to say where the hell the quote comes from? --David. From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 22:56:43 2009 From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 00:56:43 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] QUESTION ON CHAVEZ In-Reply-To: <908b689f0901032148i2052a666k4254314abdc50fc9@mail.gmail.com> References: <908b689f0901032148i2052a666k4254314abdc50fc9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <908b689f0901032156k4ff80375tb51075e464c75c65@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Ruthless Critic of All that Exists wrote: > On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 8:48 PM, nchamah miller wrote: > >> Does anyone have Chavez's statement on the current crisis in Gaza? > > > From: > > > > The following statement on Israeli aggression against the people of > Palestine was issued by the Press Office of the Venezuelan President > Hugo Ch?vez Fr?as on June 29. The translation is by Socialist Voice. > The original can be found at: > > Sorry, that was from 2006. Here's Chavez on the current crisis (in English): In Spanish: Gobierno de Venezuela repudia criminal ataque de Israel en Gaza El texto, emitido por el Presidente Ch?vez, "expresa su solidaridad al Pueblo palestino" y propone una "campa?a masiva de repudio a estas infames acciones violentas, a trav?s de las cuales se busca aniquilar la esperanza de vida de un Pueblo entero" A continuaci?n, comunicado ?ntegro: Miraflores, 27 de diciembre de 2008 Comunicado El presidente de la Rep?blica Bolivariana de Venezuela, Hugo Ch?vez Fr?as, en nombre del Gobierno Bolivariano y como portavoz del Pueblo venezolano, quiere manifestar su profunda indignaci?n ante el criminal ataque que constituye el bombardeo de Israel al Pueblo palestino en la franja de Gaza. En este sentido, el Gobierno Bolivariano expresa su solidaridad al Pueblo palestino y eleva su voz ante la comunidad internacional, para emprender una campa?a masiva de repudio a estas infames acciones violentas, a trav?s de las cuales se busca aniquilar la esperanza de vida de un Pueblo entero. El ?nico gobierno del mundo que ha sido c?mplice de este ataque ha sido el gobierno de los Estados Unidos, y causa estupor la declaraci?n de su vocero, Gordon Jhondroe al se?alar que para que acabe la violencia en la regi?n, deben cesar los ataques a Israel. Esta acci?n bien podr?a constituir el invariable "sello de oro" de la criminal gesti?n saliente del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos, un mandato agonizante, cargado de violencia y distinguido a nivel mundial por los repetidos episodios de irrespeto a los derechos humanos. El Gobierno de la Rep?blica Bolivariana de Venezuela insta a los gobiernos amantes de la paz y la justicia a que eleven su voz de protesta contra esta agresi?n; as? como conmina a la Organizaci?n de las Naciones Unidas para que ejerza su autoridad y aplique las m?ltiples resoluciones adoptadas en favor del Pueblo Palestino y contra la violencia de estado practicada por el Gobierno de Israel; ?nico camino para garantizar una paz duradera y el fin de hechos como ?stos, que est?n absolutamente re?idos con la Carta de las Naciones Unidas y dem?s normas internacionales. Gobierno Bolivariano de Venezuela From lueko.willms at t-online.de Sat Jan 3 22:56:18 2009 From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 06:56:18 +0100 (MEZ) Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002-824f6049-24377.033@lws-media.de> On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 20:29:34 EST, Jscotlive at aol.com wrote: > And while the central role of the Catholic Church in the Irish Free State > may not have been the original aim or intention of the signatories of the > Proclamation in 1916, it is hard to see how such religious conservatism, > especially in matters of social policy, would not have been as rigid > should they have survived to see their dream of Irish nationhood > come to pass. I dare to differ on that, and strongly. Reactionary forces are strenghened by reacionary solutions like the division of the country into the 26-country republic and the 6-county statelet under direct British rule. Had the liberation gone further and deeper, i.e. achieved a full independence of all of Ireland, then a) the Catholic church would not have been able to claim a role of the unique representation and form of Christian faith, and b) every reactionary force would have been weakened, including the religious institutions. Similarly, but different, the claims that a united Germany after the previous war would have looked like the GDR burocratic rule, are as false as that. A united working class movement in Germany would not have tolerated such a rule after it would have successfully beaten back the efforts of the Western Allies to divide the country. Well, we are discussing "what if" questions, whose answers cannot be proved, but think about it and look at other outcomes in different places. Comradely yours, L?ko Willms Frankfurt, Germany -------------------------------- From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 00:30:40 2009 From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 02:30:40 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <908b689f0901032330p67e0f7d2n1b66c69bcf2541c6@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 8:29 PM, wrote: > Padraig Pearse, the de facto leader of the 1916 Easter > Rising, along with the other seven signatories of the Proclamation, was > certainly inspired by the republican ideals espoused by them. But he was also > committed to the Gaelicising of Irish society, its culture, language, and > education, which was then, and is now, both undeniably and inextricably linked to a > Catholic identity. But Hamas is not just "religious". Hamas is also virulently anti-semitic (in the sense of "anti-jewish"), including assuming that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (a well-known anti-semitic forgery from Tsarist times) is authentic: "The Palestinian Authority is presently controlled by the militant Islamist organization Hamas, whose 1988 covenant could almost be read as a rewrite of "The Protocols." "Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious," that covenant says. "With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations and others," it declares of Jews. "They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam," it says, asserting that Jews were behind the French and Russian revolutions, the Freemasons, the Rotary Clubs, imperialism, the two world wars, the United Nations, the drug trade and alcoholism. It cites a source: "Their plan is embodied in 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.' " The New York Times, April 21, 2006 The following article from CounterPunch is also worth reading: Are Hamas' New Guidelines Abetting Israeli Hardliners? Playing Two Different Games By AMIRA HASS "[Hamas] wrote in the guidelines that the Palestinian cause has an Arab and Islamic dimension, and a Hamas-led government will work to mobilize Arab and Islamic support for the Palestinian people in every field. "Under the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Palestinian cause became the entire world's cause, an issue of both national rights and human rights. Over the last five years, however, Israel has worked energetically to link the Palestinians with international Islamic terrorism and the "clash of civilizations:" enlightened versus benighted. "Now, Hamas' guidelines are helping Israel as well: They depict a religious and cultural clash, outside the framework of the people's struggle against foreign occupiers." From stuartmunckton at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 01:42:51 2009 From: stuartmunckton at gmail.com (Stuart Munckton) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 00:42:51 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] QUESTION ON CHAVEZ In-Reply-To: <908b689f0901032156k4ff80375tb51075e464c75c65@mail.gmail.com> References: <908b689f0901032148i2052a666k4254314abdc50fc9@mail.gmail.com> <908b689f0901032156k4ff80375tb51075e464c75c65@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2c6145850901040042g7e03a639vf23b90e524d39847@mail.gmail.com> Venezuela's statement in English. http://links.org.au/node/824 From Jscotlive at aol.com Sun Jan 4 01:51:55 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 03:51:55 EST Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism Message-ID: Luko: Had the liberation gone further and deeper, i.e. achieved a full independence of all of Ireland, then a) the Catholic church would not have been able to claim a role of the unique representation and form of Christian faith, and b) every reactionary force would have been weakened, including the religious institutions. Reply: Yes, but this is not the point I was making. Moreover, to speculate over what might have been had full independence been achieved is to ignore the reality of a rigidly pro-unionist six counties. There is not a scintilla of evidence that any enlightened faction or strain of thought existed in the unionist controlled six counties at the time that would have allowed the deepening of the struggle to full independence. Connolly's admonition of a 'carnival of reaction on both sides of the border' came to pass precisely because the poison of religious sectarianism had riven the country as a direct consequence of the hegemony of a transplanted loyalist ascendancy in the North. From Jscotlive at aol.com Sun Jan 4 02:42:28 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 04:42:28 EST Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism Message-ID: Ruthless Critic: But Hamas is not just "religious". Hamas is also virulently anti-semitic (in the sense of "anti-jewish"), including assuming that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (a well-known anti-semitic forgery from Tsarist times) is authentic: Reply: And this the result of a Marxist education, basing an entire analysis of a resistance movement's suitability for your support and solidarity on its deflected anger and not on the role it is playing within the schema of the global struggle against imperialism? I have to say, this descent to the level of Hamas demonisation which has become the favourite sport of right wing news commentators, Israeli propagandists, and their acolytes in the West over the last year, intensified over the past few days and weeks, really does plumb the depths on a Marxist discussion list. The key aspect of the struggle between the Palestinians and the Israelis is that it is a struggle between a people systematically immiserated, expropriated and brutalised, and an oppressor committed to continuing that process to their destruction as a national identity. Don't you think that under such conditions of extreme oppression, those being oppressed and brutalised may lose the luxury of distinguishing between the political orientation of their oppressors and their religion or ethnicity? To put it another way, would you really demonise a woman who as a result of being raped develops a hatred of men in general? Wouldn't you understand that irrational hatred as a direct result of the traumatising experience of being raped and not resort to blaming the victim for holding such views? The fundamental aspect missing, either wilfully or out of ignorance, from your easy lapse into this demonisation of an organisation whose unstinting resistance to Israeli ethnic cleansing, their provision of desperately needed social services to the most immiserated strata of their people, has earned them the support of said people, are the material conditions out of which Hamas emerged. Oppression breeds resistance, but it can also breed deflected anger. The overriding goal of Israel's siege and now assault on Gaza is the destruction of the last holdout of Palestinian resistance to their writ in Palestine, this in order to continue with the subjugation of the Palestinian people in their entirety and the continued slow but sure erosion of their national identity. It happens that this resistance is currently being led by Hamas, thus the reason for a determined attempt to isolate them from their people and remove them from the stage. But Hamas merely expresses Palestinian resistance in the current period. Remove Hamas and resistance itself is defeated. Your analysis, your fixation on the form the resistance currently takes, joins in this process, unwittingly or otherwise. There is no nice secular, Marxist-checklisted and pre-approved resistance waiting in the wings ready to step up to the plate, as inferred from your morbid fixation on Hamas Furthermore Hamas, like Hezbollah, consists of many former members of secular organisations, who joined the ranks of Hamas precisely because of the role they are playing in offering resistance to the oppression of their people. If religion is but a reflex of the material world, then even the most basic logic suggests that extreme oppression can and may give rise to religious extremism. Be that as it may, however, the Hamas fighters who as I write are currently laying down their lives in resistance to the most sustained and brutal and occupation in modern history, they are doing so in the cause of the Palestinian people in their entirety. And given that the cause of the Palestinian people is the cause of humanity in our time, I know where my support lies. What about you? From jeanmarat1793 at yahoo.gr Sun Jan 4 02:47:47 2009 From: jeanmarat1793 at yahoo.gr (Anonym Need) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 01:47:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] Che Guevara and hoods In-Reply-To: <7b8a676d0901031345q65054dafpdfd329732a800082@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <16555.81773.qm@web24606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> "I just did a quick survey here in Colombia, and nobody I emailed ever heard of any such quote. HOWEVER, similar arguments against wearing hoods are used here against both the anarchist youth and the youth connected to the FARC. Here demonstrators often wear hoods to signal they are willing to fight back against the police when they attack demonstrators. Also, those who plan to attack the police first wear hoods. Those who oppose militant tactics of any sort, use arguments like those of the Greek CP." I know all about encapuchados in Colombia and the Gina Parody incident. I also did a post on my Greek blog about it (it's in greek but there are quite some URLs to find out what happened, I didn't figure out who is Felipe Rios though). http://allotriosi.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/%CE%BC%CE%B5-%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%8D%CE%BB%CE%B1-%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B1-%CE%B1%CE%BC%CF%86%CE%B9%CE%B8%CE%AD%CE%B1%CF%84%CF%81%CE%B1-%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B9%CF%82-%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%86/ ___________________________________________________________ ?????????????? Yahoo!; ?????????? ?? ?????????? ???????? (spam); ?? Yahoo! Mail ???????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????????? ???? ??? ??????????? ????????? http://login.yahoo.com/config/mail?.intl=gr From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 03:35:23 2009 From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 05:35:23 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <908b689f0901040235p86d4ed6n3c757f24de62e2eb@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 4:42 AM, wrote: > Ruthless Critic: > > But Hamas is not just "religious". Hamas is also virulently > anti-semitic (in the sense of "anti-jewish"), including assuming that > the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (a well-known anti-semitic > forgery from Tsarist times) is authentic: > > Reply: > > I have to say, this descent to the level of Hamas demonisation > To put it another way, would you really demonise a woman who as a result of > being raped develops a hatred of men in general? Wouldn't you understand that > irrational hatred as a direct result of the traumatising experience of being The point here is not "demonisation" of Hamas. The point here is whether or not it is appropriate to criticize Hamas, and if so, when. Remember that the discussion between you and Soubaud started about this question, and mainly focused on religion. Soubaud's point was that Hamas will not be able to succeed in ithe goal of national liberation, because its movement is not class-associated, but rather religion-associated, and that, therefore, the sooner this is pointed out by Marxists, the better -- deferring or delaying criticism is not going to help. I am pointing out that, in addition to the reason Soubaud suggests (Hamas' reactionary religiosity) which makes national liberation under Hamas aegis quite impossible, there is yet another aspect to Hamas, namely Hamas' reactionary and virulent antisemitism, which makes national liberation under Hamas aegis *even* more impossible. Even more potential reason, therefore, to criticize Hamas right now, and always, that is, before, during and after the Israeli assault -- even as we criticize and condemn the Israeli assault. If under the sympathy it will receive as a result of the Israeli assault, Hamas increases its influence, it will endanger even more than it does presently the re-emergence of secular-nationalist elements within the Palestinian resistance. And to the extent that we Marxists know that only secular-nationalist elements, who are natural allies of the class struggle, can successfully prosecute a national-liberation struggle, holding off on criticizing Hamas will only delay, and possibly doom the prospects of, the eventual success of the national-liberation struggle. Furthermore, your analogy between Hamas and the raped woman seeking vengeance does not hold. All Palestinians' rights have been violated, but not all have embraced Hamas. Even now, though (hopefully only temporarily) weakened, there are secular-nationalist, even socialist-leaning, Palestinian groups who are continuing to struggle for national liberation outside the aegis of Hamas and, often enough, even in opposition to Hamas. From nmgoro at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 05:39:21 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 09:39:21 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] ????????????? Re: Valkyri -- and some further-alongr personal reflections In-Reply-To: <002-09cf5f49-40031.022@lws-media.de> References: <016c01c96dcd$fbbef990$0400a8c0@computer> <002-09cf5f49-40031.022@lws-media.de> Message-ID: <4960ADF9.5010702@gmail.com> L?ko Willms escribi?: > On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:06:15 -0700, Hunter Gray wrote: > > in the 1950ies the conspirators of the assasination attempt of July > 20, 1944, have been regarded as bing guilty of high treason, ACTUALLY SO!!!??? From sartesian at earthlink.net Sun Jan 4 04:51:55 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 12:51:55 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] Palestine and Revolution References: <7ED056FBFCDD409BBE5D27A0A6E5F2EA@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: Yesterday's demonstration in Paris was, IMO, huge-- news estimates are at 25,000. I think it was more, but couldn't really get a good grasp of the size-- had to leave early as I have developed bronchitis. It is unusually cold (so my friends tell me) here-- with temperatures at 0 celsius and below. From nmgoro at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 05:54:01 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 09:54:01 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] GROUND INVASION OF GAZA STARTED! In-Reply-To: References: <495FD03C.6070800@gmail.com> <3247E1CAAE9341C28DB5F546CC30BFFA@albanta> Message-ID: <4960B169.1030004@gmail.com> Gary MacLennan escribi?: > That France > has condemned the ground invasion is good. This week, both Brazil (through a direct statement by Lula) and Argentina (by way of an official communiqu? of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) have condemned it in unusually strong terms. FWIW. From nmgoro at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 06:18:02 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 10:18:02 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism In-Reply-To: <002-824f6049-24377.033@lws-media.de> References: <002-824f6049-24377.033@lws-media.de> Message-ID: <4960B70A.7050408@gmail.com> Wow. Never thought about this. You are right. L?ko Willms escribi?: > > the claims that a united Germany after the > previous war would have looked like the GDR burocratic rule, are as > false as that. A united working class movement in Germany would not > have tolerated such a rule after it would have successfully beaten > back the efforts of the Western Allies to divide the country. > > "What if" questions of this kind are not pointless. They show that there could have been a different way to solve seemingly Catch 22s. They serve the present by reminding us that no Catch 22 becomes real until every alternative road is tested -or crushed, by demoralization for instance! The morale is "keep fighting, the single struggle you actually lose is the struggle you won?t wage" From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 06:29:12 2009 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 05:29:12 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] GROUND INVASION OF GAZA STARTED! In-Reply-To: <4960B169.1030004@gmail.com> References: <495FD03C.6070800@gmail.com> <3247E1CAAE9341C28DB5F546CC30BFFA@albanta> <4960B169.1030004@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Nestor, Greetings. That Brazil and Argentina have expressed their condemnation is very good to hear. Some sort of demo is being planned for tomorrow in Brisbane. I hope to get to speak at it. At the demo on Saturday I was struck yet again by the need to find a way to talk to the Arabs and Muslims who have been motivated to come out in defense of the Palestinians. I do not really have time to get into the debate about revolution and fundamentalism. It seems to me clear that the enemy is American Imperialism and their bloodthirsty Zionist lackeys and that the urgency is to build solidarity with those who are being slaughtered. I had no trouble at all in joining in the slogan Allahu Akbar on Saturday and I am an irreconcilable atheist. But we need to show solidarity at this time in the way that the people who are in struggle can understand. I am heartened though by the obvious fact of the world wide opposition to what is happening in Gaza. Israel's capacity to slaughter can not be doubted but there is a price to be paid for that skill. The world is looking on in horror as the Zionist butchers go about their dirty work. The western media are of course loyally supporting Israel's offensive but reality is puncturing the smooth well practised pronouncements of the Zionists. Speaking of which I have just watched on the BBC a Palestinain, Sam Bahour, actually speaking in fluent English about what is happening to Palestinians. For years I have been driven to despair by the refusal of the PLO to permit people who can speak English to address the international media. To repeat myself, all eyes should be on the Arab world. A successful democratic revolt anywhere would put an end to the obscenity that is being perpetrated on Palestinians. comradely Gary From Dbachmozart at aol.com Sun Jan 4 06:48:33 2009 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 08:48:33 EST Subject: [Marxism] will Arab regimes pay a price for their complicity with Israel? Message-ID: Why Gaza's Message Is Threatening To Some? By Abu Al-Sous (Salah Mansour)* The Israeli war on Gaza hasn't been only unprecedented in its ferocity, but it has been unprecedented in the support it received from the so called "Moderate" Arab Regimes** as well. In all circles, the Israeli attack was expected but not with this ferocity, however, the open alliance between the "Moderate" Arab Regimes with the Israeli policy makers never been this clear and obvious. Early 2006, Palestinians in the West Bank and especially in the Gaza Strip voted overwhelmingly for Hamas in a transparent and a fair election that was monitored by the former US President Carter. In response, all Western Powers (European Union and the United States), the "Moderate" Arab Regimes, and the Israelis conspired to topple the newly elected government (see related articles section for details). As a first response, the Israeli government jailed all the elected Hamas' representatives in the West Bank and Western Powers started all sorts of blockade against the freely elected government. I'm not a fan of Hamas or its agenda, however, I believe it's critical to understand why these Arab leader joined the Western Powers & Israel in a conspiracy to oust the freely elected Palestinian Government. To simply say they are puppets in hands of Israel and Western powers is not good enough, there must be more to it than that. Since the "Moderate" Arab Regimes' hold on power is based on very little popular support (mostly imposed on the Arab people by the Western Powers), they perceive Gaza's messages of democracy, hope, resistance, rule of law, and above all accountability & transparency as an existential threat to their shaky & undemocratic rule; it scares them that this message of hope could spread beyond the Gaza Strip. No other reason explains why President Mahmoud Abbas and the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak are passionately closing ranks with their Israeli counterparts. This explains why the Israeli Air Force has first targeted the instruments that Hamas uses to enforce the rule of law, such as police stations, prisons, courts, justice & education ministries, fuel depots, and Universities. The primary reason behind the latest war on Gaza is make Palestinians submit to their will regardless if Hamas is power or not. Prior to Hamas' election to power early 2006, it was Yasser Arafat who was targeted with similar policies because he refused to submit to Israeli and Western dictates, and because of that he was branded as an obstacle to "peace". The people in the Middle East lost hope in Westerners' call for human rights, liberty, and democracy; sadly Westerners are the first to run from their ideals and principals when their interests are at stake. Their primary interests in the Middle East are simple: protecting Israel by all possible means and having a secure access to Middle Eastern oil; promoting liberty, human rights, and democracy are by far secondary. On the other hand, what has been shocking and humiliating to me as an Arab is how the "Moderate" Arab Regimes are flocking to support the Israeli government in its attack on our people in Gaza. In my humble opinion, this could be a signal that they are disparate; they are almost in panic mode; this is unprecedented. Since the blockade on Gaza has been fruitless up to this point, the conspirators opted for the usage of Israeli Army to weaken, if not, destroy Hamas' rule. The urgency to act quickly might have be driven with the fact the the clock is running out on Mr. Abbas' and Mr. Bush's presidencies. I also suspect that the conspirators are worried that the President elect Obama may not be as accommodating as Mr. Bush since he will be focusing on the financial melt that hit the US recently. I believe the America's military and financial weakness will reflect negatively on its foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. Finally, I like to end this short article by reminding the reader of what _David Ben-Gurion_ (http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story638.html) (the 1st Israeli PM) wrote in his diary on November 11, 1948: "Let us recognize the truth: we won not because we performed wonders, but because the Arab army is rotten. Must this rottenness persist forever?" (_Simha Flapan_ (http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story814.html) , p. 238) I believe Arab rottenness which Ben-Gurion spoke of may have started to reached its limits; I am afraid we're witnessing the early signs of a political tsunamis that could transform the Middle East. * Salah Mansour is the founder and editor of _PalestineRemembered.com_ (http://palestineremembered.com/) , the largest Palestinian online community. ** Often Western Media parades Arab Dictators as Moderate Regimes because they serve Western Powers' interests in the Middle East. It should be noted that there is nothing moderate about these regimes, they are radicals and extremist especially when it comes to corruption, common use of torture, deployment of the intelligence services in walks of life, and filling up their prisons systems. **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From lnp3 at panix.com Sun Jan 4 06:56:25 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 08:56:25 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Norman Finkelstein on Gaza Message-ID: <4960C009.1000507@panix.com> http://www.zcommunications.org/zvideo/2961 From lnp3 at panix.com Sun Jan 4 07:03:48 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 09:03:48 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Gaza attack splits Arab rulers and the ruled Message-ID: <4960C1C4.4090806@panix.com> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/03/AR2009010302017.html Attacks Further Split Arab Rulers, People Leaders Assailed Over Censure of Hamas By Anthony Shadid Washington Post Foreign Service Sunday, January 4, 2009; A15 BAGHDAD, Jan. 3 -- "War on Gaza" was the description the satellite channel al-Jazeera gave for the Israeli ground invasion that began Saturday, a culmination of eight days of bombing that have killed hundreds of Palestinians in the crowded seaside strip. But across the Arab world, the struggle was as noteworthy for what was becoming a war at home. From Egypt to Saudi Arabia, longtime leaders of the Arab world, the attacks illustrated a yawning divide between the policies of rulers and the sentiments of those they rule. Although the Palestinian cause is cherished on the street, the region's leaders are viewed as paying only lip service to it. The gulf between the two is not uncommon in a region that remains, with few exceptions, authoritarian. But exacerbating the tension is an issue that, although half a century old, remains at the heart of Arab politics: Palestine and its symbolism here. The intersection of the issue's resonance with official Egyptian and Saudi criticism of Hamas has created a conflict in policy and sentiment as pronounced as perhaps at any time in modern Arab history. Protests have erupted across the Arab world, with especially large gatherings Friday. More were convened Saturday in Europe. The Middle East was dominated by laments at the seeming impotence of Arab governments. Al-Jazeera reported that Moroccan demonstrators Saturday condemned "the cowardice" of Arab rulers. At a protest in Beirut, the ire was directed at Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. "O great people of Egypt," they chanted, "replace Mubarak with a donkey." "The Arab-Israeli conflict has witnessed instances during which Arab regimes have collaborated with the Israeli state," Khaled Saghiyeh wrote last week in a column in al-Akhbar, a Lebanese opposition newspaper. "But the interests of the Israeli and Arab regimes are perhaps meeting today like they never have before." The governments have their own reasons for criticizing Hamas, which the region's populations effectively see as support for Israel's attacks. Egypt and Saudi Arabia perceive Hamas as an ally of Iran, whose influence they fear in the region. Both were similarly reserved during Israel's war in 2006 against Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim movement supported by Iran. Egypt, in particular, fears Hamas's influence on its border along the Sinai Peninsula. Mubarak's predecessor, Anwar Sadat, was assassinated by Islamist extremists in 1981, and through Mubarak's tenure, his government has deemed Islamic activism, in its various incarnations, as the government's greatest threat. That has included insurgents who waged a low-grade war in southern Egypt in the 1990s and the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, the largest opposition group, which renounced violence a generation ago. Egyptian officials have remained steadfast in their criticism of Hamas. Egypt's foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, blamed the group in the past week for offering Israel "the opportunity on a golden platter" by firing rockets that broke a tenuous cease-fire. But Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's meeting with Mubarak and Aboul Gheit two days before the attacks began may offer some of the most indelible images from the conflict. Egypt also has been criticized for not opening its border crossing with Gaza. Al-Akhbar used the term "the mummy" to describe Mubarak in another column. "Does the mummy have a heart and veins where blood circulates? Otherwise how can we explain the insistence of this pharaoh to keep Rafah closed in front of a brotherly nation facing the ugliest massacres?" wrote Elie Shalhoub in a column Thursday. Even in Iraq, beset by its own conflicts, the Palestinian issue echoed in sermons Friday. "It is a shameful stance that Arab countries have," Nadhim Khalil declared in a sermon in Thuluyah, a conservative Sunni town north of Baghdad. The disconnect between policy and sentiment has become a feature of Arab politics, especially in recent years, as U.S. influence has dominated a region long contested during the Cold War. But some analysts say the divide today has threatened the very legitimacy of governments that, in public at least, offered support for Palestinian rights as a staple of policy. Egypt once deemed itself at the forefront of that conflict. "That's the real story," said Karim Makdisi, a professor of political studies and public administration at the American University of Beirut. "This gap, which has always been there, is greater than ever. I think we're in the middle of something new," he said. "This polarization -- where you have regimes perceived as getting closer to American and Israeli interests at the expense of very clear Arab and Muslim rallying points. They're acting oddly against their own interests. They're misreading the pulse of the people, the extent of the anger among most Arabs." From hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org Sun Jan 4 07:04:28 2009 From: hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org (Hunter Gray) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 07:04:28 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on Valkyrie: personal conscience and responsibility Message-ID: <003b01c96e75$5cb49fa0$0400a8c0@computer> Re some of the discussion on Redbadbear: I have no German forbears on which to fall back for direct, personal knowledge. My maternal grandmother spoke German fluently but that came from her father, a Swiss immigrant [who was also a radical social justice activist in Kansas, beginning in the Territorial days.] So I'm not a personal authority on German society and culture -- though I am aware that, for various historical and sociological reasons, among them monarchial principalities in the pre-unification period and patriarchal family structures, authoritarian strains have traditionally been more pronounced in Germany than in many other settings. Traditionally, again, the German military subordinated itself to -- authoritarian -- civil government. Long before I ever arrived in Mississippi ['61], I had learned via observation and experience that fundamentally good people can not only do bad things -- but, much more commonly, can "look away" rather than directly at nefarious and often downright sanguinary actions initiated by their leaders and even their fellows. I've always recalled the comment made by a colleague of mine, a Jewish refugee from South Africa, who observed that in a "choice" academic setting in that country, "the more intelligent the mind, the more intricate the rationalizations." With all due respect, I'm not inclined to be too harshly judgmental in situations where complex individuals [and all of us are complex] are enmeshed in the complexities of totalitarianism. True, as we fight for social justice, we do have to classify -- even usurp God's role in "sorting souls" -- as we carry our campaigns, large and small, along the Trail. [For all of its many internal challenges, the United States is a vast and diverse country with almost all Americans still recognizing that they are born into a tradition of personal liberty. I have never seen this country -- despite, say, the last eight years -- as even being close to a totalitarian incarnation.] The "road to Damascus" [speaking, of course, in the New Testament sense] is a longer trek for some than for others. I suspect many German officers in the Nazi regime were increasingly troubled by the policies of the Third Reich. I understand Rommel, in North Africa, insisted on good treatment for British prisoners of war and did not honor Hitler's general stricture to murder Jews. There were numerous plots to kill Hitler and I have no problem giving credit for conscience-emergence and great courage on the part of those German officers, depicted in Valkyrie, who tried desperately to fulfill a worthy mission. Hunter Gray [Hunter Bear] HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk Protected by Na?shdo?i?ba?i? and Ohkwari' Check out our Hunterbear website Directory http://hunterbear.org/directory.htm [The site is dedicated to our one-half Bobcat, Cloudy Gray: http://hunterbear.org/cloudy_gray.htm For a good feel for some of the civil liberties challenges faced by an effective organizer, see this cluster of four related pages: http://hunterbear.org/a_bizarre__1979_fbi_smear_effort.htm And see Hunter's Movement Life Interview: http://hunterbear.org/HUNTER%20BEAR%20INTERVIEW%20CRMV.htm From lnp3 at panix.com Sun Jan 4 07:13:34 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 09:13:34 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] From the LCR into the NPA Message-ID: <4960C40E.2020703@panix.com> http://links.org.au/node/835 France: From the Revolutionary Communist League to the New Anti-Capitalist Party Alain Krivine, Paris, May 1968. The LCR was the ``fusion of a current of Trotskyism with the youth radicalisation of the 1960s'' This contribution was written as part of preparations for the January 2009 congress of the Revolutionary Communist League (LCR). The congress agenda includes the political ?self-dissolution? of the LCR, to set the stage for the new challenge of the New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA). The authors of this piece belong to the generation of activists from the 1960s and 1970s; so while principally addressed to members of the LCR, it may be of interest to many others. It first appeared in the January 2009 International Viewpoint, the magazine of the Fourth International. * * * By Daniel Bensa?d, Alain Krivine, Pierre Rousset, Fran?ois Sabado and others December 15, 2008 -- For 20, 30 or 40 years now, we have built the Revolutionary Communist League (LCR). Today, we are fully part of the constituent process leading to the launch of the New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA). We approach this new enterprise with confidence thanks to ? and not in spite of ? what the LCR has accomplished over these past few decades. This is a momentous development; the LCR?s decision to dissolve itself in order to take up a broader challenge is a rather exceptional event in the history of the French working-class movement. We are able to take this gamble because we are not beginning from scratch. It is no accident that ? of all the groups within the French and even international revolutionary left ? it is the LCR that has taken such an initiative. We are the product of a particular history of the revolutionary movement ? the fusion of a current of Trotskyism with the youth radicalisation of the 1960s. We are a non-dogmatic current of revolutionary Marxism that has been able to preserve fundamental elements of continuity in the history of the working-class movement, particularly in relation to Social Democracy and Stalinism. These include the defence of a program of demands that are both immediate and transitional towards socialism; a united-front policy that aims for mass mobilisation of workers and their organisations; a policy of working-class unity and independence against any type of strategic alliance with the national bourgeoisie; opposition to any participation in governments in the advanced-capitalist countries that merely manage the state and the capitalist economy; and unfailing internationalism. Unlike other currents, we have endeavoured to incorporate a wide range of new factors into our political tradition: the post-war evolution of capitalism; active solidarity with the anti-colonial revolutions and with the anti-bureaucratic movements in the Eastern bloc; an analysis of the new social movements such as the women?s movement and, today, growing eco-socialist awareness in the face of the ecological crisis; and, above all, ongoing examination and enrichment of one of the key points of our program, socialist democracy. This is a trademark of the LCR. The LCR has been able to ensure the continuity of the Left Opposition?s struggle against Stalinism. What is more, unlike most currents of the revolutionary left in France and in a whole host of countries, it has also upheld the principles and practical application of democratic and pluralistic organisation and functioning. Throughout its history, taken together, our sensitivity to this question and our democratic and pluralistic internal functioning have enabled the LCR to provide a home for a series of currents and organisations with different origins and political cultures. And it has meant that the LCR is now in a position to build something with other forces and to embrace the new challenge of the NPA. The NPA is the result of the political work of recent years, especially of our contribution to the renewal of the social movements and of the success of the presidential campaigns of 2002 and 2007 around Olivier Besancenot. But the idea goes back much further than that. Beginning in the early 1990s, the collapse of the USSR and of the Eastern-bloc countries, combined with neoliberal capitalist globalisation, brought one historical cycle to a close and opened another. ?New epoch, new program, new party?: this was a three-pronged approach towards thinking about the new historical period. Political action would be framed by a new set of parameters. It would henceforth be possible to overcome the divisions that had separated the many revolutionary and anti-capitalist currents born in the 19th and 20th centuries. Of course, we were uncertain about the new organisational forms, characteristics, limits and dynamics. But the question was posed, on both the international and national level. Internationally, we took initiatives through international conferences and went through a number of experiences, each with its own specificities: the PSOL in Brazil, after the experience of the Worker's Paerty (PT); Sinistra Critica in Italy, after the experience of Rifondazione Comunista; Respect in Great Britain and the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP), before the splits in these two organisations; the Left Bloc in Portugal; and the Red-Green Alliance in Denmark. In each one of these processes, some questions were settled ? especially around the matter of the relationship with political power and participation or not in centre-left and social-liberal governments. These questions led to the split of PSOL from the PT and Sinistra Critica from Rifondazione Comunista. They also underlie our differences with the leadership of Die Linke in Germany, which has declared its support for parliamentary and governmental alliances with Social Democracy. The NPA will be clearly defined politically. Its preliminary documents set out some unmistakable terms: class struggle and support for all the struggles of the exploited and oppressed; unity in action of workers and their organisations; a break with the capitalist system; an eco-socialist project; opposition to any policy of managing the capitalist economy and the central executive powers of capitalist institutions; the struggle for a workers? government; the revolutionary transformation of society; socialist democracy; and an internationalist program and practice. To be sure, a number of questions will remain open: the nature of revolutions in the 21st century; problems of the transition to socialism; and a whole range of other questions having to do with the reformulation of the socialist and communist project. But we are not beginning from scratch; and the NPA will collectively determine its own positions on the basis of new common experiences. It is therefore not a matter of building a revamped LCR. We don?t only want to build a broader party; we want to build a party that is a new social and political reality. It will be pluralistic. It will take the best of all the revolutionary traditions of the working-class movement and of other movements such as eco-socialism. Its goal is to bring all anti-capitalists under one roof. The NPA will be an internationalist organisation, in charge of its own policies on international matters. It will not be a section of the Fourth International (which is a specific international political current). As a pluralistic party, the NPA cannot join the Fourth International (FI) as such. The process of building a new international ? which has always been and remains our goal ? will be long and complicated. The building of anti-capitalist formations in individual countries will not take place in synch with the building of a new international grouping. As allowed for by its statutes, we remain members of the FI, with ties to the LCR comrades elected to its leadership bodies. Given the role the LCR plays within the FI, we have proposed that the NPA continue to shoulder a number of tasks for which the LCR was responsible within the FI. We are also proud to have passed on to a new generation not only a part of our political heritage but also the full range of leadership responsibilities ? without the turmoil and crises of succession that most parties experience. Credit for this goes equally to the older generation, the youth and those somewhere in between. As the LCR dissolves into the NPA, though, we make a specific appeal to the sense of responsibility of LCR members. Their experience and training are vital to the building of the NPA. They are among the preconditions for the new party?s success, and for the successful synthesis of new and old. Everyone should get fully involved, as we have decided to do ourselves. Without a doubt, this will be a remarkable exercise in learning to speak with broader sectors, in paying special attention to the vocabulary we use, in learning to listen to and respect others, and in learning from them without underestimating what we bring to them ourselves. After the NPA founding conference, every comrade from the LCR should get involved in building this new project, for which we have fought for so many decades. [Translated by Raghu Krishnan. Daniel Bensa?d is one of France?s most prominent Marxist philosophers and has written extensively. He is a leading member of the LCR (French section of the Fourth International). Alain Krivine is one of the main spokespersons of the French Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire. Pierre Rousset is a member of Europe Solidaire Sans Frontiers (ESSF). He has been involved for many years in Asian solidarity movements. Fran?ois Sabado is a member of the executive bureau of the Fourth International and of the national leadership of the LCR.] ---- From Bert Cochran's "Our Orientation", 1954 The very formulations of the International Resolution must lead us to the conclusion that the revolutionary parties of tomorrow will not be Trotskyist, in the sense of necessarily accepting the tradition of our movement, our estimation of Trotsky's place in the revolutionary hierarchy, or all of Trotsky's specific evaluations and slogans. We in the United States had precisely this experience where Trotskyists fused with the small Muste organization to form the Workers Party in 1935. The fusion occurred only after we had overcome considerable resistance in the Musteite ranks to accepting the special characteristics of Trotskyism by assuring them that we had no special sectarian axes to grind. How much more operative will this be when the left wing develops through its own specific experiences and the merging of different currents and groups inside the big centrist or reformist mass movements. Our analysis and our tactical orientation would remain like a knife without a blade if we do not follow through with the necessary conclusion. And this conclusion is that in the present historical conditions, our cadres have to take the whole body of Marxist theory and struggle, including Trotsky's contributions to it and translate them into the language of our lifetime, and into the language of the existing movements of the various countries in which we are situated. The worst error is to think this mainly a job of clearer language, or for our cadres to start masquerading as simple homespun mechanics who have none too secure a mastery of grammar or syntax. What is involved if we are to integrate ourselves in the mass movement and to begin functioning effectively as its Marxist wing, is that we have to rid ourselves of all faction spirit and too narrow understanding of the Marxist's role in the centrist and reformist milieus of our time. Our purpose is to bring our ideas into the mass movement, and to gradually raise the consciousness of the ranks to the historic tasks. But the last thing in the world we should attempt is to inculcate the ranks with the necessity of adopting our specific tradition, and impressing upon them the truth of all the evaluations and proposals broached by Trotsky from 1923 on. The thought that in the coming period of our activity we have to go out of our way to mention the name and work of Leon Trotsky, and the name and the existence of the Fourth International, shows how far all of us have become infused with narrow group thinking, and organizational fetishism, how far we have traveled from the outlook of Frederick Engels, who warned the Socialists in America not to publish the Communist Manifesto, as it was based on old-world experiences, and that the American labor movement, developing under different conditions, would not understand it, and would not know what Marx and Engels were talking about. Why isn't it possible for us to take this simple thought of Engels and apply it to ourselves and our work? If Engels didn't think this was putting a question mark over his revolutionary integrity, why should we? We said before that only by integrating ourselves within the existing movements could our cadres survive and fulfill their mission. We will now add to that proposition this corollary: Only by dropping all sectarian notions of imposing our specific tradition upon the mass movements which developed in different circumstances and under different influences, can our approach register successes and guarantee the future of our precious cadres. What is involved, it is dear, is not any modification of programmatic essence, but a sharp reversal of organizational concepts and perspectives on the nature of the development of the mass revolutionary parties of tomorrow. full: http://www.marx.org/history/etol/document/ibt/ibt08.htm From nmgoro at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 08:16:22 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 12:16:22 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] Blaming the victim [ was Re: Gaza attack splits Arab rulers and the ruled] In-Reply-To: <4960C1C4.4090806@panix.com> References: <4960C1C4.4090806@panix.com> Message-ID: <4960D2C6.2000400@gmail.com> The ability of imperialist media to blame the victim will never stop amazing me. I think that this must be one of the first courses offered in every school of journalism: "Blame the victim 101". Take this, for instance, by the Washington Post and resent by Louis Proyect: > From Egypt to Saudi Arabia, longtime leaders of the Arab world, the > attacks illustrated a yawning divide between the policies of rulers > and the sentiments of those they rule. Although the Palestinian cause > is cherished on the street, the region's leaders are viewed as paying > only lip service to it. > > The gulf between the two is not uncommon in a region that remains, > with few exceptions, authoritarian. > I would rather think that the region remains, with few exceptions, semicolonial... If a single, true, democratic government in the region attempted to close that divide, it would become automatically a Satan for thesame media who Satanize as "authoritarian" the current regimes. Iran bears witness. You can say many things on Iran. But the "divide" is quite closed there. And what does the WP say of Iran? "Lip service". From lnp3 at panix.com Sun Jan 4 08:26:07 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 10:26:07 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Graham Greene Message-ID: <4960D50F.3080008@panix.com> NY Times Book Review, January 4, 2009 Don?t Start the Revolution Without Me By PANKAJ MISHRA GRAHAM GREENE A Life in Letters By Edited by Richard Greene Illustrated. 446 pp. W. W. Norton & Company. $35 Soon after completing ?The Quiet American,? Graham Greene confessed to Evelyn Waugh, his fellow Roman Catholic novelist,that ?it?ll be a relief not to write about God for a change.? ?Oh, I wouldn?t drop God if I were you,? Waugh retorted. ?Not at this stage anyway. It would be like P. G. Wodehouse dropping Jeeves halfway through the Wooster series.? Waugh had a point. Born in 1904, Greene belonged to a lost British generation that had been too young either to fight in World War I or to reflect soberly on its calamitous effects. Until his conversion to Catholicism in 1926 (in order to marry a believer), Greene had known only the private neurosis of a privileged English youth. As a preternaturally bored schoolboy, he is said to have played Russian roulette; it could be argued that he never recovered from the ennui of the 1920s and the following even lower (and more dishonest) decade. Discontented with modern civilization, Greene became, along with Waugh, Peter Fleming and Robert Byron, a travel writer specializing in the pre-modern world. He went to Liberia in 1935, drawn there by a map of the region boldly marked ?cannibals.? Mexico in 1938 seems to have refined his taste for seediness and misery. Soon af?ter?ward, German bombs made the streets of London appear as thrillingly full of the dangers Greene had sought in the African bush and the Mexican plains. ?The whole war,? he writes in one of the few revealing letters collected in ?Graham Greene: A Life in Letters,? ?is good for someone like me who has always suffered from an anxiety neurosis.? ?The prospect of peace now,? he worries in 1943 from Sierra Leone, ?would fill me with utter gloom.? (clip) Greene was not much interested in the arduous and often self-defeating post?colonial struggles for dignity and equality. He had ?no sympathy for either side? in the war in Algeria. He irrationally disliked Arabs, hero-worshipping Moshe Dayan. Richard Greene cautiously argues that he ?never admired Islamic culture,? but there is no evidence he knew much about it. His principal objections to British imperialism seem to have been aesthetic rather than moral. Writing from British-ruled Sierra Leone, he complains of ?little plump men in shorts with hairless legs, and drab women, and the atmosphere of Balham going gay.? Drawn mothlike to war and revolution (the Congo, Kenya, Indochina, Malaya, Israel, Haiti, Cuba, Argentina, Panama and Nicaragua), Greene occasionally arrived, as in Vietnam, ahead of most journalists. ?The Quiet American? is driven by an old posh British disdain for America combined with a new resentment of the inheritors of European empires. It is not his best novel: implausibly virginal and earnest, the American Pyle resembles, as A. J. Liebling shrewdly observed, a French author?s idea of an Englishman. As it turned out, the blunders of the best and the brightest in the 1960s helped give Greene a reputation for geopolitical prescience and obscured the fact that he was mostly wrong about the urgent issues (decolonization, Communism, the political potential of Catholicism) of his time. ?When we are young,? Fowler says in ?The Quiet American,? ?we are a jungle of complications. We simplify as we get older.? This was certainly true of Greene, whose letters in later life show him becoming a first-class tourist to revolutions: ?Now I?m off to Nicaragua (as the guest of the Sandinista government) to light a small fire under the fool Reagan.? Though covering a vast period of personal and public turmoil, ?Graham Greene: A Life in Letters? traces, quite astonishingly, no refining of sensibility and intelligence. The increasingly exotic settings merely underscore how the mind of this most famous of Englishmen abroad was fundamentally never really broadened ? and may have been narrowed ? by travel. Pankaj Mishra?s most recent book is ?Temptations of the West: How to Be Modern in India, Pakistan, Tibet, and Beyond.? --- From my review of "The Quiet American": One should never forget that Graham Greene had much in common with Fowler [the jaded British journalist in "The Quiet American"]. In the early 1950s he was a correspondent for Life Magazine in Malaya, where he honed his sense of being a British interloper in an exotic setting. In the appropriately named "Ways of Escape", he described his first impressions of Vietnam. A spell was cast "by the tall elegant girls in white silk trousers, by the pewter evening light on the flat paddy fields, where the water-buffaloes trudged fetlock-deep with a slow primeval gait, by the French perfumeries in the rue Catinat, the Chinese gambling houses in Cholon, above all by that feeling of exhilaration which a measure of danger brings to the visitor with a return ticket." Ah, the mysterious East! According to Judith Adamson, the editor of "Reflections", Greene's final collection of essays, he believed that the Catholics in Vietnam should have been supported against the Viet Minh in 1954. Like the character Fowler, a stand-in for Greene, the novelist was a Catholic who held to his faith despite a veneer of cynicism. While one could not possibly expect somebody like Greene to rise above his social and political environment, perhaps the most distressing aspect of the novel, which is unfortunately retained in the film, is the treatment of Vietnamese women. Although Fowler is determined to preserve the authentic Vietnam from American intrusiveness, there is an Orientalist understanding of what that reality is. He tells Pyle, "In five hundred years there may be no New York or London, but they'll be growing paddy in these fields, they'll be carrying their produce to the market on the long poles of wearing their pointed hats. The small boys will be sitting on their buffaloes." Phuong is the ultimate fantasy of the Western male. She is an ex-taxi dancer; she is quiet and passive; she is beautiful. When she finds herself a kind of prize to be awarded to the more competitive male, she accepts this fate with inexplicable equanimity. Surely this was Greene's fantasy rather than an embodiment of real Vietnamese women who were not likely to move in his social milieu on equal terms. Literary critics Zakia Pathak, Saswati Sengupta and Sharmila Purkayastha have co-written an article titled "The Prison House of Orientalism" that deals with "The Quiet American" using the approach evolved by Edward Said. They write: In the consciousness of Fowler represented through the first-person narration, Phuong is without a history; there is a noticeable absence of cultural markers of class, religion, education which suggests that these are invisible for Fowler and that his desire is only for her body. If Phuong has any identity at all it is as an Annamite and a "bird." The "libertine and less guilt ridden sex" which is offered is clearly outside a social and moral formation; that Said valorizes this sexuality is evidence of the displacement of race by gender. Fowler himself ends up as deracinated. His use of pronouns stresses his resistance to being incorporated with the white imperialist ideology. "We've brought them up in our ideas. We've taught them dangerous games and that's why we are waiting here, hoping we don't get our throats cut". This attempt to disengage his identity from theirs only foregrounds the older British imperialism. "I've been to India and I know the harm that liberals do". His political "involvement" in the final instance is presented as his humanization. But it is tragic that the figure he presents at the end is one of exile, confined to his room, smoking endless pipes of opium. While Greene was far too much a creature of his environment to transcend certain Orientalist conceptions, he did finally become more sympathetic to the Vietnamese cause. Adamson views this as a result of a meeting with Ho Chi Minh that left him struck by the Vietnamese leader's "simplicity and candor". All through the 1960s Greene shifted ever more increasingly to the left, so much so that by 1979 he would state that "I would go to almost any length to put my feeble twig in American foreign policy." The US was certainly not inclined to view his efforts as feeble since ocuments obtained by the Guardian newspaper under the US Freedom of Information Act "disclose how officials in Washington went to extraordinary lengths to compile secret reports on the distinguished novelist over 40 years as he travelled the world in support of anti-US causes." They add: He was monitored when he stayed up talking to Fidel Castro until five in the morning, as well as when he and Yoko Ono heard actor Kris Kristofferson "eschewing women and whiskey to discuss God, war and peace". It might be useful to conclude this review with Ernest Mandel's description of Graham Greene's remarkable political voyage in his "Delightful Murder: a Social History of the Crime Story": The biography of Graham Greene offers a striking illustration of this evolution, as seen through his novels. Greene started out as a conservative agent of the British intelligence services, upholding such reactionary causes as the struggle of the Catholic Church against the Mexican revolution (The Power and the Glory, 1940), and arguing the necessary merciful function of religion in a context Of human misery (Brighton Rock, 1938; The Heart of the Matter, 1948). However, the better he came to know the socio-political realities of the third world where he was operating, and the more directly he came to be confronted by the rising tide of revolution in those countries, the more his doubts regarding the imperialist cause grew, and the more his novels shifted away from any identification with the latter. In Our Man in Havana (1958), he was still only poking fun at the imperialist spy establishment. But whereas Greene had been extremely hostile to the Malayan and Kenyan guerrilla fighters, his attitude began to change in Vietnam (The Quiet American, 1955) and, as he described in his autobiography (Ways of Escape, 1980), hardened still further in an anti-imperialist direction in Zaire {A Burnt-Out Case, 1961), Haiti (The Comedians, 1964), Paraguay (The Honorary Consul, 1973), and South Africa (The Human Factor, 1978). This evolution culminated in his eloquent denunciation of the real-life interpenetration between gangsterism and the public authorities (including the judiciary) in the Nice region of southern France, in his latest book J'Accuse banned in France by the 'socialist' government of Mitterrand and Mauroy. full: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/culture/Quiet_American.htm From wsredden at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 08:43:09 2009 From: wsredden at gmail.com (Shawn Redden) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 10:43:09 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Gaza updates from the other side of the barricades In-Reply-To: <4960C40E.2020703@panix.com> References: <4960C40E.2020703@panix.com> Message-ID: al-Manar, Hizbullah's site, lead's with the headline "Hamas Kills 9 Israeli Troops, Captures 2 in Gaza Op" and begins: After a week of the launch of "Operation Cast Lead" against Gaza, Israeli occupation army started on Saturday evening a ground military offensive into the coastal strip in order to "destroy the Hamas infrastructure and rocket launch pads in the area of operations". And as it has vowed, the Palestinian resistance was waiting for the occupation soldiers to foil their aggression, killing nine of them and wounding dozens others, according to Ezz-eddine Al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas's military wing. Hamas resistance fighters also said they have destroyed an Israeli Merkava with a B-29bomb. Hamas announced it had captured two Israeli soldiers, an event which, for Israel, would highlight the political risk domestically of sending its troops into Gaza. A spokesman for Hamas' armed wing said Israeli troops faced certain death or capture. "The Zionist enemy must know his battle in Gaza is a lost one for them," spokesman Abu Ubaida said. [clip] http://www.almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=69127&language=en ---- Also, the Palestinian Info Centre reports in an article headlined, "Al-Qassam: Our fighters inflicted heavy casualties in the ranks of IOF troops." GAZA, (PIC)-- Al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, said that its fighters inflicted heavy casualties on the invading IOF troops in the east and north of the Gaza Strip, affirming that it managed to kill more than five Israeli soldiers and wound about 30 others. According to reports published by the Israeli media, which are subject to military censorship on the publication of any information about the number of soldiers killed or wounded, the Israeli soldiers who were injured were from the infantry, artillery, armored brigades and the engineering corps. In a communiqu? received by the PIC, the Qassam Brigades stated that its fighters detonated anti-personnel explosive devices in an Israeli special force near the Beit Hanoun crossing and an Israeli tank. The communiqu? added that the Qassam fighters also managed to detonate other explosive devices in different special units in Al-Zeitoun suburb, east of Gaza city, and in the Atatra area, northwest of Beit Lahiya. According to the communiqu?, the Qassam fighters were able to penetrate the radio waves of the IOF troops and heard Israeli soldiers as they were screaming in pain and talking about the death of five soldiers in their ranks. [clip] http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/default.aspx?xyz=U6Qq7k%2bcOd87MDI46m9rUxJEpMO%2bi1s7Zf7fEf%2fYUM6ItLTFfJKmrZYr%2bObTkQx2XZjNVwTo47XdhjUImSOmu7TsLx6INd4UMdpEIrY78OuICiH8yHWBoqZ24c%2bCcv5wBecaHdEah4I%3d From wsredden at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 09:10:40 2009 From: wsredden at gmail.com (Shawn Redden) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 11:10:40 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism In-Reply-To: <908b689f0901040235p86d4ed6n3c757f24de62e2eb@mail.gmail.com> References: <908b689f0901040235p86d4ed6n3c757f24de62e2eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: At 5:35 AM -0500 1/4/09, Ruthless Critic of All that Exists wrote: > >The point here is not "demonisation" of Hamas. The point here is >whether or not it is appropriate to criticize Hamas, and if so, when. Exactly. And you have chosen to pull out this stale canard right now. Pathetic. And Sick. From sartesian at earthlink.net Sun Jan 4 10:13:44 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 18:13:44 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism References: <908b689f0901040235p86d4ed6n3c757f24de62e2eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5768BD652F794ED790BF14220CD004AB@dmsthinkpad> No matter what is in the Hamas documents, support for the people of Palestine-- and a united military defense of all within Gaza-- and unqualified support for such a defense outside Gaza-- against the Israeli assault is the primary obligation. I have never disputed that. Stiofan has never disputed that. Eric, who touched this soggy powder keg off by expressing his disaffection with nationalism did not dispute that. So let's put all the straw men to bed and wish them good night. Does solidarity mean silence, obedience, on the part of Marxists and Marxist groups? Now it certainly does mean "timing." It is just stupid, and anti-Marxist, to show up at a demonstration against the Israeli assault with a banner stating "Down With Arab Nationalism." Actually, I think it's stupid to show up at any time, ALMOST, with such a banner given the conditions of the struggle. It was stupid before December 28; it was stupid before November 5. It is not stupid, however, to review the history, the process of that nationalism and see if such nationalism can actually accomplish, or even exist as a transition, to a struggle that defeats Zionism and emancipates Palestine and the Palestinian people. Given that we all have participated in demonstrations against the Israeli assault; have written against it, etc. is it anti-Marxist to maintain, if not a functional independence since none of us in this discussion have direct participation inside Gaza, at least an analytic independence [when we are resting in our armchairs at our keyboards between demonstrations]? Now I don't think so. And I think the legacy of failed revolutions proves that giving up that independence only hastens that defeat. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shawn Redden" To: Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism From shmage at pipeline.com Sun Jan 4 10:16:23 2009 From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 12:16:23 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 4, 2009, at 4:42 AM, Jscotlive at aol.com wrote: > Ruthless Critic: > > But Hamas is not just "religious". Hamas is also virulently > anti-semitic (in the sense of "anti-jewish"), including assuming that > the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (a well-known anti-semitic > forgery from Tsarist times) is authentic: > > Reply: > > And this the result of a Marxist education, basing an entire > analysis of a > resistance movement's suitability for your support and solidarity > on its > deflected anger and not on the role it is playing within the schema > of the global > struggle against imperialism? Now where have I heard that before. Oh yes, the "Schlageter Line"--in the very early 1920's there was in Germany a nationalistic, professedly socialist, movement waging an unremitting combat for a key point in "the global struggle against imperialism," the struggle against the Versailles Treaty. One of the martyrs in that struggle was a young workingclass man named Schlageter. Notable Communists of that time (Radek, Zinoviev) responded by calling for political alliance with the movement of the martyr Schlageter--a party known as the NSDAP. A concept that Stalin, Th?lmann, and Dimitrov disguisedly put into practice some 10 years later. 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 lnp3 at panix.com Sun Jan 4 10:28:30 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 12:28:30 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4960F1BE.9070802@panix.com> Shane Mage wrote: > Now where have I heard that before. Oh yes, the "Schlageter Line"--in > the very early 1920's there was in Germany a nationalistic, > professedly socialist, movement waging an unremitting combat for a key > point in "the global struggle against imperialism," the struggle > against the Versailles Treaty. One of the martyrs in that struggle > was a young workingclass man named Schlageter. Notable Communists of > that time (Radek, Zinoviev) responded by calling for political > alliance with the movement of the martyr Schlageter--a party known as > the NSDAP. A concept that Stalin, Th?lmann, and Dimitrov disguisedly > put into practice some 10 years later. http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages////History/Radek.html Leo Schlageter: The Wanderer into the Void Karl Radek This is a speech made by Karl Radek at a plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International in June 1923, in a translation first published in the September 1923 issue of Labour Monthly. The "Schlageter speech", as it became known, was published by the German Communist Party and widely circulated. In the aftermath of the French occupation of the Ruhr, right wing nationalists in Germany had made some headway among the middle classes and to an extent the working class. Leo Schlageter, who had been shot by French troops while engaging in sabotage, became a national hero for his part in the resistance to foreign occupation. In his speech, which was directed at those influenced by German nationalism, Radek sought to address the reasons that had drawn a man like Schlageter to the nationalist right, arguing that the real defenders of the interests of the German people were the Communists. I CAN NEITHER supplement nor complete the comprehensive and deeply impressive report of our venerable leader, Comrade Zetkin, on International Fascism, that hammer meant to crush the head of the proletariat, but which will fall upon the petty bourgeois class, who are wielding it in the interests of large capital. I could not even follow it clearly, because there hovered before my eyes the corpse of the German Fascist, our class enemy, who was sentenced to death and shot by the hirelings of French imperialism, that powerful organisation of another section of our class enemy. Throughout the speech of Comrade Zetkin on the contradictions within Fascism, the name of Schlageter and his tragic fate was in my head. We ought to remember him here when we are defining our attitude towards Fascism. The story of this martyr of German nationalism should not be forgotten nor passed over with a mere phrase. It has much to tell us, and much to tell the German people. We are not sentimental romanticists who forget friendship when its object is dead, nor are we diplomats who say: by the graveside say nothing but good, or remain silent. Schlageter, a courageous soldier of the counter-revolution, deserves to be sincerely honoured by us, the soldiers of the revolution. Freksa, who shared his views, published in 1920 a novel in which he described the life of an officer who fell in the fight against Spartacus. Freska named his novel The Wanderer into the Void. If those German Fascisti, who honestly thought to serve the German people, failed to understand the significance of Schlageter?s fate, Schlageter died in vain, and on his tombstone should read: ?The Wanderer into the Void?. Germany lay crushed. Only fools believed that the victorious capitalist Entente would treat the German people differently from the way the victorious German capitalists treated the Russian and Romanian people. Only fools or cowards, who feared to face the truth, could believe in the promises of Wilson, in the declarations that the Kaiser and not the German people would have to pay the price of defeat. In the East a people was at war. Starving, freezing, it fought against the Entente on fourteen fronts. That was Soviet Russia. One of these fronts consisted of German officers and German soldiers. Schlageter fought in Medem?s Volunteer Corps, which stormed Riga. We do not know whether the young officer understood the significance of his acts. But the then German Commissar, the Social Democrat Winnig, and General Von der Golz, the Commander of the Baltic troops, knew what they were doing. They sought to gain the friendship of the Entente by performing the work of hirelings against the Russian people. In order that the German bourgeoisie should not pay the victors the indemnities of war, they hired young German blood, which had been spared the bullets of the Great War, to fight against the Russian people. We do not know what Schlageter thought at this period. His leader, Medem, later admitted that he marched through the Baltic into the void. Did all the German nationalists understand that? At the funeral of Schlageter in Munich, General Ludendorff spoke, the same Ludendorff who even today is offering himself to England and to France as the leader of a crusade against Russia. Schlageter was mourned by the Stinnes press. Herr Stinnes was the colleague in the Alpina Montana of Schneider-Creusot the armourer, the assassin of Schlageter. Against whom did the German people wish to fight: against the Entente capitalists or against the Russian people? With whom did they wish to ally themselves: with the Russian workers and peasants in order to throw off the yoke of Entente capital for the enslavement of the German and Russian peoples? Schlageter is dead. He cannot supply the answer. His comrades in arms swore at his graveside to carry on his fight. They must supply the answer: against whom and on whose side? Schlageter went from the Baltic to the Ruhr, not in the year 1923 but in the year 1920. Do you know what that meant? He took part in the attack of German capital upon the Ruhr workers; he fought in the ranks of the troops whose task it was to bring the miners of the Ruhr under the heel of the iron and coal kings. The troops of Waters, in whose ranks he fought, fired the same leaden bullets with which General Degoutte quelled the Ruhr workers. We have no reason to believe that it was from selfish motives that Schlageter helped to subdue the starving miners. The way in which he risked his life speaks on his behalf, and proves that he was convinced he was serving the German people. But Schlageter thought he was best serving the people by helping to restore the mastery of the class which had hitherto led the German people, and had brought such terrible misfortune upon them. Schlageter regarded the working class as the mob that must be governed. And in this he shared the view of Count Reventlow, who calmly declared that no war against the Entente was possible until the internal enemy had been overcome. The internal enemy for Schlageter was the revolutionary working class. Schlageter could see with his own eyes the results of this policy when he returned to the Ruhr in 1923 during the occupation. He could see that even if the workers were united against French imperialism, no single people could fight alone. He could see the profound mistrust of the workers towards the German government and the German bourgeoisie. He could see how greatly the cleavage in the nation hampered its defensive power. He could see more. Those who share his views complained of the passivity of the German people. How can a defeated working class be active? How can a working class be active which has been disarmed, and from whom it is demanded that they shall allow themselves to be exploited by profiteers and speculators? Or could the activity of the German working masses be replaced by the activity of the German bourgeoisie? Schlageter read in the newspapers how the very people who pretended to be the patrons of the German nationalist movement sent securities abroad so that they might be enriched and the country impoverished. Schlageter certainly could have no hope in these parasites. He was spared reading in the press how the representative of the German bourgeoisie, Dr Lutterbuck, turned to his executioners with the request that they should permit the iron and steel kings to shoot down sons of Germany, the men who were carrying out the resistance in the Ruhr, with machine guns. Now that the German resistance, through the rascally trick of Dr Lutterbuck, and still more through the economic policy of the possessing classes, has turned into a farce, we ask the honest, patriotic masses who are anxious to fight against the French imperialist invasion: how will you fight, on whose support will you rely? The struggle against Entente imperialism is a war, even though the guns are silent. There can be no war at the front when there is unrest in the rear. A minority can be kept under in the rear, but not a majority. The majority of the German people are the working men, who must fight against the poverty and want which the German bourgeoisie is bringing upon them. If the patriotic circles of Germany do not make up their own minds to make the cause of the majority of the nation their own, and so create a front against both the Entente and German capital, then the path of Schlageter was the path into the void, and Germany, in the face of foreign invasion, and the perpetual menace of the victors, will be transformed into a field of bloody internal conflict, and it will be easy for the enemy to defeat her and destroy her. When, after Jena, Gneisenau and Scharnhorst asked themselves how the German people were to be raised from their defeat, they replied: only by making the peasants free from their former submission and slavery. Only the free German peasantry can lay the foundations for the emancipation of Germany. What the German peasantry meant for the fate of the German nation at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the German working class means at the beginning of the twentieth century. Only with it can Germany be freed from the fetters of slavery ? not against it. Schlageter?s comrades talked of war at his graveside. They swore to continue the fight. It had to be conducted against an enemy that was armed to the teeth, while Germany was unarmed and beaten. If the talk of war is not to remain an empty phrase, if it is not to consist of bombing columns that blow up bridges, but not the enemy; that derail trains, but cannot check the armoured trains of Entente capital, then a number of conditions must be fulfilled. The German people must break with those who have not only led it into defeat, but who are perpetuating the defeat and the defencelessness of the German people by regarding the majority of the German people as the enemy. This demands a break with the peoples and parties whose faces act upon other peoples like a Medusa head, mobilising them against the German people. Only when the German cause becomes the cause of the German people, only when the German cause becomes the fight for the rights of the German people, will the German people win active friends. The powerful nation cannot endure without friends, all the more so a nation which is defeated and surrounded by enemies. If Germany wants to be in the position to fight, it must create a united front of workers, and the brain workers must unite with the hand workers and form a solid phalanx. The condition of the brain workers cries out for this union. Only old prejudices stand in the way. United into a victorious working people, Germany will be able to draw upon great resources of resisting power which will be able to remove all obstacles. If the cause of the people is made the cause of the nation, then the cause of the nation will become the cause of the people. United into a fighting nation of workers, it will gain the assistance of other peoples who are also fighting for their existence. Whoever is not prepared to fight in this way is capable of deeds of desperation but not of a serious struggle. That is what the German Communist Party and the Communist International have to say at Schlageter?s graveside. It has nothing to conceal, for only the complete truth can penetrate into the suffering, internally disintegrated masses of Germany. The German Communist Party must declare openly to the nationalist petty bourgeois masses: whoever is working in the service of the profiteers, the speculators, and the iron and coal magnates to enslave the German people and to drive them into desperate adventures will meet the resistance of the German Communist workers, who will oppose violence by violence. Whoever, from lack of comprehension, allies himself with the hirelings of capital we shall fight with every means in our power. But we believe that the great majority of the nationalist-minded masses belong not to the camp of the capitalists but to the camp of the workers. We want to find, and we shall find, the path to these masses. We shall do all in our power to make men like Schlageter, who are prepared to go to their deaths for a common cause, not wanderers into the void, but wanderers into a better future for the whole of mankind; that they should not spill their hot, unselfish blood for the profit of the coal and iron barons, but in the cause of the great toiling German people, which is a member of the family of peoples fighting for their emancipation. This truth the Communist Party will declare to the great masses of the German people, for it is not a party fighting for a crust of bread on behalf of the industrial workers, but a party of the struggling proletariat fighting for its emancipation, an emancipation that is identical with the emancipation of the whole people, of all who toil and suffer in Germany. Schlageter himself cannot now hear this declaration, but we are convinced that there are hundreds of Schlageters who will hear it and understand it. From shmage at pipeline.com Sun Jan 4 10:43:42 2009 From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 12:43:42 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on Valkyrie: personal conscience and responsibility In-Reply-To: <003b01c96e75$5cb49fa0$0400a8c0@computer> References: <003b01c96e75$5cb49fa0$0400a8c0@computer> Message-ID: On Jan 4, 2009, at 9:04 AM, Hunter Gray wrote: > I understand Rommel, in North Africa, insisted on good treatment > for British prisoners of war and did not honor Hitler's general > stricture to murder Jews. There were numerous plots to kill Hitler > and I have no problem giving credit for conscience-emergence and > great courage on the part of those German officers, depicted in > Valkyrie, who tried desperately to fulfill a worthy mission. The phrase "numerous plots" suggests that this film, as is to be expected, treats July 20 as an isolated act of heroic individuals rather than what it was--the continuation of an antiNazi conspiracy (names: Oster, Canaris, Gisevius, G?rdeler) with a worked-out plan to overthrow the Nazi regime and replace it with a government that would include Social-Democrats (Leber) and end the war. They were always in contact with British intelligence (and the USA during WW2). What, being untainted by Marxism, the conspirators did not begin to understand was that the Allies never wanted the overthrow of Hitler because they were terrified that it would result in a replay of the 1918-1919 proletarian revolution. That is why, for instance, Chamberlain--knowing that Hitler would be overthrown the moment he started a war by mobilizing against Czechoslovakia--dishonored his treaties and betrayed the Czechs at Berchtesgaden and Munich. And that is why (but the proof will forever remain ultraclassified if not actually destroyed) the Allies specifically targeted Rommel and by putting him hors-de-combat guaranteed (because Stauffenberg stupidly failed to put the *second*, unfused, bomb into the briefcase) the failure of July 20. 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 Sun Jan 4 10:54:10 2009 From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 12:54:10 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Blaming the victim [ was Re: Gaza attack splits Arab rulers and the ruled] In-Reply-To: <4960D2C6.2000400@gmail.com> References: <4960C1C4.4090806@panix.com> <4960D2C6.2000400@gmail.com> Message-ID: <36C4C5FA-9D81-432D-86F7-0803E383581F@pipeline.com> On Jan 4, 2009, at 10:16 AM, Nestor Gorojovsky wrote: > The ability of imperialist media to blame the victim will never stop > amazing me. > Take this, for instance, by the Washington Post and resent by Louis > Proyect: >> From Egypt to Saudi Arabia, longtime leaders of the Arab world, the >> attacks illustrated a yawning divide between the policies of rulers >> and the sentiments of those they rule. The incompetence of the establishment press will never stop amazing me--to say "from Egypt to Saudi Arabia" is like saying "from New York to Quebec." >> Although the Palestinian cause >> is cherished on the street, the region's leaders are viewed as paying >> only lip service to it. >> The gulf between the two is not uncommon in a region that remains, >> with few exceptions, authoritarian. > Iran bears witness. You can say many things on Iran. But the > "divide" is > quite closed there. And what does the WP say of Iran-- > "Lip service". Well, the WP hack may have *thought* Iran--but he said "Arab World" and Iran is no part of the Arab World, never has been, and never will be. 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 ok.president+marxml at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 11:03:30 2009 From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 13:03:30 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism In-Reply-To: References: <908b689f0901040235p86d4ed6n3c757f24de62e2eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <908b689f0901041003l160c1ed3y4effe806b971d437@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Shawn Redden wrote: > Exactly. And you have chosen to pull out this stale canard right now. But is this a canard? From Webster: ca?nard Pronunciation: \k?-?n?rd also -?n?r\ 1. a: a false or unfounded report or story Is it false, or unfounded, that Hamas is antisemitic? Well, no. From lnp3 at panix.com Sun Jan 4 11:22:39 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 13:22:39 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism In-Reply-To: <908b689f0901041003l160c1ed3y4effe806b971d437@mail.gmail.com> References: <908b689f0901040235p86d4ed6n3c757f24de62e2eb@mail.gmail.com> <908b689f0901041003l160c1ed3y4effe806b971d437@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4960FE6F.4020304@panix.com> Ruthless Critic of All that Exists wrote: > > Is it false, or unfounded, that Hamas is antisemitic? Well, no. Antisemitism is not simply hatred of Jews. It is a form of institutionalized racial oppression that exists almost nowhere in the world today as Jews have moved into positions of dominant economic and political power, particularly in the U.S. Jews no longer are forced to live in ghettos, face job discrimination, have synagogues burned, etc. When a Palestinian says that he hates Jews, this is just a way of stating that he or she is opposed to Zionism. It would be more precise to say that he hates Israelis, but who really cares? The Palestinians are not about to haul Jews off to concentration camps. In fact, the situation in Gaza is more sadly reminiscent of the Warsaw Ghetto. In the movie "9 Star Hotel", the Palestinian construction workers keep referring to "the Jews" when everybody understands that they are referring to Israelis. Since Israel represents itself as an exclusively Jewish state, it is a certainty that Arabs will elide the distinction between an ethnic group and the state they rule. The main proof that Hamas is antisemitic is the inclusion of a reference to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in their founding statement. This is just one of the boneheaded errors that keeps cropping up in Islamist movements, from Hamas to Hezbollah to the government of Iran. This reflects the low political level of these movements, which have isolated themselves pretty well from more secular, class-oriented socialist movements. But this in itself does not indicate that they are a threat to Jews. In fact, the opposite is true. All of them are the targets of current and past aggressions. The unfortunate thing is that the gaffes of a Hamas or an Ahmadinejad weakens them in the court of public relations. Here's something I wrote in February 2007 that is relevant to this discussion: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/02/06/is-nasrallah-an-anti-semite/ From suklasenp at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 4 11:23:11 2009 From: suklasenp at yahoo.co.uk (Sukla Sen) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 18:23:11 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Marxism] GROUND INVASION OF GAZA STARTED! Message-ID: <940683.7643.qm@web23008.mail.ird.yahoo.com> http://www.ptinews.com/pti/ptisite.nsf/0/0128A29152E2A56D652575320052AE4B?Opendocument India announces one million dollar aid for Gaza victims New Delhi, Jan 2 (PTI) India today announced an aid of one million US dollars for the people in Gaza affected by the ongoing Israeli military action and demanded immediate end to the violence there so that peace process could resume. "In response to the flash appeal made by UN Refugee Welfare Agency (UNRWA), Government of India has decided to extend an assistance of USD 1 million for use by the Agency to provide shelters, cash assistance, essential household items, etc, to affected families in Gaza," External Affairs Ministry spokesman Vishnu Prakash said. He said India urges an "immediate end to the violence witnessed in Gaza and its environs, so that further casualties amongst civilians are averted." This, he said, would help create an atmosphere for the peace process to resume. It is for the third time in less than a week that India has sought an end to Israeli military action in Gaza which has been provoked by cross-border attacks by Hamas. On Monday, India condemned the "unwarranted" and "indiscriminate" use of force by Israel in the Gaza Strip. New Delhi asked Tel Aviv to exercise "utmost restraint" and "give peace a chance", warning that the peace process there may get derailed irreversibly by Israel's attack on Gaza Strip and the continued violence. "It is disappointing to note that the use of disproportionate force is resulting in a large number of civilian casualties on the one hand and the escalating violence on the other," External Affairs Ministry had said. PTI Sukla This week, both Brazil (through a direct statement by Lula) and Argentina (by way of an official communiqu? of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) have condemned it in unusually strong terms. FWIW. From dwaltersMIA at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 11:59:16 2009 From: dwaltersMIA at gmail.com (nada) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 10:59:16 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Petras on Israel's total war Message-ID: <49610704.5050602@gmail.com> Whereas "we" are supremely optimistic at the the present juncture. no?. Let's relax and watch a video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6604775898578139565 Thanks, excellent video. David From sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com Sun Jan 4 12:05:28 2009 From: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com (sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:05:28 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism Message-ID: <20090104190531.33FBB20040@smtp.hushmail.com> On the subject of Eire, John wrote: >(Pearse) was also committed to the Gaelicising of >Irish society, its culture, >language, and education, >which was then, and is now, both undeniably and >inextricably linked to a Catholic identity. Gaeilge is a language and not a religion. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Roman Catholic as my ancestors were Dissenters from Donegal who emigrated in the era of the famine. Historically, the Catholic hierarchy of Ireland wanted their privileges restored but they were hostile to the Republican movement and uninterested in the nationalist promotion of Gaelic language and culture. The direct result of the fraudulent union of Ireland to Great Britain was the criminally negligent response to the disaster of the potato blight causing the death of millions. It was famine and disease that almost destroyed the language of the Irish people. I would argue that the only reason Gaeilge exists outside the Gaeltacht is because the nationalist movement promoted the survival of our culture. That culture is not, and has never been, exclusively Catholic. >And while the central role of the Catholic Church >in the Irish Free State may not have been the original >aim or intention of the signatories of the >Proclamation in 1916, it is hard to see how such >religious conservatism, especially in matters of social >policy, would not have been as rigid should they have >survived to see their dream of Irish nationhood come to pass. The key here is the tragedy of the Irish Free ?statelet.? Artesian wrote: >It might be important to point out here that the >achievement of this Irish nationalism, this so-called >grand alliance, was an Irish Free State thatitself was >a creation of imperialism, of a tactical accommodation >by and TO British imperialism, The achievement of Irish nationalism is that it kept alive the aspirations of a people who refused to surrender to centuries of brutal imperialist oppression. The achievement of Irish nationalism is the vision of a free, united and democratic country owned by all of its people. The tragedy of 1916 is that the failure of the Rising resulted in the destruction of its most revolutionary and class conscious leaders and combatants. The execution of Connolly and the crippling of the Irish Citizen Army had a profound effect of the course of the struggle. Compounded by the deal to abandon Ulster, is it any wonder that the ?Free State? would develop the way it did? For all the twists and turns and ever present temptation of betrayal(i.e. Sinn Fein), the revolutionary tradition of Irish nationalism continues. This movement can not be reduced to "religious fundamentalism? because that characterization is false and denigrates the sacrifice of comrades who fought then and struggle today for a secular republic, in all of Ireland, owned by all of its citizens. In this time of sacrifice and suffering of the Palestinian people I think about the slogans for a Free Palestine and see in them the national and class struggle of all people fighting for survival against imperialism. "Revolution until victory" "Generation after generation until total liberation" -- Click to become a master chef, own a restaurant and make millions. http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/PnY6qxtWo9fqI5NmZzMsuwz1u7oxZf8VzAnK7rbxkSCDLi6JElmub/ From mqduck at sonic.net Sun Jan 4 12:15:19 2009 From: mqduck at sonic.net (Jeffrey Thomas Piercy) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 11:15:19 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Che Guevara and hoods In-Reply-To: <16555.81773.qm@web24606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <16555.81773.qm@web24606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49610AC7.7080005@sonic.net> Anonym Need wrote: > I know all about encapuchados in Colombia and the Gina Parody incident. I also did a post on my Greek blog about it (it's in greek but there are quite some URLs to find out what happened, I didn't figure out who is Felipe Rios though). > > http://allotriosi.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/%CE%BC%CE%B5-%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%8D%CE%BB%CE%B1-%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B1-%CE%B1%CE%BC%CF%86%CE%B9%CE%B8%CE%AD%CE%B1%CF%84%CF%81%CE%B1-%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B9%CF%82-%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%86/ Interested people could try the Babelfish auto-translation: http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fallotriosi.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F12%2F31%2F%25CE%25BC%25CE%25B5-%25CE%25BA%25CE%25BF%25CF%2585%25CE%25BA%25CE%25BF%25CF%258D%25CE%25BB%25CE%25B1-%25CF%2583%25CF%2584%25CE%25B1-%25CE%25B1%25CE%25BC%25CF%2586%25CE%25B9%25CE%25B8%25CE%25AD%25CE%25B1%25CF%2584%25CF%2581%25CE%25B1-%25CE%25BA%25CE%25B1%25CE%25B9-%25CF%2584%25CE%25B9%25CF%2582-%25CE%25BA%25CE%25B1%25CF%2586%2F&lp=el_en&btnTrUrl=Translate -- Human: An animal so lost in loathing contemplation of what it thinks it is as to overlook what it ought to be. From gmlakho.advocate at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 11:39:55 2009 From: gmlakho.advocate at gmail.com (Ghulam Mustafa Lakho) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 23:39:55 +0500 Subject: [Marxism] Dangerous Liaisons: Pakistan, India and Lashkar-e Taiba Message-ID: *Dangerous Liaisons: Pakistan, India and Lashkar-e Taiba * Graham Usher December 31, 2008 (Graham Usher, a contributing editor of *Middle East Report*, filed this article from Lahore.) The day after Christmas, the wires buzzed with reports that Pakistan was moving 20,000 troops from its western border with Afghanistan to locations near the eastern border with India. The redeployment, said Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Qureshi, came in response to "certain developments" on the Indian side of the boundary, one reportedly being that New Delhi might be considering military strikes on militant bases inside Pakistan. Pakistani security officials stressed that these moves were "minimum defensive measures": No soldiers had been taken away from the theater of counterinsurgency operations against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, only from "snowbound areas" where the army sits idle. Still, the troop transfers marked another dip in relations between India and Pakistan since the November 26 massacre of over 170 people in the Indian metropolis of Mumbai. New Delhi avers that the ten known Mumbai gunmen were Pakistani. Washington and London say the ten were recruited and trained in Pakistan, and then dispatched to India, by Lashkar-e Taiba, a banned Pakistani group active mostly in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Lashkar-e Taiba denies the charge. The Pakistani government says any evidence shared with the US and Britain should be shared with Islamabad as well, as part of a joint Pakistani-Indian probe into the killings. Pakistan should act first, answers New Delhi. It believes an urban guerrilla assault as polished as that in Mumbai could not have happened without the input of Pakistani army officers and/or agents of the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (ISI), "rogue," "former" or otherwise. To test Islamabad's mettle -- and sever or expose any ISI "link" to militancy -- India demands that all Lashkar bases in Pakistan and Pakistani-occupied Kashmir be "dismantled." It also calls for action on ten outstanding cases where militants have allegedly launched attacks upon India from Pakistani soil and the prosecution, imprisonment or extradition of 40 Pakistanis and Indians wanted by India for "terrorism." Until at least some of these demands are met, India is unlikely to share intelligence with Pakistan. "How can you give evidence to those you think have attacked you?" asks an Indian government official. Pakistan has responded, in increments. It raided an alleged Lashkar camp in Pakistani-held Kashmir on December 7 and banned Jamaat ud-Dawa -- Lashkar's supposed civilian arm -- after its designation as a "terrorist organization" by the United Nations. India's other demands are impossible, says a Pakistani source. "We told the Americans -- and through the Americans, India -- that we can prosecute Pakistanis involved in Mumbai. But we cannot extradite Pakistani suspects to India." Washington apparently agrees. It wants prosecution of Pakistanis said to be connected to the Mumbai attacks, including Jamaat ud-Dawa "emir" Hafiz Saeed, currently under house arrest in Lahore. But Pakistani action to date has satisfied no one. In the December 7 raid, Pakistan supposedly picked up Zaki ur-Rahman Lakhvi and Zarrar Shah, two Lashkar commanders who India says orchestrated the mayhem in Mumbai. They have since vanished. And Saeed says he will be freed once he appeals to a higher court. "It will rule that Jamaat ud-Dawa is an Islamic charity unconnected to Lashkar-e Taiba," he says. This is why India should share evidence with Pakistan, says President Asif Zardari. Privately, he has told "allies" that he cannot move against Lashkar or Jamaat ud-Dawa without the support of the army and the increasingly nationalist opposition in Parliament. And the Pakistani army (and even more the ISI) may be reluctant to act against a group it has historically deemed an "asset" at the diktat of a state it has historically defined as an "enemy." Nor will an Indian troop buildup on the border alter behavior in Pakistan. It simply binds the military-militant nexus tighter. The only way the army may give up its use of "non-state actors" to pursue state policies is when it sees groups like Lashkar as a greater threat to Pakistan's security than India. And for that to happen it is not only the army that must end a policy of dangerous liaisons; India must as well. *Lashkar-e Taiba* Lashkar-e Taiba was founded in the late 1980s as the armed wing of Markaz ud-Dawa wal-Irshad, the original name of Hafiz Saeed's Islamist organization. Soon after its founding, Lashkar was enlisted to help fight Pakistan's "plausibly deniable" proxy wars, first in Afghanistan and then in Kashmir, the Himalayan territory claimed by both Pakistan and India since partition and the cause of two of their three wars. Over the last two decades, Lashkar has earned notoriety as the most lethal group fighting in Kashmir, at one time claiming 50,000 men under its command. In December 2001, New Delhi blamed Lashkar for an attack on the Indian parliament, the last time South Asia's two nuclear-armed states came to the brink of war. The attack -- and India's charge -- compelled Pakistan and the US to ban Lashkar. After a few months, Markaz ud-Dawa wal-Irshad was reincarnated as Jamaat ud-Dawa, a social welfare organization that Saeed insists has no ties to Lashkar. Lashkar subscribes to the Ahl-e Hadith school, an austere strain of South Asian Sunni Islam that, like Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, advocates a literal reading of Islamic texts. It assumed its modern shape at the hands of 'Abdallah 'Azzam, co-founder of Markaz ud-Dawa wal-Irshad, a mentor to Osama bin Laden and a man recognized as one of the major theorists of militant Islam. In the crucible of the Afghan war against Soviet occupation, 'Azzam instilled in Saeed and the other Lashkar founders a zeal for "the lost science and art of jihad," says Pakistani analyst Hassan Abbas. And Saeed applied his zeal to South Asia, not only Muslim-majority Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir, but also those Muslim-minority areas of south-central India that once fell under the writ of the Mughal empire. He told a Lashkar rally in Lahore in 1999: "We will not rest until the whole [of] India is dissolved into Pakistan." Saeed's hostility to "Hindu" India is not only ideological. Born into a conservative Muslim household, he lost 36 family members in the communal slaughter that accompanied partition. "India has shown us the path," he once said. Such antagonism chimed with the ISI's regional policies. The spymasters, too, sought to "bleed India by a thousand cuts," a phrase attributed to the 1980s dictator Zia ul Haq, if not to "dissolve India into Pakistan," then to force India to cede Kashmir to Pakistan. There were other reasons why Lashkar-e Taiba became the preferred ISI proxy. Unlike the Taliban -- for whom modernity is anathema -- Lashkar believes that fulfillment of the duty of jihad comes through advanced scientific knowledge as well as military prowess. A visit to Muridke, Jamaat-ud-Dawa's "educational complex" near Lahore, shows the difference. There are classes of boys (and girls) reciting the Qur'an. But there are also students working in physics, chemistry and computer laboratories. These are not the poor who flock to Taliban seminaries in return for bed, board and faith. They are scions of Pakistan's urban middle class -- the educated elite. In Muridke -- at least when foreign journalists visit -- references to jihad are muted. Not so in Pakistan's southern Punjab belt bordering India, Lashkar's historical stomping ground. There one can find villages plastered with Jamaat ud-Dawa and Lashkar graffiti proclaiming jihad to "free Kashmir." At a funeral in Bahawalpur in the summer of 2008, a Jamaat ud-Dawa preacher eulogized "60 martyrs" from the district, mostly killed in Kashmir. Such proselytizing could not happen without the authorities' knowledge, but is it encouraged or tolerated on the basis of Jamaat ud-Dawa's erstwhile status as a charity? In the 1990s, it was encouraged. Lashkar had recruitment centers in every city in Pakistan, overseen by the ISI. In 1999 Lashkar guerillas fought alongside Pakistani soldiers on the Kargil heights in Indian-held Kashmir, the last time the two armies tried to force a resolution of the conflict. In the same year Saeed welcomed the coup of Gen. Pervez Musharraf against the elected government of Nawaz Sharif. Dictatorship is closer to the "pure Islamic state" than the "corruption" spread by democracy, he said, according to a Jamaat ud-Dawa source. Relations cooled after the attack on the Indian parliament. Musharraf banned several "jihadi" groups, Lashkar among them. Funds dried up and 12,000 fighters were demobilized in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir. Six divisions of the army (80,000 to 100,000 soldiers) were moved from the eastern border with India to the western border with Afghanistan, where Pakistan was battling an indigenous insurgency led by the Pakistan Taliban. As Pakistani-Indian relations improved from a state of near war to, in 2004, a peace process, what had seemed to be a tactical feint by Pakistan started to look like a shift in strategy. "Under Musharraf the army moved from a position of hostility to India to one similar to the pro-peace policies of the Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto governments," said an Indian official. "He helped create a Pakistani consensus." But war by proxy was not abandoned altogether, particularly for "pro-Pakistan" groups like Lashkar-e Taiba. Its camps on the frontiers were moved inland or camouflaged as Jamaat ud-Dawa "centers." Its cadre was also encouraged to diversify, becoming Jamaat ud-Dawa "social workers" rather than Lashkar mujahideen. This transformation was not simply a "front" for continued Lashkar militancy, as it is often called. Jamaat ud-Dawa runs schools, hospitals and ambulance services in 73 Pakistani cities. In 2007 it tended 6,000 patients, taught 35,000 students and administered 800,000 hepatitis vaccinations, says Saeed. "When it comes to social welfare Jamaat ud-Dawa's model is Hizballah and Hamas," says Ayesha Siddiqa, a Pakistani analyst. Jamaat ud-Dawa's most public endeavor occurred after the 2005 earthquake in Kashmir, when Lashkar fighters emerged from their lairs in the mountains to serve the wounded. Musharraf praised them as "exemplary humanitarian outfits," in the words of Pakistani analyst Ilyas Khan. So did US officials, who were impressed by Jamaat ud-Dawa's "state-of-the-art" field hospitals, until they were informed that the facilities were run by a "terrorist front." Nudged by India on the alleged link to Lashkar, the US blacklisted Jamaat ud-Dawa in 2006. When confronted with the fact the jihadis had not been demobbed but rejobbed, a Pakistani general was unapologetic: "We won't disband them. If we did, Kashmir would go cold and India will bury it forever." Kashmir has heated up since. Indian monitors say there have been 41 militant infractions across the Line of Control separating Pakistani- from Indian-controlled Kashmir in 2008, an escalation they say must have been directed by the ISI since it came between the close of Musharraf's military regime and the election of Pakistan's civilian government in February. Far from preventing the incursions, the Pakistani army provided "covering fire" to the infiltrators, say the Indians. The army denies this. It cites Indian figures showing a 40 percent drop in violence in Indian-held Kashmir in 2008, and the lowest total of incidents in 20 years. Indian analysts also accept there was no Pakistani prompting for the mass protests that rocked Indian-controlled Kashmir in the summer. These demonstrations were caused by indigenous Muslim alienation from Indian rule. Nor did they follow a Pakistani script: The protesters demanded independence not only from New Delhi but also from Islamabad, and, in contrast to Lashkar, which believes that "military jihad" is the path to Kashmir's reintegration with Pakistan, they were non-violent, even though more than 50 of them were shot dead by the Indian army. If the ISI has loosened the lid on Lashkar-e Taiba, it is not because of Kashmir. It is because of Afghanistan. *The Army's Worries* Islamabad has been worried by India's influence in Afghanistan ever since the fall of the "pro-Pakistan" Taliban regime in 2001. Pakistani officers point out the Afghan government's fledgling military is "disproportionately" staffed by officers from the "pro-India" Northern Alliance, the erstwhile Afghan coalition that, with the US, drove the Taliban from power. But worry has become paranoia. In the last year, India has drawn closer to two states the Pakistani army deems hostile to its interests in Afghanistan: Iran and the US. India denies any mischief. "Our main activity in Afghanistan is building roads," says an Indian official. That is so. Together with Iran, India is currently laying a road network that, when complete, will circumvent landlocked Afghanistan's need to use Pakistani ports on the Arabian Sea, outlets Islamabad deems vital to its economic future. New Delhi is also exerting influence on US policy in Afghanistan, alleges the army. Two examples are cited. One is Washington's endorsement of India's claim of ISI involvement in the bombing of its Kabul embassy in July. The ISI pleaded not guilty. But since then the CIA has all but refused to share intelligence with the Pakistani agency, including for operations on the Pakistani-Afghan border. "It fears we will pass any information to the Afghan Taliban," says a Pakistani officer. The other piece of evidence is President George W. Bush's decree in July that US Special Forces could enter Pakistani territory in pursuit of al-Qaeda and Taliban fugitives without the approval of the Pakistani government. There have since been 23 US aerial strikes and one ground assault, together killing more than 100 people. The CIA says it is targeting bases whence Taliban fighters are dispatched to Afghanistan and where al-Qaeda is "plotting the next 9/11." It also says it has a "tacit" agreement about the strikes with Pakistan. The Pakistani government denies this. The army says the strikes are violations of Pakistani sovereignty and "completely counterproductive" in view of its attempts to rally local tribes against the militants on the Pakistani-Afghan border. And it sees India's fingerprints all over the US missiles. To what end would India be meddling in Afghanistan? Two scenarios are bruited by the army. The milder of the two is that India and the Afghan government wish to create such ferment in the borderlands that the CIA and NATO will invade them, wresting back Pashtun territories long claimed by governments in Kabul (which have never recognized the legitimacy of Pakistan's western border). The worse scenario is that the US and its regional allies actually aim to dismember Pakistan as the world's only Muslim nuclear state. "India thinks a fragmented Pakistan would reduce the threat level," says an officer. "The more I talk to the establishment, the more I'm convinced fear and hatred of India is growing," says a Pakistani analyst. "And now it's India with America." *A Regional Solution* Does all this mean that the ISI was behind what happened in Mumbai? Although Indian security officials have claimed as much, the US says there is no evidence to support the charge. Pakistani historian and author Ahmed Rashid has charted the ISI's liaisons with militant groups in Afghanistan and Kashmir. But he, too, thinks official Pakistani involvement is unlikely. Although many Lashkar cadres accepted the army's decision in 2004 to wind down the "Kashmiri jihad," he says, others did not. And these "youngest and most radicalized members joined up with al-Qaeda and the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban in Pakistan's tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan. They embraced the global jihad to fight US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and later attacked the Pakistan government." These are the likeliest suspects in the Mumbai massacres, says Rashid. "In my opinion, [the Mumbai operation was] an al-Qaeda-planned attack using local surrogates to relieve pressure on them in the tribal areas. What better way than to create a conflict between India and Pakistan?" Other Pakistani analysts agree. Lashkar is no longer just a Pakistani outfit, they say. It has transnational reach, with cells in Indian-held Kashmir, India and Bangladesh. It acts autonomously. And while India has played up the Pakistani origins of the gunmen, it is inconceivable that the Mumbai attacks could have transpired without backup from indigenous forces, Islamist or criminal or both. The devastation wrought in Mumbai is also beyond anything the ISI would have planned or desired, says a Pakistani security analyst. "It may be that Mumbai has a Pakistani militant connection. But it is also quite clear most active militant groups are no longer under the control of Pakistan's security apparatus." What the Mumbai events do underscore is the recklessness of Pakistan's long-standing policy of permitting militant groups free rein. This is why many Pakistanis hope there will be a serious move against groups like Lashkar-e Taiba. But they also know that the army is unlikely to give up the use of proxies unless what it defines as Pakistan's security concerns are addressed: In Afghanistan, addressing Pakistani concerns means recognition by the Afghan government of Pakistan's western border, and acceptance by the US that all operations within Pakistan are the right of the Pakistani army alone. With India, it means serious negotiations to resolve the conflict over Kashmir. But there is little use in India appealing to Washington to practice coercive diplomacy with Islamabad. In many ways, recent US policy has aggravated the sores that linger in Indian-Pakistani relations. It was the Bush administration's nuclear agreement with India that convinced the army that New Delhi was now the "strategic partner" of the US in the region, with Islamabad merely a hired gun for the fight with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. And if India is considering "surgical" strikes inside Pakistan, it may be because it sees the US doing the same with impunity. There could be no more fatal equation. "India is not the United States," says analyst and retired Gen. Talat Masood simply. The Pakistani army would respond to any Indian strike. A better approach would be recognition that Afghanistan and Kashmir are regional problems requiring regional solutions -- and that there are no regional solutions without India, Pakistan and Iran. "We must steer an independent policy toward Iran as a factor of regional stability?. [And] India must eventually resume the arduous search to make Pakistan a stakeholder in good neighborly relations. The US factor complicates this search, which is best undertaken bilaterally," says M. K. Bhadrakumar, a former Indian ambassador and Ministry of External Affairs insider. There could be no better response to the terror in Mumbai than a common front of India, Iran and Pakistan against those who would fragment the region by religion or rule it by division. http://www.merip.org/mero/mero123108a.html From davidw at marxists.org Sun Jan 4 12:05:56 2009 From: davidw at marxists.org (David Walters) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 11:05:56 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] "http://www.vorhaug.net/politikk/" Message-ID: <49610894.6040702@marxists.org> Also, does anyone know this web site? They have tons of interesting political stuff up. It's possible Daniel Gaido already noted this, I don't remember. David From Dbachmozart at aol.com Sun Jan 4 13:04:36 2009 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:04:36 EST Subject: [Marxism] Joseph Massad - The Gaza Ghetto Uprising Message-ID: THE GAZA GHETTO UPRISING By Joseph Massad, The Electronic Intifada, 4 January 2009 clip -- The crushing of the Gaza Ghetto Uprising and the slaughter of its defenseless population will be relatively an easy task for the giant Israeli military machine and Israel's - sadistic political leadership. It is dealing with the aftermath of a strengthened Palestinian determination to continue to resist Israel that will prove much more difficult for Israel and its Arab allies to deal with. While the thousands of dead and injured Palestinians are the main victims of this latest Israeli terrorist war, the major political loser in all this will be Abbas and his clique of collaborators. Joseph Massad comments for The Electronic Intifada. full ---- _http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10110.shtml_ (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10110.shtml) **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From nmgoro at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 17:21:28 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:21:28 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] [Spanish] Anecdotal evidence Message-ID: <49615288.5000504@gmail.com> Sorry, can?t translate now. Too busy. But it is interesting to show how Argentinean migrants to Israel oppose the barbaric actions of their state, in the name of WHAT THEY LEARNT IN ARGENTINA. If someone analyzed the proportion of Argentinean Jews or children of those Jews in the most radical opposition to the Israeli policies towards the Palestinians, they would most probably discover that they are heavily over represented as compared to their proportion in the society as a whole. This is, mockingly enough, perhaps, still another consequence of the kind of social consciousness that Peronism generated in the Argentinean middle classes, even among those who disliked it due to its formal features. BTW, "moishe" in Argentina is a calid way to say "Jew". It comes from the Yddish word for "Moses", transliterated to Spanish. -------- Mensaje original -------- Asunto: Re: [R-P] Pilotos Israelies que se negaban a bombardear areas civiles Fecha: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 19:56:59 -0300 De: Abulafia Para: nmgoro en gmail.com CC: Lucha de masas para recuperar la Argentina Referencias: <52733fad0901041321m6897b94t407a09e5bbbd6880 en mail.gmail.com> CITANDO LA FUENTE,EL MATERIAL DE ESTA LISTA ES DE LIBRE REPRODUCCI?N Don Fernando: La cuesti?n de los militares israel?es que se niegan a cometer aberraciones como bombardear poblaciones civiles, torturar, asistir a la tortura y al torturado para mantenerlo vivo y otras linduras que el estado sionista, gendarme del imperialismo y mercenario del imperialismo no es nueva y no cuenta con demasiada difusi?n. Es cierto que esos soldados hebreos, o jud?os, son procesados y expulsados de la fuerza a cuyo comando se negaron a obedecer. No se cuantos --ademmas de haber sido tratados como traidores sarnosos por los mandos y el gobierno-- han recibido otro castigo que el ninguneo y la exclusi?n. Conozco dos casos. Uno de ellos salte?o de nacimiento, m?dico egresado de Tucum?n, hijo de m?dico y seguidor de su padre en el ejercicio de la medicina en el ?mbito rural, se fue a su tierra de adopci?n, se inscribi? como m?dico militar, combati? en la guerra contra Egipto, gan? una medalla por "acto heroico o algo as? y alcanz? el grado de Coronel m?dico. Cuando bajo el comando de Ariel Sharon las tropas de Israel invadieron el L?bano (Masacres de civiles en Sabra y Chatila, incluidas) El moishe salte?o fue citado para "asistir prisioneros". Al presentarse se le orden? mantener vivos durante la tortura a milicianos libaneses. Invocando su patria de origen, ?sta, la formaci?n obtenida en "su" Universidad de Tucum?n, "su" juramento hipocr?tico y sus conviccione ?ticas, los mand? prolija y educadamente a LA PUTA MADRE QUE LOS PARI? y se las tom? a su casa --Mujer tucumana y tres hijos israel?es nativos-- a esperar que lo vinieran a buscar. Fue a prisi?n creyendo iba a ser fusilado o algo as?. D?as despu?s se present? un general, pidi? permiso para sentarse en el ?nico mueble que hab?a en la celda --un catre de campa?a-- y se present? como el Presidente del tribunal de guerra que le hab?an formado. Serio el hombre, le dijo: Mir? Mordechai (Markus): Te cagaste la carrera militar. Quiz? te cagaste la vida, pero debo decirte que como presidente del tribunal, estoy de acuerdo con vos. La mayor?a no estamos de acuerdo con la ferocidad de las ?rdenes y de las leyes que las justifican. Lo dejaron en libertad, sin trabajo, sin un sueldo y con hijos chicos. Se traslad? a la frontera con el L?bano y comenz? a trabajar en cl?nicas locales y en hospitales Libaneses. Tres o cuatro a?os despu?s le ofrecieron una casa que rechaz?. Hoy, viejo achacoso y rezong?n, bravo como una ara?a, vive en su casa en un kibutz que cada tanto recibe los misiles del Hisbolah. Su nombre y su caso, aparecen citados por Noam Chomski. Por eso puedo d?rtelos. Es el Dr. Markus Levin, de Rosario de Lerma donde todav?a se recuerdan de ?l, ni?o, por su apodo "Motele". El otro caso es el de su hijo Er?n. Un pendejo de unos treina a?os ahora, bi?logo brillante con un doctorado en la Universidad de Tell Aviv, que fue piloto de F-16 y de F-18. Dej? de serlo una madrugada en la que despeg? de su base sin rumbo cierto. Ya en el aire como es costumbre le comunicaron la misi?n: bombardear poblaci?n civil en El L?bano. El Erancito, como lo llama su tata, peg? la vuelta, aterriz?, "entreg? la llave del veh?culo" al jefe de taller si se fue a la mierda. La misma historia de su padre, quien lo mantuvo sin laburo por bastante tiempo. El tata le dice que ha sido mejor, porque no era muy buen piloto y en alg?n momento se hiba a hacer mierda. Con ?l se las tomaron 1400 oficiales de la Fuerza A?rea Israel? en el termino de cuatro o cinco meses. Tambi?n lo menciona Chomski. No me acuerdo donde. Estuvo en casa con su novia y lo llev? a conocer la Quebrada y la Puna. Un chango muy cabal. Trabaj? a?os como portero de una f?brica. Casa comida y atenci?n m?dica a cargo del tata. Hoy es un prestigioso especialista en Murci?lagos a quien le ofrecieron una beca de estudios postdoctorales en Boston, no se en que instituci?n. Muchos militares hebreos se han ido de baja porque las guerras de los "halcones" no son "sus guerras". Son las guerras de fascismos como los del Likud y de los fundamentalistas religiosos (esos de los ricitos, la frente pelada el sombrerote y la levita bajo un sol que raja las piedras). ?Sab?s porque esos fan?ticos cabecean y lloran en el muro de los lamentos? Porque los palestinos no quieren compartir los gastos de la medianera. Un abrazo. Tito Livio, historiador del reinado de augusto, dec?a que la historia no es de los pueblos sino de los historiadores. No soy ni de lejos historiador, pero me hago cargo de lo que cuento como an?cdota. Outa - Jos? Luis Garrido. DNI 4.739.186 From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Sun Jan 4 16:23:01 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:23:01 +1100 Subject: [Marxism] Links | 10, 000 people rally in Toronto against the Israeli assault on Gaza Message-ID: <496144D5.8090409@greenleft.org.au> Just posted at http://links.org.au/node/833 (with nice photo slide show) 10,000 people rally in Toronto against the Israeli assault on Gaza January 3, 2009 -- At least 10,000 people gathered at Toronto?s Yonge-Dundas Square to protest against Israel?s recent assault on Gaza. Protesters then marched through the streets of Toronto to the Israeli Consulate and the United States Embassy. Demonstrators called on the Canadian government to condemn Israel?s latest aggression and to cut all political, economic and military ties with Israel until it complies with international law. Protests were also held across Canada in Ottawa, Winnipeg and Vancouver. Demonstrations are scheduled in Montreal on Sunday. ?We are overwhelmed by the support we have received from Canadian civil society, the trade union movement, and allies in the Jewish community. The large number of people on the streets today shows that the Harper government is out of touch with the Canadian public,? said Khaled Mouammar President of the Canadian Arab Federation. As the protest was taking place, Israel began a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip. This latest escalation comes in spite of international condemnation and calls for Israel to end its full-scale military assault on the people of Gaza, which has already killed over 400 people. It is clear that Israel believes it can act with impunity, and continue to commit war crimes against the illegally occupied Palestinian people. "We will continue to mobilise and voice our outrage at the crimes being committed in Gaza until the Canadian Harper government publicly condemns Israel?s violations of international law", stated Farid Ayad, president of Palestine House. Numerous speakers at the demonstration, including the president of CUPE Ontario Syd Ryan, local Jewish activist Jenny Peto and Rafeef Ziadah from Palestine House, urged the crowd to support the campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israeli apartheid. As part of this campaign, organisers called on the Canadian government to implement sanctions against the Israeli government until Israel halted its aggression upon the population of Gaza and fully complied with international law. Organisers further demanded that Canada insist Israel ends the siege on Gaza and open the borders to allow for food, medicine, water and other essentials of life. The rally was endorsed by: Palestine House Canadian Arab Federation Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid Canadian Union of Public Employee (Ontario) Canadian Union of Postal Workers Steel Workers ? Toronto Area Council Toronto Coalition to Stop the War Not in Our Name ? Jewish Voices Opposing Zionism International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network Toronto Yosher ? Jewish Social Justice Network Women In Solidarity with Palestine Educators for Peace and Justice Muslim Unity Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East Near East Cultural and Educational Foundation Canadian Forum for Justice and Peace in Sri Lanka Muslim Association of Hamilton Canadian Druze Society Canadian Syrian Cultural Club Al Huda Muslim Unity Canadian Shia Muslims Organization Worker to Worker Canada Cuba Solidarity Network Somali Canadian Diaspora Alliance Science for Peace Bayan ? Canada Bengali Student Association McMaster Muslims for Peace and Justice Arab Students Association at Ryerson University From ratbagradio at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 17:17:08 2009 From: ratbagradio at gmail.com (Ratbag Media) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:17:08 +1000 Subject: [Marxism] France: New Anti-Capitalist Party `a very exciting initiative' In-Reply-To: <57b410090901040517t23100a45pb191fcef9770c681@mail.gmail.com> References: <57b410090901040517t23100a45pb191fcef9770c681@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <57b410090901041617hbe4ca31ga0cd77f3ba062619@mail.gmail.com> Louis Proyect wrote: > What's sad about Mullen's cluelessness is that it is most certainly > shared by the Australian DSP that printed this interview in Links. When > I proposed that the DSP should have dissolved itself as the LCR is now > planning to do, one of their members (or ex-members, I am not sure) > shrieked about how I had an answer for everything. I don't have an > answer for everything, but I am pretty damned sure about the sectarian > business. Don't have an answer for everything? I think Louis Proyect is being far too modest. But he also misrepresents his shrieker. The charge was that Louis was "organisationally schematic" which, of course, he is. There are all these things happening in regard to new party dynamics at different paces around the world in very different political contexts and all Proyect can do is yell from the sidelines -- at some considerable distance -- "Dissolve ye bastards! Dissolve!" That's his magic bullet. His one panacea that prevails upon the organised Marxist left: get these new projects going (by such means he fails totally to share with us) and once they appear on the horizon, forthwith dissolve into them. The complication is that no outfit -- Marxist or non -- would commit to such projects on the basis that they *had* to dissolve into them. That's very different from *deciding* to so do . The question of dissolution is complicated as it is both an organisational and tactical question in the same way that forming something is. I doubt the Salvadoran FMLN would have lasted as long as it has as an aggregating party project if it had been ruled by organisational precepts as stringent as those that Proyect advances. There's a word for this complication: politics -- the matter and motion stuff. And it is politics that has stalled the DSP's own merging into the Socialist Alliance. Proyect also ignores the history of some of these new party projects. The formation of the Scottish Socialist Alliance wasn't so much a party dissolution issue but a split in the Scots section of the CWI. It was a major tactical divide. With a rise in Scottish nationalism in the throws of the Poll Tax fight, the ex CWIers threw their all into a new party project. In the case of SWP and Respect , the issue of dissolution didn't exist because the SWP had this strange schematic view of Respect (and the English Socialist Alliance before it) as an electoral milk cow sponsored by a special rendering of the "united front tactic". It was no good preaching "dissolution" to the SWP as the exercise was supposed to be an area of occasional intervention which could be turned on and off as required rather than a new party project which would serve only to compete with the SWP for real estate. So containment was always going to be the main game. In the same sense this is why the CWI/SP and the SWP remained so implacably hostile to the Scottish SSP even though they had no option but to affiliate to it.(And when they aided in the split in that enterprise, MarxMail cronies covered for them under guise of doing the right thing by the class divide.) The core problem with the SWP wasn't or isn't that it won't dissolve into Respect. The core problem with the SWP is that it is opposed to the new left party option. But lookey yonder how the chickens have come home to roost... In the wake of this it has been very useful to monitor the developments in England's small Socialist Resistance grouping in regard to Respect. While SR has committed to the Respect project, having instigated the Respect newspaper, it is also running a supplementary regroupment agenda with SWP exers and their kin. Should they also now be immediately dissolving into Respect because Louis Proyect has so ruled with his one size fits all precept? Similarly in Australia, the aggregation pending is much broader than the Socialist Alliance and it would be a mistake to assume that the Socialist Alliance was *it.* even for now (regardless of whether the DSP was *dissolved* into it or not).What was clear from the discussion at the SA's conference last month was that real advance is always going to be political and strategic -- and that no organisational schemata will do it for you. Maybe I should repeat that for Louis' benefit: "no organisational schemata will do it for you." Nonethless, I think the history of the Socialist Alliance has been the history of competing schemata. The grand daddy among these, (also presumed by Proyect) is that reliable stalwart: build it and they will come. Fulfilment is thus neatly reduced to a question of structure. This is the new party adherents' version of a sect's "our day will come". So let's just say that when you are in the regroupment /new party business day in, day out -- year in year out -- you pick up a bit of know how on what to do, and what not to do, next.You may get it wrong, of course, but at least you are trying to locate yourself where it's all supposedly happening -- rather than, say, just talking about it. dave riley -- ___________________________________________ RatbagMedia https://ratbagmedia.wikispaces.com/ Phone:07 33331805 Email/GoogleTalk RRN: ratbagradio at gmail.com ___________________________________________ From lnp3 at panix.com Sun Jan 4 17:29:36 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 19:29:36 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] What made the Comanches exceptional? Message-ID: <49615470.7030706@panix.com> Over the past 6 months I have been involved in an intensive research project to understand three American Indian peoples that are part of the narrative of Cormac McCarthy?s ?Blood Meridian?. In each instance, the Quechans, the Apaches and the Comanches, who were all important and distinct ethnic groups in the Southwest, are depicted by McCarthy as fiends you might find in a horror movie. Of course, the whites are not much better but that is not what prompted me to do this research. I wanted to better understand American Indians of the Southwest in order to round out a picture that already included the Lakota and the Blackfoot of the Northern Plains that I knew from past studies. Within the next few weeks I plan to write at some length about Cormac McCarthy?s truly despicable novel but right now want to refer you to the opening paragraphs of the final chapter of Pekka H?m?l?inen?s ?Comanche Empire?. This is one of the outstanding works of American Indian scholarship that I have had the privilege to read. While it should be obvious from both the title of his book and the excerpt below that H?m?l?inen is not interested in romanticizing the Comanches, his account goes along way to correct the image found in westward-ho histories, movies such as ?The Comancheros?, and finally McCarthy?s pretentious attempt to out-Faulkner Faulkner. ---- Pekka H?m?l?inen The icehouse at the Fort Sill agency was not a burial place of a people? the Comanche nation would endure and, in time, flourish again ?but it was a burial place of an era. Past and present fell abruptly apart as new peoples, new economic regimes, and new ways of life descended onto the Great Plains, now eerily devoid of any material or geopolitical marks of Comanche presence. Comanches had ruled the Southwest for well over a century, but they left behind no marks of their dominance. There were no deserted fortresses or decaying monuments to remind the newcomers of the complex imperial history they were displacing. Envisioning a new kind of empire, one of cities, railroads, agricultural hinterlands, and real estate, Americans set out to tame, commodify, and carve up the land. Buffalo runners all but eradicated the southern plains bison in the space of a few years, and Texas ranchers laid down a maze of cattle trails that crisscrossed the region. Settlers turned the open steppes into irrigated fields and fenced farms, and boosters conjured towns, highways, and railroad tracks on old Comanche camping sites. With each new layer of American progress, the memory of the Comanches and their former power grew dimmer. For Americans in the East, the Comanche nation faded even more quickly. In summer 1875, as the last Comanche bands drifted to Fort Sill to surrender, the United States was preparing elaborate centennial celebrations to display its industrial might, continental reach, and hard-won national unity. But a few days before the July Fourth grand finale, disquieting news arrived from the northern Great Plains: the Lakotas and their Cheyenne and Arapahoe allies had annihilated Custer's Seventh Cavalry, more than two hundred soldiers, in the Little Bighorn valley in Montana. From then on, America's attention was absorbed by the campaigns against the Lakotas, which did not end until 1890 at the horror of Wounded Knee. By that time, Lakotas were fixed in the national consciousness as the "noble and doomed savages" of Buffalo Bill's hugely successful Wild West Show. They became multipurpose icons, immensely useful and marketable as the sounding board of America's shifting feelings of awe, terror, and remorse toward Native Americans and their fate. Fictionalized beyond recognition, Sitting Bull's ever-malleable stage Lakotas came to symbolize all Indians of the Great Plains, then of the West, and then of all North America, while the other Indian nations were pushed to the margins of collective memory. Already deprived of their traditional lands and lifestyle, Comanches were now deprived of their place in history. The waning popular interest stifled potential scholarly interest. During the sixty years that followed their confinement to reservation, the Comanches drew little scholarly attention and inspired few academic studies. Scholars did not rediscover them until the 1930s, when two prominent Texas historians, Walter Prescott Webb and Rupert Norval Richardson, gave them a key role in their renowned studies of the Great Plains. The Comanches presented by Webb and Richardson were, however, startlingly different from the Comanches European colonists had known in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Where the Spaniards and French had viewed Comanches variously as diplomats, raiders, allies, foes, traders, spouses, and kinspeople, Webb and Richardson, drawing heavily on the records of mid-nineteenth-century American settlers and soldiers, portrayed them simply as warriors. And whereas Spanish and Mexican sources spoke of the overwhelming economic, political, and cultural power of Comanches, Webb and Richardson depicted them as a military obstacle to America's preordained expansion across the continent.2 Thus emerged the idea of the Comanche barrier to the westward-expanding American frontier, a metaphor that recast Comanches as savages who resisted conquest with raw military prowess but were devoid of other qualities that make human societies strong and resilient. Reconceived in the minds of early twentieth-century Americans, Comanches were equated with other natural obstacles?aridity, deserts, and distance ?that encumbered the colonization of the American West. Aggressive and impulsive, powerful yet passive, they blended into the natural environment to form a potent, essentially nonhuman impediment to the U.S. empire. This tendency to simultaneously naturalize and demonize the Comanches ? and, arguably, to rationalize their subjugation ?is apparent in Webb's 1958 presidential address to the American Historical Association, in which he nostalgically contemplated the forces that shaped his writing in his Texas home. "In the hard-packed yard and on the encircling red-stone hills was the geology, in the pasture the desert botany and all the wild animals of the plains save the buffalo," he mused. "The Indians, the fierce Comanches, had so recently departed, leaving memories so vivid and tales so harrowing that their red ghosts, lurking in every mott and hollow, drove me home all prickly with fear when I ventured too far" A generation later, novelist Cormac McCarthy offered in Blood Meridian what was perhaps the most troubling reenvisioning of the Comanches. He describes the destruction of a crew of Anglo-American filibusters at the hands of beastlike Comanches who, without provocation or hesitation, abandon themselves on the other side of humanity, "ripping off limbs, heads, gutting the strange white torsos and holding up great handfuls of viscera, genitals, some of the savages so slathered up with gore they might have rolled in it like dogs and some who fell upon the dying and sodomized them with loud cries to their fellows."5 The unanthropocentric barrier metaphor trivialized the Comanches as a society and, by extension, abridged their role as historical actors. By reducing them to a primal warrior society, Webb, Richardson, and the scores of historians and nonhistorians influenced by them created a caricature of Comanches' culture and their place in history. The Comanches who appeared in historical studies from the 1930s on terrorized the Spanish and Mexican frontier with relentless raids, but beyond that they merely occupied space. Weak in organization and warlike by nature, they lacked the complex diplomatic, economic, and cultural arrangements that fasten peoples to their environments and instead relied on brutal, almost pathological raiding to defend their homelands. The narratives that spoke of different kinds of Comanches were marginalized. "Los Comanches," the New Mexican conquest romance that captures Comanches' penetrating influence on the political, economic, and cultural milieu of the early Southwest, was dismissed as local folklore and ignored by mainstream historians. Thus, bit by bit, the nature and scope of Comanche power became distorted. Memories of Comanches stirred horror and awe in twentieth-century Americans like Webb ?not because they conjured up impressions of imperial-scale power but because they evoked images of nativistic resistance and mindless, primitive violence. In 1974, a century after the battle of the Palo Duro Canyon, T. R. Fehrenbach, another renowned Texas historian, depicted Comanches as "scattered bands of wanderers, never a nation," and their system of power as a "barrier [that] had stopped European penetration of these plains for almost two centuries. It did not show on maps; it had no shape or form. The Comanche barrier was a wisp of smoke on the horizon, riders appearing suddenly on the ridges, shots and screams at sunset, horror under the summer moons." Comanches, he concluded, "remained proud, savage, and aloof, determined to deal with Europeans on their own terms. . . . Whether the stance was conscious or distinctive, the People had become a powerful barrier to all future movement across the plains."4 Fehrenbach's portrayal of a phantasmal Comanche barrier vas a product of its time, and it represented how historians understood colonialism and Indian-white relations into the closing years of the twentieth century: European imperialism moves history; Native resistance is raw, violent savagery; and frontiers, if indigenous peoples have a hand in their making, are confusing, unsophisticated places. The task in this book has been to recover Comanches as full-fledged humans and undiminished historical actors underneath the distorting layers of historical memory and, in doing so, to provide a new vision of a key chapter of early American history. In these pages I have traced the evolution of a Comanche power complex that was neither shapeless nor formless, a Comanche foreign policy that involved much more than plundering and killing, and Comanche people who were neither savage nor nationless. Instead of merely defying white expansion through aggressive resistance, I have argued, Comanches inverted the projected colonial trajectory through multifaceted power politics that brought much of the colonial Southwest under their political, economic, and cultural sway. How did this happen? How did a group of nomadic hunter-gatherers that numbered only a few thousand in the early eighteenth century manage to challenge and eventually eclipse the ambitions of some of the world's greatest empires? What gave Comanches their edge in the collision of cultures? And conversely, why was it that only the Comanches?among the hundreds of Native American nations ?managed to build an empire that eclipsed and subsumed Euro-American colonial realms? In the preceding chapters I have emphasized various mental and cultural traits, ranging from Comanches' strategic flexibility to their willingness to embrace new ideas and innovations, but those are traits shared by most Native American societies. What was it that made Comanches exceptional? From lnp3 at panix.com Sun Jan 4 17:45:11 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 19:45:11 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] France: New Anti-Capitalist Party `a very exciting initiative' In-Reply-To: <57b410090901041617hbe4ca31ga0cd77f3ba062619@mail.gmail.com> References: <57b410090901040517t23100a45pb191fcef9770c681@mail.gmail.com> <57b410090901041617hbe4ca31ga0cd77f3ba062619@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49615817.9070405@panix.com> Ratbag Media wrote: > There are all these things happening in regard to new party dynamics > at different paces around the world in very different political > contexts and all Proyect can do is yell from the sidelines -- at some > considerable distance -- "Dissolve ye bastards! Dissolve!" Hey now. I never called the DSP bastards. Maybe lead-footed formula-spouting Cannonites but that's about it. > > That's his magic bullet. His one panacea that prevails upon the > organised Marxist left: get these new projects going (by such means > he fails totally to share with us) and once they appear on the > horizon, forthwith dissolve into them. Actually, I think it is better that you stay in your own group, especially with a moniker like ratbag. I haven't seen anything quite like that since the heyday of Bob Malecki's "Cockroach" zine. > There's a word for this complication: politics -- the matter and > motion stuff. And it is politics that has stalled the DSP's own > merging into the Socialist Alliance. I believe that's the same analysis that the SWP has of their difficulties with RESPECT. > > Should they also now be immediately dissolving into Respect because > Louis Proyect has so ruled with his one size fits all precept? I advocate a close study of what the LCR is up to even if you find it as painful as a cat finds a bubble bath. > So let's just say that when you are in the regroupment /new party > business How revealing that you use the word "business" when it comes to party-building. Perhaps the DSP should consider discounting new recruits' dues in 2009 as an incentive. Or a complimentary weekend at a Club Med in Tasmania. Just watch out for the devils. From charles1848 at sbcglobal.net Sun Jan 4 17:54:19 2009 From: charles1848 at sbcglobal.net (Charlie) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:54:19 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] No Need to March, Says Obama Advisor Message-ID: <49615A3B.6050408@sbcglobal.net> That's the headline on a report by Hazel Trice Edney, editor in chief of the National Newspaper Publishers Association press syndicate. She leads: "Valerie Jarrett, who will likely become a household name shortly ... says the landscape of activism may drastically change under the Obama administration as those who have traditionally fought to be heard will likely have seats at the table. "'You do not need to have demonstrations in front of the White House to convince this president that there is a disparate impact in the African-American community around issues such as health care and education. He's got that,' says Jarrrett in a telephone interview..." The California Voice, which bills itself as "The Oldest Black Newspaper West of the Rockies," gave the story top billing on the front page of its Dec. 28, 2008 issue. You voted, sisters and brothers, now let your leaders wait for their White House invitations! Carl Davidson and other "progressives for Obama" can either go along with Obama's request not to pressure him, or they can admit that in the very act of demonstrating against more troops to Afghanistan, for economic relief to the common people not to the rich, and for an end to supporting Israeli oppression of Palestinians, they are going against Obama. Charles Andrews From davidrail68 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 18:24:41 2009 From: davidrail68 at yahoo.com (David Walsh) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 17:24:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] Fw: Errol Flynn defends the Cuban revolution (video) Message-ID: <435542.67430.qm@web45301.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> > Please send this out widely. it's really good! > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2748872556869712014 Dave Walsh www.socialistviewpoint.org From davidrail68 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 18:33:39 2009 From: davidrail68 at yahoo.com (David Walsh) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 17:33:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] Charlie Chaplin's "Great Dictator Final Speech" on You Tube Message-ID: <260298.6584.qm@web45304.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Please take a moment to listen to this. It's quite short but a wonderful statement against fascist barbarism and hope for the kind of future we all want for our children. Bear with me I send it out about once a year but the feed back make me think it's worth posting again every so often. If it doesn't get to you I would be very surprised. With Warm Human Solidarity, Dave http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yqnk4qNlAZk From nchamah at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 19:54:57 2009 From: nchamah at gmail.com (nchamah miller) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 21:54:57 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Che Guevara and hoods In-Reply-To: <7b8a676d0901031345q65054dafpdfd329732a800082@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b8a676d0901031345q65054dafpdfd329732a800082@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Ah, but did you speak to revolutionaries or the average person in the street? For those of my generation, this has been an oft quoted statement, of course the newer generation has different challenges, which I am unable to assess and the latest appearances at the Universidad Nacional of youth with masks opened up this whole controversy all over again. On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Anthony Boynton wrote: > I just did a quick survey here in Colombia, and nobody I emailed ever heard > of any such quote. HOWEVER, similar arguments against wearing hoods are used > here against both the anarchist youth and the youth connected to the FARC. > Here demonstrators often wear hoods to signal they are willing to fight back > against the police when they attack demonstrators. Also, those who plan to > attack the police first wear hoods. Those who oppose militant tactics of any > sort, use arguments like those of the Greek CP. > > Anthony > > Anonym Need wrote: >> "Real revolutionaries do not go about wearing hoods(=capuchas) for one > more >> reason : At the time of revolution the people must recognise in the >> faces of the revolutionaries its vanguard. The people doesn't value >> meddling with hooded ones(=encapuchados)." >> >> >> It's not my quote, it's by CP of Greece (claiming it's by Guevara) so as > to disavow the recent riots in Greece. >> I think it's a forgery and I would be pleased if you could help instead of > attacking me. >> I don't see any reason for anyone to be offensive. > ________________________________________________ > 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 anthony.boynton at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 19:57:55 2009 From: anthony.boynton at gmail.com (Anthony Boynton) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 21:57:55 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism Message-ID: <7b8a676d0901041857s5e4ce459tf2a56df7690fbf16@mail.gmail.com> " No matter what is in the Hamas documents, support for the people of Palestine-- and a united military defense of all within Gaza-- and unqualified support for such a defense outside Gaza-- against the Israeli assault is the primary obligation." S. Artesian I completely, and emphatically agree. Anthony From lnp3 at panix.com Sun Jan 4 20:36:01 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:36:01 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Forwarded from Sander Hicks Message-ID: <49618021.8020904@panix.com> Hi comraderos. I know I have not posted here in a while....but I have been working so hard....please come out, and let's make a scene. at... Inaugurate Yourself! Starting: San Diego, CA, on January 10 Ending: Washington, DC on January 20 How will the American people set an agenda in Washington that guarantees deep change? How can we aim high, and demand the impossible? How can we guarantee Barack Obama will fulfill the hope and promise he has represented? (And how deep will the change really be, when you've put together a centrist cabinet?) Inaugurate Yourself! will gather fellow rebels and radicals, spiritual people and political instigators, people who want to speak out and support Sander Hicks' "Three New Imperatives:" 1. We can visualize the US Government renouncing violence within our lifetime. If the Democratic Party won't embrace the radical call to peace and nonviolence of Gandhi, King, Jesus of Nazareth, Dorothy Day, and others, then it's up to us. The US can really lead the world for the first time, not with the strength of its right arm, but with a new ideal of peaceful conflict resolution. It's time for us to evolve. This is a natural next step. 2. We call on the US to start an innovative green venture capital program, to rejuvenate the economy, and change the whole paradigm of "dog eat dog" capitalism. Capitalism, too, must evolve. The government could have a role, not as a bumbling huge bureaucracy, but as a creative instigator and funder of conscious, sustainable new companies that act in the public interest, produce important new goods and services, and use the public markets to create a robust return for their original investors. Want more? Sander Hicks JUST published a hot new piece on this at AlterNet. http://www.alternet.org/workplace/110406/let's_cut_out_the_banks_and_finance_american_innovation/ 3. In this "information age" the American people deserve a 1000% change in the flow of information about what the US Government actually does. We demand a full accounting, and total transparency. We demand an end to missing billions in the Pentagon budget. We demand an opening of files on the assassinations of King, the Kennedys, Malcolm X, full disclosure on the CIA and Pentagon's role in the 9/11 attacks, and a full accounting of the US's protection of the "9/11 terrorists" before 9/11. This is the people's US National Speaking Tour, winding across the US and ending January 20 at the Inauguration of President Barrack Obama. It's instigated by Sander Hicks, and co-hosted by writer Chic Migeot (author of "The Talk.") We're bringing the noise by bringing up the forgotten Louisiana 9/11 researcher murdered by the FBI. We're bringing memories from Waco from the time of the last big Democrat. We stand with the ghosts of New Orleans. We answer to a higher moral calling. We have a vision: it's time for the USA to lead the world, and renounce the use of violence. Inaugurate Yourself! KICKOFF EVENT! Jan 10 San Diego, CA House Party and Speak Out! at house of progressive community leader Michael Copass (Congressional candidate, truth activist, forensics researcher) 4042 Mount Blackburn Ave San Diego CA 92111 8 PM Jan 11 Los Angeles, CA. Sun 2:00 PM Daytime action with We Are Change, LA! The 11th of the Month - Sunset / 101 Freeway Banner, Flyering & DVD Giveaway!!! Meet at Tommy's Burger, 5873 Hollywood Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90028, The 11th of the Month - Sunset & the 101 Freeway Banner, Terrorstorm Screening Flyering and 9/11 Truth DVD Giveaway!!! RSVP Here That Night: 8 PM House Party with Dr. Kathleen F. Rosenblatt, a healer, acupuncturist, and organizer 10415 Ravenwood Court, Los Angeles, CA More info on Dr. Kathleen here Jan 12 Phoenix, AZ Perihelion Arts The "Cutting Edge Contemporary Gallery" 610 E. Roosevelt #137 Phoenix, AZ 85004 http://www.perihelionarts.com Jan 13 Albuquerque, NM (developing) Jan 14 OK City, OK Book Beat at 7:30 PM 1139 SW 59th St Oklahoma City, OK 73139 (405) 631-3505 Book Beat's slogan: "We've been carrying the rare and obscure, even the forbidden, since 1997." Red Dirt Report will cover, OK City Bombing activist and film-maker Chris Emery will co-host, or participate. Jan 15 Austin, TX, Brave New Books. 7 PM. Live Webcast at http://www.bravenewbookstore.com/ Jan 16 Shreveport, LA (about to be confirmed, we're in good hands.) Local activists and evangelicals are getting together. The FIRST EVER public speak out in Shreveport about the death of Shreveport activist Dr. David Graham! More info: http://www.sanderhicks.com/graham.html Jan 17 Jackson, MS (Gig about to be confirmed.) Working with Jackson Free Press. Jan 18 Cincinnati, OH, House Party w/ M. Cook. Jan 19 Harrisonburg, VA (gig about to be confirmed) maybe at Our Community. Jan 20 Washington, DC area The Alternative Inaugural Ball Inaugurate Yourself! Comes to the Inauguration under the banner of peace, nonviolence, and government transparency. $15 * 6-10 PM Lyon Park Community Center 414 N. Fillmore St. Arlington, VA More Info on Sander Hicks: http://sanderhicks.com Sander Hicks is founder of Vox Pop Inc. and author of The Big Wedding, 9/11, the Whistle-Blowers, and the Cover-Up. From nchamah at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 21:14:06 2009 From: nchamah at gmail.com (nchamah miller) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 23:14:06 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Looking the Other Way - REUVEN KAMINER Message-ID: Looking the Other Way Almost everybody in the world would like the horrendous spectacle in Gaza to end as soon as possible. That is everybody except the United States government. The Israeli attack is a great occasion for a parting shot by Bush at Barack Obama, who has unfortunately also endorsed the concept that "terrorism" is the root cause of the US's troubles. Bush is presenting the play book on how this policy plays out to Obama. It is gift rapped from Bush with a note: continue this policy from the center. Bush has exploited Israel's conflict with the Palestinians to dig a hole for Obama. Obama's total deafness and thunderous silence over the massive war crimes in Gaza cannot be excused by the shameful, evasive nonsense about there being "one president at a time." May we recall that in this world, there are, aside from office holders, past and future, also responsible human beings who, in all decency, should know how to recognize and condemn war crimes against one and half million civilians in Gaza. Now deep in the hole that Bush is digging for him, Obama will not be able to rule from the center. He will have to "rule" from the center of the bottom of the hole that Bush has dug for him. It may be formally true that there is only one president at a time, but silence in the face of war crimes by your ally, Mr. Obama, can only be construed as rank complicity. We are sorry about this and had hoped it would be different ? since what you have after CHANGE is DIFFERENCE. This silent complicity on your part is not even elegant and you will get drenched, even as you try to walk between the rain drops. Riding the Tiger Sadly enough, war plays for many deluded citizens in Israeli society the role of a utopian path to calm and bliss. Since Israel enjoys an almost absolute military superiority over Hamas and the Palestinians, for many Israelis, suffering over the years from rockets coming in from over the border, their plight can have only one explanation, i.e., a lack of resoluteness on the part of the leadership. The solution is obvious. The problem intensifies over time because the leadership hides the true state of affairs which is that there cannot be an immediate solution for burning security problems which are the direct product of mistaken policies and political illusions. Israel's policies push her to war and war appears as the panacea. When anybody in the media or even in power suggests that Israeli options are not unlimited and that there are serious obstacles to the use of force that can cause the death of thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians, they are warned by the hard-liners that a cease fire would be tantamount to ignominious defeat. In Uri Avneri's accurate description, Israel is riding the tiger and does not know how to get off. For the present, the only way to stop the rockets involves de facto recognition of Hamas. And Hamas's basic demand for open border crossings has universal approval. This solution, no rockets ? no siege, which is quite rational, will not play in Tel Aviv as an Israeli victory, because it impairs previously existing absolute Israeli control of the border crossings. So by the logic of its attack, Israel is forced to raise the ante. Israel must continue its attack on Hamas and on the Palestinian civilian population in the name of "creating a new reality" which means convincing Hamas to discontinue rocket fire under threat of more death and destruction. This Israeli attempt at behavior modification of Hamas reminds one of a torture procedure. But, most important, no one knows how many Palestinians, fighters and civilians must die in the attempt to eliminate Hamas from the political equation, just as no one knows how many Israelis, soldiers and civilians, must die for the new "improved, Hamasless" equation. The Israelis are impelled to go further and further into to the muddy, muddy without any certainty that there is dry land, meaning 'Gaza without Hamas', in the vicinity. At the same time, their only friends, Bush & Co., are reading reports from the field that the Israeli operation, an ugly and horrendous affair by any account, is costing the U.S. and its allies more and more. As world public opinion pushes the world community to do something to calm the gathering storm, Israel's leaders maneuver desperately away from the nearly universal call for an immediate cease fire. From markalause at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 22:05:01 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 00:05:01 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Forwarded from Sander Hicks In-Reply-To: <49618021.8020904@panix.com> References: <49618021.8020904@panix.com> Message-ID: I like to assume that these announcements are actually aimed at getting real people to do something in the real world. Saying "Jan 18 Cincinnati, OH, House Party w/ M. Cook" is a waste of electrons, except for people who already know who M. Cook is or when and where s/he is holding the event. ML From billyoc at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 22:09:34 2009 From: billyoc at gmail.com (Bill O'Connor) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:09:34 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] No Need to March, Says Obama Advisor In-Reply-To: <49615A3B.6050408@sbcglobal.net> (Charlie's message of "Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:54:19 -0800") References: <49615A3B.6050408@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <87zli6gwz5.fsf@t22.Belkin> Charlie writes: > That's the headline on a report by Hazel Trice Edney, editor in chief of > the National Newspaper Publishers Association press syndicate. She leads: > > "Valerie Jarrett, who will likely become a household name shortly ... Oh, Hazel, you have NO idea... > says the landscape of activism may drastically change under the Obama > administration as those who have traditionally fought to be heard will > likely have seats at the table. > "'You do not need to have demonstrations in front of the White House to Oh, we're not protesting, we're just waiting for the good news that our demands have been met. This way, you can just walk out the door and yell it to us. From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 00:33:31 2009 From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 02:33:31 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Cynthia McKinney: we lived to tell the story In-Reply-To: <495E6E5C.4030509@panix.com> References: <495E6E5C.4030509@panix.com> Message-ID: <908b689f0901042333w27d591efmc762d2a66aa4440d@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Louis Proyect wrote: > Counterpunch, January 2 - 4, 2009 > How Lebanon Rescued Us > We Lived to Tell the Story > > By CYNTHIA McKINNEY > > > And one final note, President-elect Obama roared like a mighty lion onto > the political scene, but now he is as silent as a lamb in the face of > the death and destruction that is happening in Gaza. http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/idUKTRE50329820090104 Politics, diplomacy behind Obama's Gaza silence Sun Jan 4, 2009 7:09pm GMT By Deborah Charles - Analysis WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Even as Israelis and Palestinians plunged deeper into conflict, U.S. President-elect Barack Obama remained silent, refusing to budge from his one-president-at-a-time mantra. Obama takes office on January 20 but has not commented on the Middle East crisis since Israel launched attacks on Gaza nine days ago. His advisers insist that only President George W. Bush can speak for America until then. The Palestinian death toll in nine days of Israeli attacks has risen to more than 500. Hamas, which ended a six-month ceasefire, has fired rockets deeper into Israel than ever before, hitting major cities and killing four Israelis. While most prominent U.S. politicians have backed Israel, critics have noted that Obama joined Bush in condemning the killing of civilians in attacks in November in Mumbai, India. They would have liked him to say something about the fate of Palestinian civilians caught in the fighting. The president-elect also has commented on the global economic crisis and his plans to try to pull the U.S. economy out of recession. Asked about the apparent contradiction, an Obama transition aide who asked not to be named said on Sunday: "President Bush is our nation's president until January 20, and he is responsible for our nation's diplomacy with the world. "During this transition period, we are not engaging in any action that could send confusing signals to the world about who speaks on behalf of the United States." POLITICS, DIPLOMACY Domestic politics and international diplomacy could be factors in Obama's silence. He may hope the crisis will reach a turning point where a new president, untarnished by previous comments, can make a difference with a fresh start. He also knows any statement is fraught with traps. "If I were Obama, I wouldn't want to talk about it either. Frankly, it's a lot more comfortable to let this one hang on the president," said Edward Walker Jr., who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel from 1997 to 1999. "I don't think he wants to be tagged at this point with either advocating the Israeli response or condemning it because our (U.S.) interests are sort of torn on this one," added Walker, an analyst with the Middle East Institute think tank. Pro-Israeli comments by Obama risk upsetting the Arab world even before he takes office. Comments that seem critical of Israel would anger its American supporters. Morton Klein, president of the pro-Israel Zionist Organization of America, noted that Obama spoke out on Mumbai. "And he's acting almost as if he's president when it comes to the economy, right? He's not screaming 'there's only one president' when he's talking about the economic stimulus package," Klein said. FLEXIBILITY James Carafano, a defense expert at the Heritage Foundation think tank, said Obama may not want to comment on foreign policy issues like Gaza because "you're going to be held accountable for anything that you say. "The Mumbai attacks, that's a one-time attack, the thing's over, you say some platitudes -- you're not making any policy," Carafano said. "If Obama weighed in now on Hamas and Israel, people would take that as policy. But there's two weeks between now and his inauguration. Events on the ground could change significantly. So in a sense you would walk into office with no flexibility." There's nothing in Obama's campaign statements or those of Hillary Clinton, his choice for secretary of state, to suggest they would steer a different course from Bush. "In terms of negotiations with Hamas, it is very hard to negotiate with a group that is not representative of a nation-state, does not recognize your right to exist, has consistently used terror as a weapon, and is deeply influenced by other countries," Obama said in July. In a CBS interview a week ago, Obama's aide David Axelrod recalled that when then-candidate Obama visited the southern Israeli town of Sderot in July, he voiced understanding for Israel's urge to end Hamas rocket attacks on Sderot from Gaza. On the broader issue of Middle East peace, Obama promised to engage in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking from the start but has yet to propose a policy shift that might rescue a two-state solution from oblivion. Unlike other major governments, the Bush administration has not called for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, insisting that any ceasefire be "durable and sustainable" and that Israel avoid killing civilians. From Johannes.Schneider at gmx.net Mon Jan 5 00:55:18 2009 From: Johannes.Schneider at gmx.net (Johannes Schneider) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 08:55:18 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] ????????????? Re: Valkyri -- and some further-alongr personal reflections In-Reply-To: <4960ADF9.5010702@gmail.com> References: <016c01c96dcd$fbbef990$0400a8c0@computer> <002-09cf5f49-40031.022@lws-media.de> <4960ADF9.5010702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090105075518.206610@gmx.net> Nestor Gorojovsky wrote: > > > L?ko Willms escribi?: > > On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:06:15 -0700, Hunter Gray wrote: > > > > in the 1950ies the conspirators of the assasination attempt of July > > 20, 1944, have been regarded as bing guilty of high treason, > > ACTUALLY SO!!!??? > Actually, at least a considerable part of so population did so. (still 25% at the beginning of the sixties). For details see German Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentat_vom_20._Juli_1944#Unmittelbare_Nachkriegszeit_in_Westdeutschland and particularly: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remer-Prozess -- Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger geh?rt? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger From Johannes.Schneider at gmx.net Mon Jan 5 01:36:08 2009 From: Johannes.Schneider at gmx.net (Johannes Schneider) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 09:36:08 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] Movies, videos about Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. and/or the development of their ideas? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090105083608.206620@gmx.net> -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Datum: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 22:49:11 -0500 > Von: Joe > An: Johannes.Schneider at gmx.net > Betreff: [Marxism] Movies, videos about Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. and/or the development of their ideas? > > I'm looking for movies, videos, etc. dealing with any of the following: > > (1) the lives of Marx, Engels, Bernstein, Trotsky, Lenin, Mao, or any > other important people in the Marxist tradition > > (2) the development of the ideas of any of the above folks > > (3) major theoretical debates in the history of Marxism > > Any suggestions? > Perhaps Margarethe von Trotta's Rosa Luxemburg: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091869/ Though I do not think it is that great. In my memory it is kind of apolitical, eg. founding the KPD is not even mentioned. If you like hagiography there are the Th?lmann biopics done by DEFA in the fifties: Ernst Th?lmann - Sohn seiner Klasse http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046958/ and Ernst Th?lmann - F?hrer seiner Klasse http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048038/ There is a movie "The Assassination of Trotsky" with Richard Burton as Trotsky and Alain Delon as Ram?n Mercader. Have not seen it. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068226/ The torrent of the Spanish version you can download from here: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4183105/El.Asesinato.de.Trotsky.(Spanish).(DVD-Rip).(XviD). Anything by Eisenstein you did not think about: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001178/ -- Sensationsangebot verl?ngert: GMX FreeDSL - Telefonanschluss + DSL f?r nur 16,37 Euro/mtl.!* http://dsl.gmx.de/?ac=OM.AD.PD003K1308T4569a From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 01:58:55 2009 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 00:58:55 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Gaza: What is happening? Message-ID: I don't know if Joaquin and Fred have any thoughts about what is happening and what is likely to happen in Gaza, but it would be great if they could post on this. I have been monitoring the tv, Haaretz, Debka.com, Al Jazeera and the Palestinian and Hizbollah sites. There appears to be no agreement between Israeli and Palestinian accounts of the fighting except around the question of the number of Palestinians killed. The Palestinian side is claiming successes with regard to 2 Israeli soldiers captured, tanks destroyed, helicopter down and Israeli army casualties. The Israelis are admitting only one death and about 30 injuries. In terms of the PR offensive that Israel launched to garner support for their actions, this has to be regarded as a failure. The Palestinians have won clearly and decisively the PR battle. There have been massive mobilisations around the world and that surely must be a concern to the Zionists. As I have said repeatedly, the crucial arena for the hearts & minds is that of the Arab world. Here the Palestinians seem to be doing well at least at the street level. But Mubarak and the Kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia still cling on. As for the military situation my own best guess is that the Israelis will continue the killing principally thru bombing and artillery for the short to medium term. They seem reluctant to commit ground troops for they may be in a cleft here. If they do not do battle on the ground they boost Arab morale enormously. If they do engage in street battles then they must win decisively. They cannot afford another defeat such as they experienced in Lebanon. I am going to an organizing meeting tonite to plan next week's rally & march and other action to build up support for Palesine. The Islamic daspora is being galvanised by the suffering of the people of Gaza, but publicly Australia remains a loyal US & Israeli ally. It would be good to make a dint in that. regards Gary From nmgoro at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 06:40:45 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:40:45 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism In-Reply-To: <7b8a676d0901041857s5e4ce459tf2a56df7690fbf16@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b8a676d0901041857s5e4ce459tf2a56df7690fbf16@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2fa158550901050540r328b3046o977f5c000134805b@mail.gmail.com> So do I. How can anyone disagree? On some issues there should be UNANIMOUS conviction on a such a list as this one. Call me Stalinist if you like. But "primary obligations" are exactly that: primary obligations. Can Marxists even debate support to a Ghettoified people under military assault? Aren?t we crossing a limit somewhere if we do? 2009/1/4, Anthony Boynton : > " No matter what is in the Hamas documents, support for the people of > Palestine-- and a united military defense of all within Gaza-- and > unqualified support for such a defense outside Gaza-- against the Israeli > assault is the primary obligation." > > S. Artesian > > I completely, and emphatically agree. > > Anthony > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism en lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/nmgoro%40gmail.com > -- N?stor Gorojovsky El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a From skeyesvogt at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 06:50:01 2009 From: skeyesvogt at gmail.com (Sky Keyes) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 08:50:01 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] UPDATE: Video Shows Oscar Grant Shot In Back By Police Message-ID: http://www.malcolm-che.com/2009/01/05/update-video-shows-oscar-grant-shot-in-back-by-police/ From sartesian at earthlink.net Mon Jan 5 07:20:28 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 15:20:28 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism References: <7b8a676d0901041857s5e4ce459tf2a56df7690fbf16@mail.gmail.com> <2fa158550901050540r328b3046o977f5c000134805b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <355CD531801F476DA427A7516777F8A6@dmsthinkpad> That's what a "united front" is supposed to be: common, united defense, against the common class enemy. I would hope no one could disagree. No matter what is written in the Hamas documents, no matter how "reactionary" the religious message may be of any individual religious official, or the whole body of religious officials, that message is NOT why Israel is attacking. Israel is attacking because as a settler state it must wage continuous war against the original residents in their collectivity. It is just that brutally simple. ----- Original Message ----- From: "N?stor Gorojovsky" To: Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 2:40 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Mon Jan 5 00:26:43 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:26:43 +1100 Subject: [Marxism] What's new at Links: Solidarity with Gaza, Cuba's 50th, French new left party, economic crisis, sport, Russia and feminism, Darfur Message-ID: <4961B633.2070309@greenleft.org.au> What's new at Links: Solidarity with Gaza, Cuba's 50th, French new left party, economic crisis, sport, Russia and feminism, Darfur * * * Subscribe free to Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 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/. * * * Israel invades Gaza, Palestinians, solidarity activists call for solidarity and resistance Palestinian citizens of Israel held a massive protest on January 3, 2009, in Sakhnin, an Arab city in northern Israel, against Israel's war on the Palestinian people in Gaza. It was attended by up to 150,000 protesters. Crowds waving Palestinian flags and brandishing pro-Palestinian placards chanted "Gaza will not surrender to the tanks and bulldozers!" and "Don't fear, Gaza, we are with you!". * Read more statements from a range of Palestinian and solidarity organisations Cuba, 50 years on ... and the same challenge of making a revolution By *L?zaro Barredo Medina* /Granma International/ -- October 30, 2008 -- "The dictatorship has been defeated. The joy is immense. And yet, there still remains much to do. We won't deceive ourselves by believing that everything will be much easier from now on; perhaps it will be much more difficult." This is what Commander in Chief Fidel Castro told the people on January 8, 1959, the day of his entry into Havana. Many people could never imagine the immense challenge that they would live to experience. * Read more 1959-2009: 50 years of the Cuban Revolution -- Fidel Castro: the Untold Story To mark the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution, which triumphed on January 1, 1959, here is filmmaker *Estela Bravo's* remarkable portrait of *Fidel Castro* and the Cuban Revolution. * Watch more `We are all Palestinians!' -- International left solidarity with the oppressed people of Palestine Below /Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ publishes a range of statements from left parties and groups around the world. * Read more France: From the Revolutionary Communist League to the New Anti-Capitalist Party This contribution was written as part of preparations for the January 2009 congress of the Revolutionary Communist League (LCR). The congress agenda includes the political "self-dissolution" of the LCR, to set the stage for the new challenge of the New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA). The authors of this piece belong to the generation of activists from the 1960s and 1970s; so while principally addressed to members of the LCR, it may be of interest to many others. * Read more World economic crisis: No room for band-aid solutions in the Third World By *Reihana Mohideen* December 29, 2008 -- According to recent Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) figures, another 40 million people have been pushed into poverty and hunger so far this year as a result of spiralling food prices, and the total number of people suffering hunger and malnutrition has reached 963 million worldwide. * Read more Capitalism and sport: Sports for a few The competitive frenzy for winning in sports has been fuelled by aggressive marketing. Together they ensure that while a minority is trained with superlative sports facilities, the majority is deprived of even basic amenities to play and breathe fresh air. * Read more Present-day Russia needs a renewal of the feminist movement By *Anna Ochkina, *translated from Russian for /Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ by *Renfrey Clarke* January 1, 2009 -- In the Soviet Union feminism was elevated to the status of official state policy and ultimately was destroyed as an ideology and a social movement. The dominant concept was one of a general, global equality; as a result, a separate movement for the rights of women simply could not exist. The feminist reference points of Soviet social policy took the form of a set of rights for women: employment in the workforce on an equal basis with men; political rights; equality before the law, and so forth. The gaining of formal rights, however, resulted in the restricting of particular, specific rights of women, which in practice proved very difficult to realise. * Read more Talking points and background on Israel's murderous assault on Gaza By the *Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid (Canada)* and the *Palestine Solidarity Committee (South Africa)* * Read more Arabic-language statement from Socialist Alliance (Australia) condemns Israel's Gaza massacre English version below. * Read more Can Washington `save Darfur'? By *Kevin Funk* and *Steven Fake* Few humanitarian crises have occasioned as much media and activist attention in the US as the conflict in the Darfur region of western Sudan. Major politicians routinely pay homage to suffering Darfurians in their speeches, well-heeled Darfur advocacy groups take out full-page ads in the /New York Times/, and commentators regularly fill op-ed ledgers around the country with righteous, indignant calls for the West to act to end the suffering. Yet for all the rhetorical attention and concern afforded to Darfur in the US, what is actually understood about the US role in addressing the conflict? * Read more Venezuela, Cuba condemn Israel's massacres in Gaza Dozens of protesters rallied outside the Israeli embassy in Caracas on December 28, in opposition to what one speaker referred to as "genocide" by the Israeli "occupation forces". The protests will continue in front of the embassy, according to a rally organiser, Hindu Anderi. Anderi, a Palestinian human rights activist, thanked the Venezuelan government for its position on the conflict, but demanded concrete action, saying "solidarity needs to mean taking measures that will affect Israel economically and politically, because otherwise the condition of the Palestinian people will not change". * 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 From lnp3 at panix.com Mon Jan 5 07:27:10 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 09:27:10 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] For an adjuncts' union Message-ID: <496218BE.4050004@panix.com> http://insidehighered.com/views/2009/01/05/zobel Inside Higher Ed, Jan. 5 The Adjuncts? Mandate By Gregory Zobel The recent reports on academic labor by the American Federation of Teachers and Modern Language Association are great news. The great news is not the information the reports present. They offer little that is new or heartening. Instead, they echo what most adjuncts and many academic labor activists already know: Exploitation of contingent academic laborers is growing in scale. Activists, organizers, and administrators can and will jockey over exact percentages in pay difference, whether or not graduate student labor counts as just-in-time labor, and the precise impact adjunct exploitation has upon pay rates, tenure, and the quality of learning at colleges and universities. Exact percentages are important, but they are not vital. Most essential ? the larger picture ? is that more adjuncts are being hired, exploited, and abused at more community colleges and universities around the United States than ever before. The great news is the presence, timing, and potential application of these reports. The presence of adjuncts in the news, good or bad, is a good thing. It is a relief to finally see that our working conditions and low pay are being acknowledged and considered in larger and more public fora. If any significant political, economic, or social change is going to take place, adjuncts must reach beyond the walls of higher education. Coverage of our experience and our working conditions in the mainstream press is a critical step. In the aftermath of these reports, adjunct-themed stories have been published in many college newspapers, in blogs, and in prominent publications such as USA Today. This is quite the change. It represents a chance for adjuncts to assert a consistent place in the educational and labor news. The timing of these reports creates a window of opportunity for adjuncts and their allies to concentrate public attention on contingent academic laborers. Adjuncts and allies can take this initial wave of publicity and, backed by data, work to establish relationships with other constituent groups: labor, students, parents, the tax paying public, and government officials to name a few. Publicity opens the conversational door; data provide discussion points and builds bridges. These relationships will be vital if adjuncts want to maximize the benefits of the Bush administration?s exodus and, hopefully, a removal of their aggressively pro-corporate members on the National Labor Relations Board. With a potential shift in the Supreme Court, not to mention the incredible engagement of the public in the campaign for change, all this represents a greater level of potential for change and progress in adjuncts? working conditions than we have probably seen in the past 20 years. A shift in the Supreme Court may open up windows to effectively challenge the anti-union ?Right to Work? laws in many states as well as the overall trend to silence and disempower workers? right to organize freely and without fear of retaliation in their workplaces. In order to actively and powerfully affect this kind of change, it is important that further in-depth discussions, advocacy, and public relations regarding adjunct labor conditions not perpetuate or mirror the ways in which these reports were conducted, constructed, or researched. Both reports, like many efforts by concerned tenure-track faculty to help adjuncts, are well intentioned, but they were written from the perspective of professionals who are not adjuncts. Thus, while they are able to study and report on us as objects, they can not and have not described or made tangible several important factors in the lives of adjuncts: fear and respect. Excluding or not placing a priority on these elements indicates a lack of understanding by the researchers on just how important and visceral they are in the lives of adjuncts. Instead of discussing adjuncts as objects, parties working to change the adjunct labor situation need adjuncts up front, and center, to do the talking. Yes, we need tenured specialists, highly skilled researchers, and eloquent union organizers with us ? but we need them behind us. We need them as allies and supporters because our cause has the moral high ground; we have Ethos; we are the right horse to back. Since adjuncts are the issue, adjuncts must speak to and address the issue. We should not have other people speaking for or about us or attempt to correct things for our benefit. Adjuncts need to lead these efforts instead of being led by them. To generate change, adjuncts need to alter one basic condition. Adjuncts need to become more involved with their own destiny. Until adjuncts speak up for themselves, nobody else can or will take care of their interests. Others may attempt to solve our problems for us, but that is like receiving medical care without telling the doctor what your symptoms are and withholding any lifestyle changes or accidents you may have recently experienced. Adjuncts must lead their own labor reform movement. We need our own national movement separate from the AAUP, AFT, and NEA. Once we organize and form our own structure, we can forge coalitions with them as our allies. While there have been instances where the unions have helped out adjuncts, an overwhelming sentiment among activist adjuncts is that, at best, we are not a major priority. At worst, we are ignored and simply sources of income for the union. Either way, a national adjuncts? union offers the chance for adjuncts to steer their own course, direct their own future, and accept full responsibility for the outcome. Many will claim that adjuncts cannot lead because adjuncts are powerless. Some will say the unions silence our voices. Others will point out that many academic senates do not allow adjuncts to be members. Many more will bemoan the lack of the public?s interest. Still others will complain that the intimidation applied by some unethical administrators operating rogue is too much to challenge or face down. Of course these concerns matter. While these concerns matter in substance, they are all the same thing: an excuse to justify non-engagement in the adjunct labor reform movement. To feel powerless is one thing, but to silently and quietly submit without even making an effort not only defiles the humanitarian spirit we are supposed to promote in higher education, it also insults and sabotages efforts by other adjuncts to achieve change. Adjuncts can lead. We are the single largest constituency educating Americans in higher education today. The AFT states that we account for teaching 49 percent of undergraduate public colleges courses. Add in graduate teaching assistants, and we teach between roughly 60 to 80 percent of those courses. We educate the majority of college undergraduates in America and yet we are perceived as not bright enough to organize our own union, to advance our own agendas, or to determine our own academic and labor futures. This strikes me as foolish, and it certainly fulfills the dreams and aspirations of some unethical individual administrators who regard adjuncts merely as just-in-time labor to maximize their fiscal growth, personal power, and annual raises. As both reports imply, the just-in-time labor force will continue to grow if the current administrative profit-centered ethos has its way. Studies are nice; they provide us with the data to support what we already know: adjuncts are exploited, and our numbers are growing. Position papers are also valuable as they provide us with expertly worded texts to publish and share with our colleagues. Opinion pieces like this one are useful as well in that they give us a chance to voice our opinions, to create dialog, to discuss options, and to potentially rally some forces. All of these are nice, but being nice does not mean anything gets done. The Conference on College Composition and Communication issued the Wyoming Resolution in 1986. It is a great piece of writing and it maintains a solid ethical position, yet, in spite of it, composition as a field continues to rank near the top in terms of numbers of adjuncts exploited. It has been over two decades and the problem has increased significantly, not declined. Words minus action equates to zero usefulness. The adjunct labor issue, which threatens tenure, corrupts the humanitarian educational ethos, emboldens corporatization of research and philosophy, and is just plain wrong. We need action, and it needs to start with adjuncts. Locally, we need to form networks of communication, support, and trust with adjuncts, staff, and full-time faculty. This lays the groundwork for larger actions, it establishes a pool of potential collaborators, and it works to eliminate fear and feeling disrespected while building a support structure. Nationally, we need our own organization. Hopefully, we will be able to organize under the auspices of a powerful national union. Between the local and the national level, we need to organize, connect, and orchestrate as many effective events as we can to build solidarity, to increase the confidence and empowerment of individual adjunct activists, and to establish effective alliances with our colleagues in the AFT, AAUP, and NEA. When adjuncts take action speak up, they need the support from their allies in labor, in their departments, on staff, and even ? gasp! ? in administration. Meaningful action is rarely silent, behind the scenes support. Statements such as, ?I really feel for you,? or ?I know what it?s like,? do little more than placate the speaker?s conscience; they often indicate the speaker intends to do nothing more than ?feel? for the adjuncts in an oft-condescending or paternalistic fashion. Useful action is up front, in public, and accountable. Action gets things done?and simply authoring another position statement is rarely useful. Adjuncts are a bright group, their allies are bright ? they can get the position statement taken care of as they organize and network. I welcome further studies on adjuncts. Studies bring publicity, and each piece of publicity is another moment adjuncts and allies can work to educate the public about our working conditions and the public?s learning and teaching conditions. I welcome studies, because they provide me with an endless array of data which supports what adjuncts have known for decades: we are the largest and most silent labor force in higher education and our numbers our growing. Our potential power is mind-numbing; studies remind me of that power. I welcome studies, because they offer validation in the eyes of the public that, yes indeed, adjuncts are worthy of attention. I even welcome the bad press based on misinterpretations of the studies. Bad press provides adjuncts and allies opportunities to address issues, further discussions, engage the public, and dispel misunderstandings. If ignorance of adjuncts remains private and is not discussed, little will change. Events, such as the publication of these reports, the firing of adjuncts, and the looming educational budget crisis are all opportunities for adjuncts and allies to speak up, address these very real issues, and to seek public engagement. Much of the public appears to want change. The election of Barak Obama signals a shift in the country?s hopes and political tenor. This change offers organized and motivated adjuncts an opportunity to raise their working conditions and their students? learning conditions to an ethical position. This, however, requires action. The best proposal in this direction was recently made by Joe Berry to the board of the Coalition of Contingent Academic Laborers (COCAL). A copy of this was recently posted to the Contingent Academics Mailing List. There are two critical points to this proposal. First, Berry identifies now as the time of great potential for change: The results of the election, and the campaign that succeeded in electing Barak Obama, present us in the contingent faculty movement, as part of the broader faculty union movement, the larger labor movement, and the labor and progressive movement generally, with a window of opportunity that we should not let slip by. The activism that the Obama campaign sparked was not just a campaign for Obama but represented a hope for the reality of change sweeping the land. It is over 20 years since anything like this level of hopefulness for change has been out there in the mainstream. Few of us who voted for Obama doubt this. Secondly, Berry clearly summarizes adjuncts? current strategic positioning: We are not in a particularly strategic physical place in the economy, like truckers or longshore workers, with their great power to influence massive profits directly by their actions. However, we are in a very strategic political place in the society, since we can speak to millions of students, their parents and the rest of society who look to academics for informed opinions on public issues. The state of higher ed, its financing and accessibility, the need for truly universal health care, the need to stop the conversion of good permanent jobs into temporary bad jobs, are all example of public issues we can speak to with credibility, if we are organized. If we are bold now, we can organize our colleagues and, in doing so, speak on behalf of more than just ourselves, just as the workers at Republic Windows did. There is a great desire out there for someone to stand up on behalf of regular working people and we can be a uniquely situated part of that. With Obama?s election, and with these reports supporting our assertions, now is the time to act. These reports herald the potential for a new era in contingent academic labor?s history, an era where we help shape our labor conditions, our teaching conditions, our students? learning conditions, and the research and publications which are written about us. As teachers, it is our inherent responsibility ? our Ethos ? to demonstrate personal accountability, social conscience, and humanitarian values to our students. Actively and assertively reforming adjunct labor conditions?in or outside of the national movement Berry proposes ? is the best shot we have to retake the universities and colleges, to reinstall Ethos not Capital as boss, and to live the values we espouse as a profession. Gregory Zobel is an adjunct at College of the Redwoods, in California. This January, in between teaching gigs, he starts his first term in Texas Tech University?s Technical Communication & Rhetoric Ph.D. program and his training in Tae Kwan Do. With all of his spare time, he edits the Adjunct Advice blog for Bedford/St. Martin?s and writes his adjunct memoirs. From nmgoro at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 08:37:59 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:37:59 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism In-Reply-To: <355CD531801F476DA427A7516777F8A6@dmsthinkpad> References: <7b8a676d0901041857s5e4ce459tf2a56df7690fbf16@mail.gmail.com> <2fa158550901050540r328b3046o977f5c000134805b@mail.gmail.com> <355CD531801F476DA427A7516777F8A6@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: <49622957.8090402@gmail.com> I gladly find myself in agreement with S. Artesian twice in a morning. S. Artesian escribi?: > That's what a "united front" is supposed to be: common, united defense, > against the common class enemy. > > I would hope no one could disagree. No matter what is written in the Hamas > documents, no matter how "reactionary" the religious message may be of any > individual religious official, or the whole body of religious officials, > that message is NOT why Israel is attacking. Israel is attacking because as > a settler state it must wage continuous war against the original residents > in their collectivity. It is just that brutally simple. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "N?stor Gorojovsky" > To: > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 2:40 PM > Subject: Re: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism > > > > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism en lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/nmgoro%40gmail.com From markalause at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 08:05:30 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:05:30 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] For an adjuncts' union In-Reply-To: <496218BE.4050004@panix.com> References: <496218BE.4050004@panix.com> Message-ID: I wish I could be so optimistic about the prospects of adjuncts. The same issue of INSIDER HIGHER EDUCATION reports jobs in history to be down 15%. When I started in the biz, you'd advertise for an opening and get 150 applicants, an easy dozen or so being well-qualified and deserving of a shot. Since the number of openings were already pathetically small to start with...and most of those not really open...we are discussing a serious further whittling. In my experience, adjuncts are frequently kicked to the curb for the most lame reasons, and often never really learn why they're not continued. And, sure, there are cases of lawsuits, etc. won by adjuncts, but what's at stake is so marginal compared to the costs that it is a recourse few are disposed to pick. Their disposability meant that they can be lorded over by any and all, this depending on the specific rules of the workplace. What all this means in class terms is that people who can afford to stay in it will do so and those who can't will try anything available elsewhere. This creates yet another predisposition in the professions to remain the province of gentlemen and gentlewomen. In realistic terms, the future for adjunct labor is inexorably bound to what happens to academic labor in general. Aiming for a distinct adjunct union is not a good idea, because it lets the full-time academics off the hook. One job means one work force, and that's requires one union. ML From lnp3 at panix.com Mon Jan 5 08:15:52 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:15:52 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] For an adjuncts' union In-Reply-To: References: <496218BE.4050004@panix.com> Message-ID: <49622428.3020302@panix.com> Mark Lause wrote: > In realistic terms, the future for adjunct labor is inexorably bound > to what happens to academic labor in general. Aiming for a distinct > adjunct union is not a good idea, because it lets the full-time > academics off the hook. One job means one work force, and that's > requires one union. 48% of the faculty in the US was adjunct professors 4 years ago, so you can assume that it is a majority now. Although adjuncts are very vulnerable to layoffs, this is exactly what might make them consider joining a union. The main obstacle is the seductive belief that they might become insiders one day. From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Jan 5 09:03:45 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:03:45 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Objective tendencies in capitalism today References: <495DE60D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <4961E910.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> In a certain sense, the "objective conditions and tendencies" of capitalism are what the ruling class does, what the "economy" does, what the capitalist class does. The working class' objective conditions are the ruling class' actions. So, Lou Pro inferentially speaks to the issue of crisis developments in the objective conditions as reflected in Chris Hodges announcing that he is a socialist when Lou quotes Marx and Engels in response to Hodges' announcement , quoting them that some of the bourgeoisie come over to the side of the working class in the class struggle ( like Marx and Engels did). There is something reminiscent of the 1848 " spectre" that "haunt(ed) Europe" in all these faux socialisms suddenly "arising" in the US ; as in the campaign when McCain et. al. accused O of socialism ; and then the Wall Street bailout was termed "socialist" by the right-wing. The bourgeois unconscious says "there _is_ an alternative". Hopefully, the next socialism will come as comedy ( a party of a new, new type) , not tragedy. It's dialectical no doubt, that with the Soviet Union out of the way, America socialism can come out of the closet. At this moment, that the financial oligarchy is bankrupt by its own accounting (!) Marxists must revisit Marx, Engels and Lenin's discussions of the _objective tendencies_ in capitalism toward socialism, the immanent contradictions. Time for the US left fellow travellers to ditch all the silly snickers about Marxist usages such as "objective conditions and tendencies", "objective forces" and the like. There's a spectre haunting the US left: the Spectre of you know what. In materialist order, objective conditions are leading subjective consciousness of the masses. Charles This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From jacdon at earthlink.net Mon Jan 5 09:09:12 2009 From: jacdon at earthlink.net (JacDon) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:09:12 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Activist Newsletter Message-ID: Jan. 5, 2009, Issue #141 (supplement) ACTIVIST NEWSLETTER jacdon at earthlink.net ????????? This special supplement is devoted to the Israeli bombing and invasion of Gaza. Articles include The True Story Behind the War, Understanding the Gaza Catastrophe, and more. They are available at http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/ From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Jan 5 09:57:05 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:57:05 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Blacks versus the New Deal Message-ID: <4961F590.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Mark Lause I wrote, "Ida B. Wells didn't equate the KKK with lynchings, which you seem to be doing. So I'm absolutely certain that she wouldn't agree with you that the KKK had a big influence in 1916..." Charles replies, "They must have gotten it going pretty quickly after 1916 according to wikipedia( or maybe there _were_ some lynchings by the KKK even in 1916, ya think Mark ?" Well, I certainly wouldn't argue with your impeccable research on wikipedia, but let me restate (yet again) the bleedin' obvious: LYNCHINGS DO NOT REQUIRE THE KKK. ^^^^ CB: Here's something else obvious. It doesn't exclude them either. So, your point is that the lynching movement was American anarchist, not centralized ? So, we'll just use "KKK" generically then. ^^^ Lynchings not only don't need the KKK to have that big influence, but they even don't need the KKK to exist. There have been lynchings going all the way back into colonial times...way before there was a KKK or the Confederacy that fathered it or even the Democratic Party that fathered the Confederacy. So however many lynchings there may have been in 1916, it didn't require the newly formed KKK to have a big influence. This is plain damned common sense, Charles. Surely you know that. ML ^^^ CB: So are you sure that the KKK ( official certified, brand spankin' new, revived group) didn't do any lynchings in 1916 ? You think they just eased into it, but took credit for lynchings that were really done by counterfeit KKK'ers ? This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From markalause at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 10:08:59 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 12:08:59 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] For an adjuncts' union In-Reply-To: <49622428.3020302@panix.com> References: <496218BE.4050004@panix.com> <49622428.3020302@panix.com> Message-ID: That seductive hallucination that they are not workers is generally a reflection of their identity...which is the same as the full-time people. I suspect that the 48% that were adjuncts four years back was an underestimation at the time. Decades ago--when none of the education rags gave a damn about the question--I worked at a place in Chicago where there were something like 6 full-timers and 48 part-timers. Everyone knew the situation, so it wasn't generally as openly exploitative as it might have been. On the other hand, I've also worked places where life was fully hellish for the junior faculty and the part-timers. The latter were only employed quarter to quarter and only at the sufferance of a single person, the department head. In that case, it was a multidisciplinary department and the head didn't have a doctorate (which most of the adjuncts did) and openly despised PhDs as "uniformly poor teachers." The problem isn't the weight of numbers--or even, I'd suggest, that very potent hallucination you correctly cite. The most important factor is the simple mathematical reality that for everyone employed as an adjunct there are dozens waiting to take their place, many coming right out of graduate school and understandably desperate for anything they can get. And, yes, they can't just hire anybody off the street, IF they're concerned about quality...but that condition answers the question even as it poses it. Quality just doesn't enter into management concerns. I should add that I'm not saying that adjuncts as individuals can't teach as well, but the adjunct condition almost prohibits it. When I was "part-time," I had to teach more than twice as many classes as I now do "full-time," and good intentions and know-how just can't trump exhaustion... There are things that can be done through the existing faculty unions. Ours has taken adjuncts into the bargaining unit and has fought for a system of benefits and salaries that are more proportionate to what they do. This ultimately reduces the incentive of management to hire part-timers by the regiment. Ultimately, it will take more. ML From markalause at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 10:14:27 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 12:14:27 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Blacks versus the New Deal In-Reply-To: <4961F590.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <4961F590.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: Charles, I don't know whether the KKK lynched anybody in 1916, but not only wasn't that the question, but an accurate answer to it doesn't enter into what we were discussing...which was Harry Truman's 1922 membership in the KKK. In that context, the point of your eagerness to begin "using the KKK generically" is lost on me. ML From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Jan 5 10:36:29 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:36:29 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] MORATORIUM NOW MTG Sat/ STOP THE EVICTION OF VIDA BROWN References: <99710D6ACE774DD9BDEABC91C81CBF06@yourd0f670b45a> Message-ID: <4961FECC.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> MORATORIUM NOW! COALITION TO STOP FORECLOSURES AND EVICTIONS ORGANIZING MEETING - SATURDAY, JANUARY 10, 12:00 NOON, CENTRAL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, 23 E. ADAMS, 4TH FLOOR (at Woodward, Grand Circus Park, Detroit) MEETING TO PLAN DEMONSTRATION AT GOV. GRANHOLM'S STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS THIS JANUARY ALSO, PLEASE READ MESSAGE BELOW ON STOPPING THE EVICTION OF VIDA BROWN An important organizing meeting this Saturday will discuss plans for a demonstration at Governor Granholm's State of the State address this January (date not yet announced). This demonstration is especially critical in light of recent events in Lansing. On the last day of the legislature, with the support of Governor Granholm along with Senate Banking Chair Randy Richardville and even some so-called liberal advocacy groups (along with Trott & Trott and the Michigan Bankers Association), a bill was almost passed that would have shortened the redemption period for those facing foreclosure in Michigan, thus quickening the process whereby the banks toss people from their homes. Only the heroic intervention Marilyn Mullane from Michigan Legal Services stopped the passage of this bill. See Michigan Citizen article. www.michigancitizen.com. How is it that in Michigan, the hardest hit state by foreclosures and economic crisis, our governor and legislature are actually coming up with bills that worsen conditions for the people. It shows the complete disconnect between the politicians, liberals and conservatives, from the reality facing poor and working people. We need the immediate passage of a two year moratorium on foreclosures and evictions in Michigan, to provide emergency relief for the people who continue to lose their homes every day destroying our communities. State Senator Hansen Clarke, at the Moratorium Now conference December 6, promised to reintroduce a two year moratorium bill when the legislature reconvenes. We need emergency legislation guaranteeing the right of people to reoccupy abandoned homes, and funding to rehabilitate the thousands of homes which have been left to rot by the banks and government. We must bring a large crowd to Lansing for the State of the State Address to insure that the voice of poor and working people is heard. Join us in planning this critical demonstration. Call the Moratorium Now! coalition office at 313-887-4344 for more information or visit our website at www.moratorium-mi.org. HELP STOP THE EVICTION OF VIDA BROWN, A DISABLED WOMAN AND VICTIM OF MORTGAGE FRAUD Vida Brown is fighting to stop her eviction and keep her home after being a victim of mortgage fraud. Please think of Vida Brown and call today and everyday until this eviction and foreclosure is stopped, and Justice is Won!!! Mrs. Vida Brown has lived in her home in Strugis , MI since 1992. A chemical exposure at work left her totally disabled with feeding tubes and severe medical challenges. Mrs. Brown became a victim of mortgage fraud when she attempted to save her home after she fell behind on payments due to her medical situation. A bogus mortgage company that subsequently had its licensed revoked tricked her into signing her house over to them. She continued making what she believed were the mortgage payments. Then recently, she was served with eviction papers and learned she had been scammed, the house was in foreclosure and she had lost her property rights and was only a tenant in her own home. Mrs. Brown filed complaints with the FBI, police and State Office of Financial Services. Despite these facts, the District court Judge, Deustche Bank and its eviction attorneys have refused to even listen or review this information, but rather have forged ahead to throw this woman out into the streets. In light of the fact there has been fraud, and despite the fact that the eviction of Mrs. Brown could cause severe medical damage and possible death pursuant to letters from her physicians--the bank and their attorneys don't care. Voice your support for Mrs. Vida Brown of Sturgis, MI . Demand that Deustche Bank stop the eviction of Mrs. Vida Brown. It's time to force the banks that are being bailed out every day with billions of our tax dollars to respect the human rights of the victims of the current crisis. CALL DEUSTCHE BANK TODAY: LET INVESTORS KNOW AT (212) 250-7125 LET DEUSTCHE BANK MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS REP. MAYURA HOOPER KNOW AT (212) 250-5536. CALL LISA MCHUGH ASST. VICE PRESIDENT AT (212) 250-0676 LET ALL YOUR NATIONAL POLITICAL REPS KNOW--CALL TODAY AND KEEP A DISABLED WOMAN IN HER HOME. STOP THE EVICTION OF VIDA BROWN This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Jan 5 10:42:07 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:42:07 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Worried German bourgeoisie Message-ID: <4962001F.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> 01/05/2009 12:32 PM >>> This is very interesting and being discussed in Germany for more than one year. What I find more interesting in this connection is what Roland Koch, the temporary prime minister of Hessen and one of the leading figures?of Christian Democrat Party (CDU), said:?he said that Germany must come out of the crisis with new market segments in hand. Similar assertions has been made by chancellor Angelika Merkel. She said that Germany must come out the crisis stronger. Is that the old game of imperialist expansion policy ? ^^^ Louis Proyect (posted to LBO-talk by SA) [From an interview with Hasso Plattner, co-founder of SAP] http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,598945,00.html [...] SPIEGEL: Sometimes it's a nasty game. In 2005, Deutsche Bank CEO Josef Ackerman announced a 25 percent return for the company while at the same time saying it would lay off more than 6,000 employees. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 10:43:06 2009 From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 12:43:06 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism In-Reply-To: <355CD531801F476DA427A7516777F8A6@dmsthinkpad> References: <7b8a676d0901041857s5e4ce459tf2a56df7690fbf16@mail.gmail.com> <2fa158550901050540r328b3046o977f5c000134805b@mail.gmail.com> <355CD531801F476DA427A7516777F8A6@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: <908b689f0901050943w6ebace80t5523f2edc24c4b24@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 9:20 AM, S. Artesian wrote: > That's what a "united front" is supposed to be: common, united defense, > against the common class enemy. > > I would hope no one could disagree. No matter what is written in the Hamas > documents, no matter how "reactionary" the religious message may be of any > individual religious official, or the whole body of religious officials, > that message is NOT why Israel is attacking. Israel is attacking because as > a settler state it must wage continuous war against the original residents > in their collectivity. It is just that brutally simple. How do you explain that to lay people, especially to the progressive American Jewish community? The reactionary nature of the "religious message" makes that problem incredibly difficult. From nmgoro at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 11:53:22 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:53:22 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism In-Reply-To: <908b689f0901050943w6ebace80t5523f2edc24c4b24@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b8a676d0901041857s5e4ce459tf2a56df7690fbf16@mail.gmail.com> <2fa158550901050540r328b3046o977f5c000134805b@mail.gmail.com> <355CD531801F476DA427A7516777F8A6@dmsthinkpad> <908b689f0901050943w6ebace80t5523f2edc24c4b24@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49625722.6080807@gmail.com> Ruthless Critic of All that Exists escribi?: > On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 9:20 AM, S. Artesian wrote: >> That's what a "united front" is supposed to be: common, united defense, >> against the common class enemy. >> >> I would hope no one could disagree. No matter what is written in the Hamas >> documents, no matter how "reactionary" the religious message may be of any >> individual religious official, or the whole body of religious officials, >> that message is NOT why Israel is attacking. Israel is attacking because as >> a settler state it must wage continuous war against the original residents >> in their collectivity. It is just that brutally simple. > > How do you explain that to lay people, especially to the progressive > American Jewish community? The reactionary nature of the "religious > message" makes that problem incredibly difficult. (a) I did not know that Marxists would resort to oportunism when confronting difficult -even incredibly difficult- issues. (b) What makes the problem incredibly difficult, however and IMHO, IS not the "reactionary nature of the "religious message"", but the reactionary nature of pro-imperialist democratism and progressivism. From lnp3 at panix.com Mon Jan 5 10:53:54 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:53:54 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism In-Reply-To: <908b689f0901050943w6ebace80t5523f2edc24c4b24@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b8a676d0901041857s5e4ce459tf2a56df7690fbf16@mail.gmail.com> <2fa158550901050540r328b3046o977f5c000134805b@mail.gmail.com> <355CD531801F476DA427A7516777F8A6@dmsthinkpad> <908b689f0901050943w6ebace80t5523f2edc24c4b24@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49624932.8040500@panix.com> Ruthless Critic of All that Exists wrote: > > How do you explain that to lay people, especially to the progressive > American Jewish community? The reactionary nature of the "religious > message" makes that problem incredibly difficult. > The issue is not whether you think that Hamas deserves "support" or not. It is rather the need to oppose Zionist brutality. On that score, the trend is against Israel. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3446492,00.html Study: US Jews distance themselves from Israel Feelings of attachment to Israel declining among non-Orthodox American Jews, and are replaced by indifference and even alienation, study finds. Only 48% think Israel's destruction would be a personal tragedy for them, only 54% 'comfortable with the idea of a Jewish state' Young non-Orthodox US Jews are becoming increasingly lukewarm if not alienated in their support for Israel in a trend that is not likely to be reversed, according to a study released on Thursday. Blending into US society, including marriage to non-Jews and a tendency to look on Judaism more in religious terms than ethnic ones, is part of what's happening, the study found. "For our parent's generation, the question that mattered was, how do we regard Israel? For Generation Y (born after 1976) the question is indeed, why should we regard Israel?" said Roger Bennett, a vice president of The Andrea and Charles Bronfman philanthropies, which sponsored the study. "Until people recognize that a healthy and animated dialogue about Israel is the first step to a meaningful connection, the 'Israel debate' that takes place in America is liable to become moot well before Israel celebrates its 100th birthday," he added. US support backed by a vocal and politically powerful Jewish lobby has been a key feature of the Jewish state's success since its founding in 1948, an event that is widely backed by US Jews and non-Jews. But the study found that "feelings of attachment may well be changing as warmth gives way to indifference, and indifference gives way even to downright alienation." The study found only 48% of US Jews under age 35 believe that Israel's destruction would be a personal tragedy for them, compared to 77% of those 65 and older. In addition, only 54% of those under the age of 35 are "comfortable with the idea of a Jewish State" as opposed to 81% of those 65 and older. It did find higher levels of support among US Jews, regardless of age, who had visited Israel. Various affiliations There are perhaps 6 million Jews in the United States, only about a third of them affiliated with a congregation. Of those who do attend a synagogue, perhaps 40% are classified as liberal Reform, 32% middle-ground Conservative and 8% Orthodox, according to surveys. The findings were based on a representative sample of 1,704 non-Orthodox Jews in 2006 and 2007 contacted in writing. Its error margin was plus or minus three percentage points. The authors said they excluded Orthodox Jews because they tend to be overwhelmingly supportive of Israel. In general US Jews "have increasingly adopted the American idea of what it means to be Jewish?primarily a religious identity," Steven Cohen of Hebrew Union College, co-author of the study, said in an interview. "The decline in attachment is widespread. It doesn't depend on how you measure it," Cohen added, with the disengagement no different among political liberals or conservatives. Cohen also said inter-marriage with other faiths had a strong impact with "younger Jews being much more likely to be married to non-Jews." The trend is part of a long-term historic slide not likely to be reversed since "people do not seem to significantly grow in their attachment to Israel as they age," the study said. 'Assimilation is the biggest problem' Steven Bayme, director of contemporary Jewish life for the American Jewish Committee, a major pro-Israel lobbying group, said "assimilation is the biggest problem" with declining support among US Jews, but he said it is not new. "People growing up where there always has been an Israel" are more detached, he said. But the study breaks new ground, he added, in finding that politics do not underpin declining support?that it is not as many assume a response to Israel's handling of the peace process or problems with religious pluralism in the country. Bayme also said that even though Orthodox Jews were not included in the study, the segment represents "strong signs of Jewish renewal"?children involved in the Hebrew faith in numbers far disproportionate to those of non-Orthodox families and who in the future will help counter the effects of assimilation outside their ranks, he said. From lueko.willms at t-online.de Sun Jan 4 07:33:26 2009 From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 15:33:26 +0100 (MEZ) Subject: [Marxism] ????????????? Re: Valkyri -- and some further-alongrpersonal reflections In-Reply-To: <4960ADF9.5010702@gmail.com> References: <016c01c96dcd$fbbef990$0400a8c0@computer> <002-09cf5f49-40031.022@lws-media.de> <002-09cf5f49-40031.022@lws-media.de> <4960ADF9.5010702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <002-b6c86049-13714.106@lws-media.de> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 09:39:21 -0300, Nestor Gorojovsky wrote: > L?ko Willms escribi?: > > in the 1950ies the conspirators of the assasination attempt of July > > 20, 1944, have been regarded as bing guilty of high treason, > > ACTUALLY SO!!!??? At least by considerable parts of the population as shown in opinion polls, and also by some politicians. Comradely, L?ko Willms Frankfurt, Germany -------------------------------- From lueko.willms at t-online.de Mon Jan 5 10:55:45 2009 From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:55:45 +0100 (MEZ) Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism In-Reply-To: <355CD531801F476DA427A7516777F8A6@dmsthinkpad> References: <7b8a676d0901041857s5e4ce459tf2a56df7690fbf16@mail.gmail.com> <2fa158550901050540r328b3046o977f5c000134805b@mail.gmail.com> <355CD531801F476DA427A7516777F8A6@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: <002-a1496249-13154.777@lws-media.de> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 15:20:28 +0100, S. Artesian wrote: > I would hope no one could disagree. No matter what is written in the Hamas > documents, no matter how "reactionary" the religious message may be of any > individual religious official, or the whole body of religious officials, > that message is NOT why Israel is attacking. Israel is attacking because as > a settler state it must wage continuous war against the original residents > in their collectivity. It is just that brutally simple. And the documents by Hamas or whom ever, starting with the big-mouth bragging of the generals of the armies of the Arab countries in war in 1948 trying to prevent the establishment of a Euro-Jewish ethnocracy in Palestine about "throwing the jews into the sea" is talk, nothing but talk. The continouus war of the Israeli colonial ethnocracy is REALITY since more than six decades. Massaker after massaker, violent expulsions, destruction, years long imprisonment without a process. Israel speaks with its deeds like the German emperor Wilhelm II in his infamous "Hun speech", dispatching German troops to quell the so-called Boxer uprising in China: "Just as the Huns under their king Etzel created for themselves a thousand years ago a name which men still respect, you should give the name of German such cause to be remembered in China for a thousand years ..." But can they really dream that they can deal with the numerically far superior Arab nation just like the European colonists treated the North American Indians or the Australian Aborigines? I think that with every massaker committed by the Israeli colonial settler state to secure a Jewish ethnocracy, the possibilty of Jews actually surviving in West Asia is reduced more and more. Comradely yours, L?ko Willms Frankfurt, Germany -------------------------------- From mehmetcagatayaydin at yahoo.com Mon Jan 5 11:09:49 2009 From: mehmetcagatayaydin at yahoo.com (Mehmet Cagatay) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:09:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] Activist Newsletter Message-ID: <663941.42168.qm@web31701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> From pieinsky at igc.org Mon Jan 5 11:14:15 2009 From: pieinsky at igc.org (Jay Moore) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:14:15 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Gaza: What is happening? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49624DF7.9070701@igc.org> For more news, try doing an Arabic-to-English translation in translate.google.com of this URL: www.islammemo.cc. The results are not half-bad. The Al Jazeera English Web site also has a Twitter page. Here in Vermont, there have been several vigils in support of the Palestinians, with some anti-Zionist Jews taking the lead. jay Gary MacLennan wrote: > I don't know if Joaquin and Fred have any thoughts about what is happening > and what is likely to happen in Gaza, but it would be great if they could > post on this. I have been monitoring the tv, Haaretz, Debka.com, Al Jazeera > and the Palestinian and Hizbollah sites. There appears to be no agreement > between Israeli and Palestinian accounts of the fighting except around the > question of the number of Palestinians killed. The Palestinian side is > claiming successes with regard to 2 Israeli soldiers captured, tanks > destroyed, helicopter down and Israeli army casualties. The Israelis are > admitting only one death and about 30 injuries. > > In terms of the PR offensive that Israel launched to garner support for > their actions, this has to be regarded as a failure. The Palestinians have > won clearly and decisively the PR battle. There have been massive > mobilisations around the world and that surely must be a concern to the > Zionists. > As I have said repeatedly, the crucial arena for the hearts & minds is that > of the Arab world. Here the Palestinians seem to be doing well at least at > the street level. But Mubarak and the Kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia > still cling on. > > As for the military situation my own best guess is that the Israelis will > continue the killing principally thru bombing and artillery for the short to > medium term. They seem reluctant to commit ground troops for they may be in > a cleft here. If they do not do battle on the ground they boost Arab morale > enormously. If they do engage in street battles then they must win > decisively. They cannot afford another defeat such as they experienced in > Lebanon. > > I am going to an organizing meeting tonite to plan next week's rally & march > and other action to build up support for Palesine. The Islamic daspora is > being galvanised by the suffering of the people of Gaza, but publicly > Australia remains a loyal US & Israeli ally. It would be good to make a dint > in that. > > regards > > Gary > ________________________________________________ > 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/pieinsky%40igc.org > > From sartesian at earthlink.net Mon Jan 5 12:10:41 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 20:10:41 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism References: <7b8a676d0901041857s5e4ce459tf2a56df7690fbf16@mail.gmail.com><2fa158550901050540r328b3046o977f5c000134805b@mail.gmail.com><355CD531801F476DA427A7516777F8A6@dmsthinkpad> <908b689f0901050943w6ebace80t5523f2edc24c4b24@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Nestor and Louis have provided the answer. I would only add that the history of Israel is the history of imposing discrimination and practicing destruction upon the original inhabitants of the territory, not vice versa. This situation is not unlike the situation in apartheid South Africa-- we don't attempt to explain, rationalize, the hatred by the oppressed for the oppressor; we identify it as just that-- hatred by the oppressed for the oppressor. In starker terms-- if you want to make somebody a blood enemy for life, then hurt his/her child. The Israelis have been hurting the children of an entire people for 60 years. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ruthless Critic of All that Exists" To: Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 6:43 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism > > > How do you explain that to lay people, especially to the progressive > American Jewish community? The reactionary nature of the "religious > message" makes that problem incredibly difficult. From lueko.willms at t-online.de Mon Jan 5 13:22:45 2009 From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (Lueko Willms) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:22:45 +0100 (MEZ) Subject: [Marxism] Strong statement by ... surprise ... Queen Rania of Jordan about Israeli assault on Gaza Message-ID: <002-156c6249-24884.842@t-online.de> I had seen it on Al Jazeera, and had to search a long time to find the full text, finally at --------- cut ----------------------- Statement HRM Queen Rania on the children of Gaza Her Majesty Queen Rania Al Abdullah UNICEF Eminent Advocate for Children Statement to the Press on Gaza - In Amman, Jordan Our Humanity is Incomplete "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" ... Article one, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person" ... Article three, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Over the past 41 years, the people of Gaza have been living under occupation. Over the past 18 months, they have been living under siege. And for the past 10 days, the people of Gaza have been subject to a cruel and continuous military attack. Either the declaration is not so universal, or the people of Gaza are not human beings, worthy of the same "universal" rights. This is the message the world is sending out today. Today, I am here with representative members of the UN family, to share with you the extent of the humanitarian crisis that is Gaza. But not only is there a humanitarian crisis in Gaza... there is a crisis in our global humanity. Nelson Mandela once said that "our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians." Today, I tell you, our humanity is incomplete without theirs. It is incomplete. It is not universal. This is the message I am sending world leaders: Our humanity is incomplete when children, irrespective of nationality, are victims of military operations. More than seventy dead children. Close to six hundred injured. What does the world tell to their mothers? To the Palestinian mother who lost five daughters in one day? To the mothers watching their children cry in pain, huddle in fear, and deal with more trauma than any of us will experience in an entire lifetime? That they are collateral damage? That their lives don't matter? That their deaths don't count? That the children of Gaza do not have "the right to life, liberty and security"? What do we tell them?! It is imperative that every nation acts to end the fighting, and open all crossings, especially Karni, to permit the uninterrupted passage of wheat, fuel, medicine, and other vital supplies. At the very least, we must push for a ceasefire, a humanitarian ceasefire, a ceasefire for children, to help the wounded, to look for those buried under the rubble, to tend to the sick and elderly trapped in their homes, and to bring in vital medical supplies, equipment and staff. At the very least, governments should... governments must contribute to UNRWA's emergency appeal for $34 million to meet the immediate needs of Gaza's innocent civilians. The children of Gaza, the dead and the barely living... their mothers... their fathers are not acceptable collateral damage; their lives do matter, their loss does count. They are not divisible from our universal humanity -- no child is, no civilian is. ------------------ off -------------- After hearing that, I thought: Now the Israeli war machine is losing the struggle for "hearts and minds". In my searching, I first found a report of the Jordanian news agency "Petra" about it, but in a way which really did undercut the strong message, by cutting the statement in little quotes here and there: > BTW, this person appeared also at CCN, at the "Larry King" show, but apparently with Mr. Wulf Blitzkrieg, er Blitzer of the "Situation room" and "the best political team on television". Ahem. > and there is a hate page about this here: > Comradely yours, L?ko Willms Frankfurt/Main / Lueko.Willms at T-Online.de From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 13:49:22 2009 From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 15:49:22 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism In-Reply-To: References: <7b8a676d0901041857s5e4ce459tf2a56df7690fbf16@mail.gmail.com> <2fa158550901050540r328b3046o977f5c000134805b@mail.gmail.com> <355CD531801F476DA427A7516777F8A6@dmsthinkpad> <908b689f0901050943w6ebace80t5523f2edc24c4b24@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <908b689f0901051249w10c2fa1dv9c8198039b62784@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 2:10 PM, S. Artesian wrote: > This situation is not unlike the situation in apartheid South Africa-- we > don't attempt to explain, rationalize, the hatred by the oppressed for the > oppressor; we identify it as just that-- hatred by the oppressed for the > oppressor. I am not sure that the comparison with South Africa is valid here. The ANC never expressed hatred for "whites in general", while Hamas official pronouncements do tend to demonize Jews in general. From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 13:51:44 2009 From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 15:51:44 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Strong statement by ... surprise ... Queen Rania of Jordan about Israeli assault on Gaza In-Reply-To: <002-156c6249-24884.842@t-online.de> References: <002-156c6249-24884.842@t-online.de> Message-ID: <908b689f0901051251t57844e59rf4dc8ba285fdbca1@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Lueko Willms wrote: > I had seen it on Al Jazeera, and had to search a long time to find > the full text, finally at > > > After hearing that, I thought: Now the Israeli war machine is > losing the struggle for "hearts and minds". Incidentally, Rania Al-Yassin was born in Kuwait to Palestinian parents from Tulkarm. From markalause at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 13:56:27 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 15:56:27 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism In-Reply-To: <908b689f0901051249w10c2fa1dv9c8198039b62784@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b8a676d0901041857s5e4ce459tf2a56df7690fbf16@mail.gmail.com> <2fa158550901050540r328b3046o977f5c000134805b@mail.gmail.com> <355CD531801F476DA427A7516777F8A6@dmsthinkpad> <908b689f0901050943w6ebace80t5523f2edc24c4b24@mail.gmail.com> <908b689f0901051249w10c2fa1dv9c8198039b62784@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: The best historical analogy is to the native peoples of the Americas in dealing with the white "civilizing mission." ML From elishastephens at hotmail.com Mon Jan 5 14:03:01 2009 From: elishastephens at hotmail.com (Eli Stephens) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:03:01 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] 1000+ in San Jose: "Free, free Palestine" (video) Message-ID: Yesterday more than a thousand people (personally counted by me, and, as usual, grossly underestimated by the media) turned out at the busiest corner in San Jose, CA to demonstrate their outrage at the ongoing Israeli massacre of the people of Gaza. Situated between the immense Valley Fair Mall and the tony Santana Row shopping district, the corner of Winchester and Stevens Creek receives a steady flow of traffic. What was perhaps most remarkable about the demonstration wasn't the outrage-fueled spirit of the demonstrators, but the continual sound of solidarity honking and thumbs up from the cars passing by. After an hour and a half of spirited chanting and marching from corner to corner of the four-cornered intersection, the crowd had become too big for the location, and too restless as well, and so we marched, straight through Santana Row, past the crowd of shoppers, diners, and farmers market patrons, chanting (not caught on the video) "No shopping while bombs are dropping!" Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvsZtIB4-IM Eli Stephens Left I on the News http://lefti.blogspot.com _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008 From spalmer999 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 5 14:21:13 2009 From: spalmer999 at yahoo.com (Steve Palmer) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:21:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism In-Reply-To: <908b689f0901051249w10c2fa1dv9c8198039b62784@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <750568.56675.qm@web82608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The critical thing is not what people say, but what they do. We assess whether what they are doing in particular circumstances helps or hinders the struggle against oppression. Who is else is fighting the oppressor? Who else is defending the population of Gaza in any significant way? --- On Mon, 1/5/09, Ruthless Critic of All that Exists wrote: > > I am not sure that the comparison with South Africa is > valid here. The > ANC never expressed hatred for "whites in > general", while Hamas > official pronouncements do tend to demonize Jews in > general. From sartesian at earthlink.net Mon Jan 5 14:21:53 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 22:21:53 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism References: <7b8a676d0901041857s5e4ce459tf2a56df7690fbf16@mail.gmail.com><2fa158550901050540r328b3046o977f5c000134805b@mail.gmail.com><355CD531801F476DA427A7516777F8A6@dmsthinkpad><908b689f0901050943w6ebace80t5523f2edc24c4b24@mail.gmail.com><908b689f0901051249w10c2fa1dv9c8198039b62784@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1B671D05B9154524A2AEFD4F087B0D39@dmsthinkpad> I think that fits pretty well. I also think Ruthless misses the point of the analogy-- which is not of Hamas to the ANC, but of the Israelis to apartheidist South Africa, the South Africa of Smuts, Verwoerd, de Klerk, Botha. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Lause" To: Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 9:56 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism > The best historical analogy is to the native peoples of the Americas > in dealing with the white "civilizing mission." > > ML From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 14:52:14 2009 From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:52:14 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] 1000+ in San Jose: "Free, free Palestine" (video) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <908b689f0901051352m22ec2e7fvdb09d35ae91d29dd@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Eli Stephens wrote: > so we marched, straight through Santana Row, past the crowd of > shoppers, diners, and farmers market patrons, chanting (not caught on > the video) "No shopping while bombs are dropping!" How is this slogan helpful? I would think that it would only antagonize the people who were shopping, and make the chanters seem self-righteous and holier-than-thou... From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 15:00:00 2009 From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:00:00 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Activist Newsletter In-Reply-To: <663941.42168.qm@web31701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <663941.42168.qm@web31701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <908b689f0901051400g2a8dd17an80ad7cfb72d795b0@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Mehmet Cagatay wrote: > From the article 'THE TRUE STORY BEHIND THIS WAR': > > "The world isn't just watching the Israeli government commit a crime in Gaza; we are watching it self-harm. This morning, and tomorrow morning, and every morning until this punishment beating ends, the young people of the Gaza Strip are going to be more filled with hate, and more determined to fight back, with stones or suicide vests or rockets. Israeli leaders have convinced themselves that the harder you beat the Palestinians, the softer they will become. Well, there are many examples in history of a people simply being beaten down and completely destroyed by tyrrannical oppressors. Rome destroyed Carthage utterly. Franco also succeeded in defeating the Spanish republicans pretty utterly. The communists in Indonesia were defeated utterly by Suharto, etc. So, "the harder you beat, the softer they will become" does work all too often, unfortunately. From walterlx at earthlink.net Mon Jan 5 15:13:48 2009 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:13:48 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [Marxism] Activist Unmasks Himself as Federal Informant Message-ID: <23315246.1231193628476.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> there is a statement by austin community organizers at http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2008/12/66041.php http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/us/05informant.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE NEW YORK TIMES January 5, 2009 Activist Unmasks Himself as Federal Informant in G.O.P. Convention Case By COLIN MOYNIHAN When the scheduled federal trial begins this month for two Texas men who were arrested during the Republican National Convention on charges of making and possessing Molotov cocktails, one of the major witnesses against them will be a community activist who acted as a government informant. Brandon Darby, an organizer from Austin, Tex., made the news public himself, announcing in an open letter posted on Dec. 30 on Indymedia.org that he had worked as an informant, most recently at last year?s Republican convention in St. Paul. ?The simple truth is that I have chosen to work with the Federal Bureau of Investigation,? wrote Mr. Darby, who gained prominence as a member of Common Ground Relief, a group that helped victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. He added, ?I strongly stand behind my choices in this matter.? Mr. Darby?s revelations caused shock and indignation in the activist community, with people in various groups and causes accusing him of betrayal. ?The emerging truth about Darby?s malicious involvement in our communities is heart-breaking and utterly ground-shattering,? said the Austin Informant Working Group, a collection of activists from the city who worked with Mr. Darby. ?Through the history of our struggles for a better world, infiltrators and informants have acted as tools for the forces of misery in disrupting and derailing our movements.? Mr. Darby?s letter answered lingering questions in the case of the two Texas men, David McKay and Bradley Crowder, both also from Austin. They are scheduled to go on trial in Minnesota on Jan. 26, and if convicted on all counts, each faces a prison sentence of up to 30 years. Neither the United States attorney?s office in Minnesota nor the F.B.I. would comment on Mr. Darby?s announcement. ?As a matter of policy, we?re not going to confirm or deny the identity of anybody who gives us information confidentially,? said E. K. Wilson, an F.B.I. spokesman in Minnesota. But in a telephone interview, Mr. Darby said that he had provided information leading to the arrest of Mr. Crowder and Mr. McKay, and that he planned to testify at their trial. Mr. Darby would not provide details about his undercover activities, but said he had also worked as an informant in cases not involving the convention. He defended his decision to work with the F.B.I. as ?a good moral way to use my time,? saying he wanted to prevent violence during the convention at the Xcel Energy Center. Documents that activists said were given to defense lawyers by the prosecution and printed on F.B.I. letterhead indicated that an informant ? now identified as Mr. Darby ? carried out a thorough surveillance operation that dated back to at least 18 months before the Republican gathering. He first met Mr. Crowder and Mr. McKay in Austin six months before the convention. Mr. Darby provided descriptions of meetings with the defendants and dozens of other people in Austin, Minneapolis and St. Paul. He wore recording devices at times, including a transmitter embedded in his belt during the convention. He also went to Minnesota with Mr. Crowder four months before the Republican gathering and gave detailed narratives to law enforcement authorities of several meetings they had with activists from New York, San Francisco, Montana and other places. One of his last conversations with Mr. McKay ended in an alley in Minneapolis, according to court documents, with Mr. Darby recording Mr. McKay talking about plans to use Molotov cocktails. The F.B.I. reports mentioned dozens of people, most of whom have not been accused of any crime. In addition to listing biographical and physical particulars, Mr. Darby frequently offered observations on the motives, attitudes and states of mind of activists with whom he dealt. ?Part of what intrigues me is not only how he operates but what is the role of the F.B.I. in how he operates,? said Lisa Fithian, an organizer who is named in the reports. ?We don?t know what we?re dealing with here.? Some former friends of Mr. Darby have denounced him as a provocateur and said he might have enabled or encouraged Mr. Crowder and Mr. McKay to break the law. Mr. Darby denied that. An F.B.I. agent swore in an affidavit that at one point Mr. McKay acknowledged that he intended to use firebombs. Such devices were never used, and both defendants have pleaded not guilty. ?The claim that the case is solely based on the testimony of informants is simply a wanton and willful untruth,? Mr. Darby said in the interview. ?It omits the physical evidence, the confession and possibly the testimony of many others.? In 2005, Mr. Darby went to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina struck, joining Common Ground Relief as it provided medical attention and helped repair homes. He became a visible member of the group, sometimes acting as a spokesman and appearing on ?The Tavis Smiley Show? on PBS. When The St. Paul Pioneer Press published an article in October that cited an unidentified source who named Mr. Darby as an informant in the case against Mr. Crowder and Mr. McKay, a co-founder of Common Ground, Scott Crow, defended Mr. Darby publicly and warned against ?rumors, conjecture and innuendo.? ?I put it all on the line to defend him when accusations first came out,? Mr. Crow said. ?Brandon Darby is somebody I had entrusted with my life in New Orleans, and now I feel endangered by him.? Mr. Darby acknowledged that many people he spied on might not accept his explanation that he was motivated by conscience. ?I am well aware,? he said, ?that I?ve stepped outside of accepted behaviors and that I?ve committed a sin in the eyes of many activists.? ========================================= WALTER LIPPMANN Havana, Cuba Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/ "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo" ========================================= From walterlx at earthlink.net Mon Jan 5 15:42:38 2009 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:42:38 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [Marxism] NYT: Grief Marks Anniversary of Triumph of Castro Message-ID: <21910124.1231195358857.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> This is the second look at the Cuban Revolution by the New York Times at this momentous anniversary. The first, written by Simon Romero, was not datelined Santiago de Cuba, because, presumably, the NYT didn't bother to send one of its reporters to cover the celebrations there. This one is far longer and more detailed, highlighting the numerous tragic deaths of unfortunate people whose desperation to leave the island in search of what they hoped would be a better life up there in what Cubans often call "La Yuma", had the tragic consequences we see detailed here. Revolutions unite social classes and nations, but it also divides them as well. At ever level of Cuban society, from the top leadership to the person on the street, family division has been one of the tragic outcomes of the Cuban Revolution. And yet articles like this try to pin all the blame on the Cuban government, while failing to note Washington's responsibility for the thousands of deaths which have taken place. Not one word can be found here about the Cuban Adjustment Act, the 1966 law which is still on the books, and which provides 100% permission and guaranteed admission in to the United States for any Cuban who manages to get to U.S. territory. No other citizens of any other country on earth, is granted this special benefit, which provides a gigantic incentive to Cubans to try to leave their country for the United States. Haitians who are just as desperate also try the same thing, but if caught, they are all deported. Cubans get to stay. No wonder some try to get to the U.S. in this manner. Even more, however, it's worth remembering that it wasn't always this way, and doesn't have to be this way, during the 1960s and early 1970s, there were regular twice-weekly flight from Cuba to the United States in which people who wanted to leave could do so in a safe and legal manner. These were called the "freedom flights" in the United States. Why can't the United States just go ahead and normalize relations with Cuba and, since it allows all Cubans in who get to the US, just let them get in planes or boats and leave safely if that's what they want to do? No, for all these years, Washington has preferred to permit all who enter the US to stay, while sending back those if finds at sea to constitute a frustrated and destabilizing factor on the island. Wanting to leave Cuba is quite understandable. People all over the Third World want to do that. These tragedies are highlighted in the US media as a way to make Cuba look bad and to make it seem as if the Cuban government is somehow responsible for these tragic deaths. That's not true, even if the New York Times wants its readers to think so. Walter Lippmann Havana, Cuba January 5, 2008 ................................................................... THE NEW YORK TIMES January 1, 2009 Grief Marks Anniversary of Triumph of Castro By DAMIEN CAVE http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/us/01cubans.html HIALEAH, Fla. ? Four months after they appeared in the waters between Havana and Miami, the four dead men remain nameless. At a morgue in the Florida Keys, they lie on stretchers stacked like bunk beds, their bodies chewed by sharks, their faces too putrified to be recognized. The police suspect they were Cuban rafters. Nilda Garcia thinks one of them might be her son ? and the thought makes her weep. Fourteen years after she left Cuba on her own makeshift boat, she finds herself wondering once again: When will it end? "How many mothers are going through this?" Ms. Garcia said in an interview at her daughter's apartment here as she awaited DNA results on the bodies. "How many more are crying for their losses? How many young people have drowned in this sea? How many?" Fifty years ago today, many Cubans cheered when Fidel Castro seized power in Havana, and even now, the revolution attracts many fans ? as evidenced by the Canadian tour agencies advertising trips "to celebrate five decades of resilience." But the bodies speak to a different legacy. Here in South Florida, where roughly 850,000 Cubans have settled over the years, repeated waves of painful exile and family separation define the Castro era. The revolution never met their hopeful expectations, the island they love has slipped into decay, and for many, this week's golden anniversary provides little more than a flashback to traumas, old and new. "It pounds in everybody's conscience every day," said Ramon Saul Sanchez, 54, the founder of Movimiento Democracia, a Cuban-American group known for using boats to stage protests. "Fifty years is something very hard to accept." Some Cubans remain defiant. Huber Matos, a former revolutionary leader who came to Miami after Mr. Castro sent him to jail in 1959 for suggesting that the Cuban government included too many Communists, said that the anniversary inspired him to keep pushing for change. "When you think of what you have to do, you can't be sad," Mr. Matos, 90, said. "To continue working, that's the key." But for many, the revolution's 50th anniversary has inspired a period of reflection. Cubans across Florida say they are mourning privately, or trying to forget, and formal commemorations are being kept to a minimum. If Miami in the 1980s was a place of militants, where "Havana vanities come to dust," as Joan Didion wrote, today it is also a home to newer arrivals who ask, Must the pain go on? A poll released this month by Florida International University shows that 55 percent of Cubans in Florida favor lifting the United States embargo against Cuba, up from 42 percent a year ago. It is the first time a clear majority has held that position since the survey began in 1991. President-elect Barack Obama ? while backing away from an earlier pledge to meet with Cuban leaders during his first year in office ? condemned the current "failed policy" during the presidential campaign and promised to make it easier for Cuban-Americans to visit relatives on the island or send them larger amounts of money. Even among those who support the 46-year-old embargo, like Senator Mel Martinez, a Republican, continued damage to families has become a more prominent concern. "This is an ongoing tragedy," said Mr. Martinez, who left Cuba at age 15 and spent four years without his parents. "How many people today are still being separated? How many people in Cuba are making plans to leave?" Ms. Garcia was a "balsera," one of the 38,000 rafters who fled Cuba in 1994. She said she left her suburb of Havana because her daughter needed medical care she could not get in Cuba for a brain tumor. Her son, Osmani, stayed. He was 20 at the time, a speaker of English and French, who became an independent journalist. His work often put him at odds with the Castro government. In one dispatch, published on Oct. 26, 2007, he condemned Cuba's foreign minister, Felipe P?rez Roque, for mischaracterizing comments from President Bush. "I will not take the time to point out all the lies told by Felipe P?rez Roque at this press conference, but I will say there was a worried look on his face and those of his cohorts," Mr. Garcia wrote, in an article posted online. "It almost seems that they too are realizing there is little time left to the Castro dictatorship and that change is very near." Instead, over the next year, political pressure on Mr. Garcia increased. In June, according to a report in a Cuban online forum, he was arrested and interrogated by state officials. Two months later, his mother said, he was filmed by a Cuban television reporter at a protest against the government, scaring him enough to flee. Mr. Garcia's relatives said that on the night of Aug. 15, he climbed aboard a boat with no motor and seven or eight other people, pushing off from an area near Havana with hopes of reaching Florida within a few days. The pace mattered; the sea was churning. By early Monday morning, Tropical Storm Fay had moved through Cuba into the Florida Straits, bringing nearly a foot of rain, swells of several feet and winds that would strengthen to 60 miles per hour. Ms. Garcia, 64, a home health aide, said she was not sure if her son had known the storm was coming. Even if he had, she said, "he was desperate and needed to go." She said her son had done all he could to change Cuba from the inside. "How can Cubans confront the government, with rocks and sticks?" Ms. Garcia said. "Everyone has nothing, and the people are afraid." She found out about the bodies from the news. The first one, tagged 0107 in morgue records, appeared in the waters off Craig Key just after 5 p.m. on Aug. 21. A fisherman called the Coast Guard, and two Monroe County police officers pulled the dead man from the teal-blue sea. Three other bodies followed, appearing offshore over the next 24 hours in a line heading north. Detective Terry Smith, one of the lead detectives investigating the case with the Monroe County Sheriff's Department, said the locations and currents suggested that the bodies had probably spent several days in the water, drifting from somewhere to the south, though the Coast Guard's computer analyses were not definitive. Their identities have been even harder to determine. E. Hunt Scheuerman, the medical examiner for Monroe County, which includes the Keys, said all four bodies were naked and gnarled, with only three defining characteristics. Body 0107 wore a ring with a Celtic cross and green stone on the fourth finger of his left hand; 0109 arrived with a white sock and blue Lotto running shoe on his right foot; and 0110 had a tattoo on the inside of his lip that said "Raquel." Ms. Garcia said the ring sounds similar to one she gave Osmani, but the ring in the morgue is yellow, suggesting gold, and the ring she gave her son was silver. She said she hoped her son was at the American military base in Guant?namo Bay, Cuba, where she was processed before coming to the United States. And initially it seemed possible. The Coast Guard stopped a boat near the Bahamas with eight or nine Cuban rafters a few days after Aug. 15. But it must have been another group, Detective Smith said; Mr. Garcia's name could not be found on the Coast Guard's list of repatriated refugees. At least two other Cuban families in Miami are in a position similar to Ms. Garcia's. In emotional phone calls, they have told Detective Smith about relatives who left Cuba on Aug. 15 in a boat, never to be heard from again. "What if the four we received are not any of their relatives?" the detective said, discussing what haunts him most. DNA may be the only way to know for sure. In September, Detective Smith swabbed Ms. Garcia's mouth and sent the sample to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a comparison with the bodies. For the other two families, the DNA must be collected from closer female relatives, who live in Cuba. Mr. Sanchez, of Movimiento Democracia, has been trying to arrange for secure samples from the island. "There are hundreds, probably thousands of Cubans who think they lost relatives in the high seas," he said. But so far, he has received little help from either the Cuban or American governments. And so the cycle continues. According to Coast Guard statistics, 10,489 Cubans have been stopped at sea since the beginning of 2005, more than double the 4,223 who were caught in the previous four years. A report in May from the Institute of Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami found that 131,000 Cubans had settled in the United States permanently over the last four years, and its title predicts more of the same. "Not Going Away," it says. "Cuban Mass Migration to Florida." Ms. Garcia said she just wanted an end to the 50-year pattern: the uncertainty, tears and tales of woe. Three months after her DNA reached the F.B.I., she is still waiting for answers. Conversations about her son are drenched with tears, and she is never far from a photograph that shows him staring straight ahead, with a stern face, a few wrinkles and thick, dark hair. It looks like a passport picture ? of a man who may have only reached a Florida morgue. ========================================= WALTER LIPPMANN Havana, Cuba Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/ "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo" ========================================= From nmgoro at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 16:47:08 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:47:08 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism In-Reply-To: <908b689f0901051249w10c2fa1dv9c8198039b62784@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b8a676d0901041857s5e4ce459tf2a56df7690fbf16@mail.gmail.com> <2fa158550901050540r328b3046o977f5c000134805b@mail.gmail.com> <355CD531801F476DA427A7516777F8A6@dmsthinkpad> <908b689f0901050943w6ebace80t5523f2edc24c4b24@mail.gmail.com> <908b689f0901051249w10c2fa1dv9c8198039b62784@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49629BFC.9060201@gmail.com> Ruthless Critic of All that Exists escribi?: > On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 2:10 PM, S. Artesian > wrote: > >> This situation is not unlike the situation in apartheid South >> Africa-- we don't attempt to explain, rationalize, the hatred by >> the oppressed for the oppressor; we identify it as just that-- >> hatred by the oppressed for the oppressor. > > I am not sure that the comparison with South Africa is valid here. > The ANC never expressed hatred for "whites in general", while Hamas > official pronouncements do tend to demonize Jews in general. > I, on the contrary, believe that the comparison is most valid. To begin with, the excellente relations between Tel Aviv and white supremacist Pretoria (as well as with the Shah-ruled Iran) was always a striking element in Zionist practice, striking I mean for socialists who believed in Zionism like me during the late 60s/early 70s. There is a saying in Spanish, "Dime con qui?n andas y te dir? qui?n eres" (tell me who?s it that you?re friends with, and I will tell you who YOU are). I could never uproot this mischievous thought of my mind since the moment when -in Israel, Israeli youth leaders never told us a word about it in Argentina- I learnt of those relations, which knowledge BTW came after a quite na?ve question I made after I saw a route map of El Al, where both Johannesburg and Tehran appeared as specific destinations (I mean not as some stopover on flights to another place, but as final destinations, dedicated flights... I still remember that the route to Iran was particularly long and twisted, thus evidently a heavy effort by the company since it flew over the Mediterranean, the Black Sea and Eastern Turkey, because of obvious constraints in the use of Syrian, Soviet or Iraqi air space). But on a stronger ground, I would make the point that the basic similitude lies in the pre-French Revolution idea that a single "nation-state" could be organized under the coexistence of different nationalities but with one of them explicitly dominant. This idea, which IMHO sounded familiar to the early Jewish settlers in Palestine because most of them came from the old Tsarist Empire and it was a copycat scheme derived from Tsarism, makes the whole thing a good example of colonial state. Never forget that by the time of the October Revolution Tsarist Russia was a semi-colony of Western Europe, but was a Russian (more precisely Great Russian) colonial state when confronted with the nationalities _within_ the Empire. From nmgoro at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 17:03:25 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:03:25 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] Strong statement by ... surprise ... Queen Rania of Jordan about Israeli assault on Gaza In-Reply-To: <002-156c6249-24884.842@t-online.de> References: <002-156c6249-24884.842@t-online.de> Message-ID: <49629FCD.5090703@gmail.com> That Queen Rania of all people sees herself forced to assume such a position speaks on the level of outraged mobilisation that pervades the popular classes in the Arab world. Lueko Willms escribi?: > I had seen it on Al Jazeera, and had to search a long time to find > the full text, finally at > > > > --------- cut ----------------------- > > Statement > > HRM Queen Rania on the children of Gaza > > Her Majesty Queen Rania Al Abdullah UNICEF Eminent Advocate for > Children > Statement to the Press on Gaza - In Amman, Jordan > > Our Humanity is Incomplete > > "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" ... > Article one, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person" ... > Article three, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > Over the past 41 years, the people of Gaza have been living under > occupation. Over the past 18 months, they have been living under > siege. And for the past 10 days, the people of Gaza have been subject > to a cruel and continuous military attack. > > Either the declaration is not so universal, or the people of Gaza are > not human beings, worthy of the same "universal" rights. This is the > message the world is sending out today. > From jayroth6 at cox.net Mon Jan 5 16:43:14 2009 From: jayroth6 at cox.net (J Rothermel) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:43:14 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] 90 Years since the murders of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg Message-ID: <49629B12.7040600@cox.net> Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg (1919) By Leon Trotsky Tuesday, 15 January 2008 We have suffered two heavy losses at once which merge into one enormous bereavement. There have been struck down from our ranks two leaders whose names will be for ever entered in the great book of the proletarian revolution: Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. They have perished. They have been killed. They are no longer with us! Karl Liebknecht?s name, though already known, immediately gained world-wide significance from the first months of the ghastly European slaughter. It rang out like the name of revolutionary honour, like a pledge of the victory to come. In those first weeks when German militarism celebrated its first orgies and feted its first demonic triumphs; in those weeks when the German forces stormed through Belgium brushing aside the Belgian forts like cardboard houses; when the German 420mm cannon seemed to threaten to enslave and bend all Europe to Wilhelm; in those days and weeks when official German social-democracy headed by its Scheidemann and its Ebert bent its patriotic knee before German militarism to which everything, at least it seemed, would submit?both the outside world (trampled Belgium and France with its northern part seized by the Germans) and the domestic world (not only the German junkerdom, not only the German bourgeoisie, not only the chauvinist middle-class but last and not least the officially recognized party of the German working class); in those black, terrible and foul days there broke out in Germany a rebellious voice of protest, of anger and imprecation; this was the voice of Karl Liebknecht. And it resounded throughout the whole world! In France where the mood of the broad masses then found itself under the heel of the German onslaught; where the ruling party of French social-patriots declared to the proletariat the necessity to fight not for life but until death (and how else when the ?whole people? of Germany is craving to seize Paris!); even in France Liebknecht?s voice rang out warning and sobering, exploding the barricades of lies, slander and panic. It could be sensed that Liebknecht alone reflected the stifled masses. In fact however even then he was not alone as there came forward hand in hand with him from the first day of the war the courageous, unswerving and heroic Rosa Luxemburg. The lawlessness of German bourgeois parliamentarism did not give her the possibility of launching her protest from the tribune of parliament as Liebknecht did and thus she was less heard. But her part in the awakening of the best elements of the German working class was in no way less than that of her comrade in struggle and in death, Karl Liebknecht. These two fighters so different in nature and yet so close, complemented each other, unbending marched towards a common goal, met death together and enter history side by side. Karl Liebknecht represented the genuine and finished embodiment of an intransigent revolutionary. In the last days and months of his life there have been created around his name innumerable legends: senselessly vicious ones in the bourgeois Press, heroic ones on the lips of the working masses. In his private life Karl Liebknecht was?alas!?already he merely was the epitomy of goodness, simplicity and brotherhood. I first met him more than 15 years ago. He was a charming man, attentive and sympathetic. It could be said that an almost feminine tenderness, in the best sense of this word, was typical of his character. And side by side with this feminine tenderness he was distinguished by the exceptional heart of a revolutionary will able to fight to the last drop of blood in the name of what he considered to be right and true. His spiritual independence appeared already in his youth when he ventured more than once to defend his opinion against the incontestable authority of Bebel. His work amongst the youth and his struggle against the Hohenzollern military machine was marked by great courage. Finally he discovered his full measure when he raised his voice against the serried warmongering bourgeoisie and the treacherous social-democracy in the German Reichstag where the whole atmosphere was saturated with miasmas of chauvinism. He discovered the full measure of his personality when as a soldier he raised the banner of open insurrection against the bourgeoisie and its militarism on Berlin?s Potsdam Square. Liebknecht was arrested. Prison and hard labour did not break his spirit. He waited in his cell and predicted with certainty. Freed by the revolution in November last year, Liebknecht at once stood at the head of the best and most determined elements of the German working class. Spartacus found himself in the ranks of the Spartacists and perished with their banner in his hands. Rosa Luxemburg?s name is less well-known in other countries than it is to us in Russia. But one can say with all certainty that she was in no way a lesser figure than Karl Liebknecht. Short in height, frail, sick, with a streak of nobility in her face, beautiful eyes and a radiant mind she struck one with the bravery of her thought. She had mastered the Marxist method like the organs of her body. One could say that Marxism ran in her blood stream. I have said that these two leaders, so different in nature, complemented each other. I would like to emphasize and explain this. If the intransigent revolutionary Liebknecht was characterized by a feminine tenderness in his personal ways then this frail woman was characterized by a masculine strength of thought. Ferdinand Lassalle once spoke of the physical strength of thought, of the commanding power of its tension when it seemingly overcomes material obstacles in its path. That is just the impression you received talking to Rosa, reading her articles or listening to her when she spoke from the tribune against her enemies. And she had many enemies! I remember how, at a congress at Jena I think, her high voice, taut like a wire, cut through the wild protestations of opportunists from Bavaria, Baden and elsewhere. How they hated her! And how she despised them! Small and fragilely built she mounted the platform of the congress as the personification of the proletarian revolution. By the force of her logic and the power of her sarcasm she silenced her most avowed opponents. Rosa knew how to hate the enemies of the proletariat and just because of this she knew how to arouse their hatred for her. She had been identified by them early on. From the first day, or rather from the first hour of the war, Rosa Luxemburg launched a campaign against chauvinism, against patriotic lechery, against the wavering of Kautsky and Haase and against the centrists? formlessness; for the revolutionary independence of the proletariat, for internationalism and for the proletarian revolution. Yes, they complemented one another! By the force of the strength of her theoretical thought and her ability to generalize Rosa Luxemburg was a whole head above not only her opponents but also her comrades. She was a woman of genius. Her style, tense, precise, brilliant and merciless, will remain for ever a true mirror of her thought. Liebknecht was not a theoretician. He was a man of direct action. Impulsive and passionate by nature, he possessed an exceptional political intuition, a fine awareness of the masses and of the situation and finally an unrivalled courage of revolutionary initiative. An analysis of the internal and international situation in which Germany found herself after November 9, 1918, as well as a revolutionary prognosis could and had to be expected first of all from Rosa Luxemburg. A summons to immediate action and, at a given moment, to armed uprising would most probably come from Liebknecht. They, these two fighters, could not have complemented each other better. Scarcely had Luxemburg and Liebknecht left prison when they took each other hand in hand, this inexhaustible revolutionary man and this intransigent revolutionary woman and set out together at the head of the best elements of the German working class to meet the new battles and trials of the proletarian revolution. And on the first steps along this road a treacherous blow has on one day, struck both of them down. To be sure reaction could not have chosen more illustrious victims. What a sure blow! And small wonder! Reaction and revolution knew each other well as in this case reaction was personified in the guise of the former leaders of the former party of the working class, Scheidemann and Ebert whose names will be for ever inscribed in the black book of history as the shameful names of the chief organizers of this treacherous murder. It is true that we have received the official German report which depicts the murder of Liebknecht and Luxemburg as a street ?misunderstanding? occasioned possibly by a watchman?s insufficient vigilance in the face of a frenzied crowd. A judicial investigation has been arranged to this end. But you and I know too well how reaction lays on this sort of spontaneous outrage against revolutionary leaders; we well remember the July days that we lived through here within the walls of Petrograd, we remember too well how the Black Hundred bands, summoned by Kerensky and Tsereteli to the fight against the Bolsheviks, systematically terrorized the workers, massacred their leaders and set upon individual workers in the streets. The name of the worker Voinov, killed in the course of a ?misunderstanding? will be remembered by the majority of you. If we had saved Lenin at that time then it was only because he did not fall into the hands of frenzied Black Hundred bands. At that time there were well-meaning people amongst the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries who were disturbed by the fact that Lenin and Zinoviev, who were accused of being German spies, did not appear in court to refute the slander. They were blamed for this especially. But at what court? At that court along the road to which Lenin would be forced to ?flee?, as Liebknecht was, and if Lenin was shot or stabbed, the official report by Kerensky and Tsereteli would state that the leader of the Bolsheviks was killed by the guard while attempting to escape. No, after the terrible experience in Berlin we have ten times more reason to be satisfied that Lenin did not present himself to the phoney trial and yet more to violence without trial. But Rosa and Karl did not go into hiding. The enemy?s hand grasped them firmly. And this hand choked them. What a blow! What grief! And what treachery! The best leaders of the German Communist Party are no more?our great comrades are no longer amongst the living. And their murderers stand under the banner of the Social-Democratic party having the brazenness to claim their birthright from no other than Karl Marx! ?What a perversion! What a mockery!&#rdquo; Just think, comrades, that ?Marxist? German Social-Democracy, mother of the working class from the first days of the war, which supported the unbridled German militarism in the days of the rout of Belgium and the seizure of the northern provinces of France; that party which betrayed the October Revolution to German militarism during the Brest peace; that is the party whose leaders, Scheidemann and Ebert, now organize black bands to murder the heroes of the International, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg! What a monstrous historical perversion! Glancing back through the ages you can find a certain parallel with the historical destiny of Christianity. The evangelical teaching of the slaves, fishermen, toilers, the oppressed and all those crushed to the ground by slave society, this poor people?s doctrine which had arisen historically was then seized upon by the monopolists of wealth, the kings, aristocrats, archbishops, usurers, patriarchs, bankers and the Pope of Rome, and it became a cover for their crimes. No, there is no doubt however, that between the teaching of primitive Christianity as it emerged from the consciousness of the plebeians and the official catholicism or orthodoxy, there still does not exist that gulf as there is between Marx?s teaching which is the nub of revolutionary thinking and revolutionary will and those contemptible left-overs of bourgeois ideas which the Scheidemanns and Eberts of all countries live by and peddle. Through the intermediary of the leaders of social-democracy the bourgeoisie has made an attempt to plunder the spiritual possessions of the proletariat and to cover up its banditry with the banner of Marxism. But it must be hoped, comrades, that this foul crime will be the last to be charged to the Scheidemanns and the Eberts. The proletariat of Germany has suffered a great deal at the hands of those who have been placed at its head; but this fact will not pass without trace. The blood of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg cries out. This blood will force the pavements of Berlin and the stones of that very Potsdam Square on which Liebknecht first raised the banner of insurrection against war and capital to speak up. And one day sooner or later barricades will be erected out of these stones on the streets of Berlin against the servile grovellers and running dogs of bourgeois society, against the Scheidemanns and the Eberts! In Berlin the butchers have now crushed the Spartacists? movement: the German communists. They have killed the two finest inspirers of this movement and today they are maybe celebrating a victory. But there is no real victory here because there has not been yet a straight, open and full fight; there has not yet been an uprising of the German proletariat in the name of the conquest of political power. There has been only a mighty reconnoitering, a deep intelligence mission into the camp of the enemy?s dispositions. The scouting precedes the conflict but it is still not the conflict. This thorough scouting has been necessary for the German proletariat as it was necessary for us in the July days. The misfortune is that two of the best commanders have fallen in the scouting expedition. This is a cruel loss but it is not a defeat. The battle is still ahead. The meaning of what is happening in Germany will be better understood if we look back at our own yesterday. You remember the course of events and their internal logic. At the end of February, the popular masses threw out the Tsarist throne. In the first weeks the feeling was as if the main task had been already accomplished. New men who came forward from the opposition parties and who had never held power here took advantage at first of the trust or half-trust of the popular masses. But this trust soon began to break to splinters. Petrograd found itself in the second stage of the resolution at its head as indeed it had to be. In July as in February it was the vanguard of the revolution which had gone out far in front. But this vanguard which had summoned the popular masses to open struggle against the bourgeoisie and the compromisers, paid a heavy price for the deep reconnaissance it carried out. In the July Days the Petrograd vanguard broke from Kerensky?s government. This was not yet an insurrection as we carried through in October. This was a vanguard clash whose historical meaning the broad masses in the provinces still did not appreciate. In this collision the workers of Petrograd revealed before the popular masses not only of Russia but of all countries that behind Kerensky there was no independent army, and that those forces which stood behind him were the forces of the bourgeoisie, the white guard, the counter-revolution. Then in July we suffered a defeat. Comrade Lenin had to go into hiding. Some of us landed in prison. Our papers were suppressed. The Petrograd Soviet was clamped down. The party and Soviet printshops were wrecked, everywhere the revelry of the Black Hundreds reigned. In other words there took place the same as what is taking place now in the streets of Berlin. Nevertheless none of the genuine revolutionaries had at that time any shadow of doubt that the July Days were merely the prelude to our triumph. A similar situation has developed in recent days in Germany too. As Petrograd had with us, Berlin has gone out ahead of the rest of the masses; as with us, all the enemies of the German proletariat howled: ?we cannot remain under the dictatorship of Berlin; Spartacist Berlin is isolated; we must call a constituent assembly and move it from red Berlin?depraved by the propaganda of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg?to a healthier provincial city in Germany.? Everything that our enemies did to us, all that malicious agitation and all that vile slander which we heard here, all this translated into German was fabricated and spread round Germany directed against the Berlin proletariat and its leaders, Liebknecht and Luxemburg. To be sure the Berlin proletariat?s intelligence mission developed more broadly and deeply than it did with us in July, and that the victims and the losses are more considerable there is true. But this can be explained by the fact that the Germans were making history which we had made once already; their bourgeoisie and military machine had absorbed our July and October experience. And most important, class relations over there are incomparably more defined than here; the possessing classes incomparably more solid, more clever, more active and that means more merciless too. Comrades, here there passed four months between the February revolution and the July days; the Petrograd proletariat needed a quarter of a year in order to feel the irresistible necessity to come out on the street and attempt to shake the columns on which Kerensky?s and Tsereteli?s temple of state rested. After the defeat of the July days, four months again passed during which the heavy reserve forces from the provinces drew themselves up behind Petrograd and we were able, with the certainty of victory, to declare a direct offensive against the bastions of private property in October 1917. In Germany, where the first revolution which toppled the monarchy was played out only at the beginning of November, our July Days are already taking place at the beginning of January. Does this not signify that the German proletariat is living in its revolution according to a shortened calendar? Where we needed four months it needs two. And let us hope that this schedule will be kept up. Perhaps from the German July Days to the German October not four months will pass as with us, but less?possibly two months will turn out sufficient or even less. But however event proceed, one thing alone is beyond doubt: those shots which were sent into Karl Liebknecht?s back have resounded with a mighty echo throughout Germany. And this echo has rung a funeral note in the ears of the Scheidemanns and the Eberts, both in Germany and elsewhere. So here then we have sung a requiem to Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. The leaders have perished. We shall never again see them alive. But, comrades, how many of you have at any time seen them alive? A tiny minority. And yet during these last months and years Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg have lived constantly among us. At meetings and at congresses you have elected Karl Liebknecht honorary president. He himself has not been here?he did not manage to get to Russia?and all the same he was present in your midst, he sat at your table like an honoured guest, like your own kith and kin?for his name had become more than the mere title of a particular man, it had become for us the designation of all that is best, courageous and noble in the working class. When any one of us has to imagine a man selflessly devoted to the oppressed, tempered from head to foot, a man who never lowered his banner before the enemy, we at once name Karl Liebknecht. He has entered the consciousness and memory of the peoples as the heroism of action. In our enemies? frenzied camp when militarism triumphant had trampled down and crushed everything, when everyone whose duty it was to protest fell silent, when it seemed there was nowhere a breathing-space, he, Karl Liebknecht, raised his fighter?s voice. He said ?You, ruling tyrants, military butchers, plunderers, you, toadying lackies, compromisers, you trample on Belgium, you terrorize France, you want to crush the whole world, and you think that you cannot be called to justice, but I declare to you: we, the few, are not afraid of you, we are declaring war on you and having aroused the masses we shall carry through this war to the end!? Here is that valour of determination, here is that heroism of action which makes the figure of Liebknecht unforgettable to the world proletariat. And at his side stands Rosa, a warrior of the world proletariat equal to him in spirit. Their tragic death at their combat positions couples their names with a special, eternally unbreakable link. Henceforth they will be always named together: Karl and Rosa, Liebknecht and Luxemburg! Do you know what the legends about saints and their eternal lives are based upon? On the need of the people to preserve the memory of those who stood at their head and who guided them in one way or another; on the striving to immortalize the personality of the leaders with the halo of sanctity. We, comrades, have no need of legends, nor do we need to transform our heroes into saints. The reality in which we are living now is sufficient for us, because this reality is in itself legendary. It is awakening miraculous forces in the spirit of the masses and their leaders, it is creating magnificent figures who tower over all humanity. Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg are such eternal figures. We are aware of their presence amongst us with a striking, almost physical immediacy. At this tragic hour we are joined in spirit with the best workers of Germany and the whole world who have received this news with sorrow and mourning. Here we experience the sharpness and bitterness of the blow equally with our German brothers. We are internationalists in our sorrow and mourning just as much as we are in all our struggles. For us Liebknecht was not just a German leader. For us Rosa Luxemburg was not just a Polish socialist who stood at the head of the German workers. No, they are both kindred of the world proletariat and we are all tied to them with an indissoluble spiritual link. Till their last breath they belonged not to a nation but to the International! For the information of Russian working men and women it must be said that Liebknecht and Luxemburg stood especially close to the Russian revolutionary proletariat and in its most difficult times at that. Liebknecht?s flat was the headquarters of the Russian exiles in Berlin. When we had to raise the voice of protest in the German parliament or the German press against those services which the German rulers were affording Russian reaction we above all turned to Karl Liebknecht and he knocked at all the doors and on all the skulls, including the skulls of Scheidemann and Ebert to force them to protest against the crimes of the German government. And we constantly turned to Liebknecht when any of our comrades needed material support. Liebknecht was tireless as the Red Cross of the Russian revolution. At the congress of German Social-Democrats at Jena which I have already referred to, where I was present as a visitor, I was invited by the presidium on Liebknecht?s intiative to speak on the resolution moved by the same Liebknecht condemning the violence and the brutality of the Tsarist government in Finland. With the greatest diligence Liebknecht prepared his own speech collecting facts and figures and questioning me in detail on the customs relations between Tsarist Russia and Finland. But before the matter reached the platform (I was to speak after Liebknecht) a telegram report on the assassination of Stolypin in Kiev had been received. This telegram produced a great impression at the congress. The first question which arose amongst the leadership was: would it be appropriate for a Russian revolutionary to address a German congress at the same time as some other Russian revolutionary had carried out the assassination of the Russian Prime Minister? This thought seized even Bebel: the old man who stood three heads above the other Central Committee members, did not like any ?needless? complications. He at once sought me out and subjected me to questions: ?What does the assassination signify? Which party could be responsible for it? Didn?t I think that in these conditions that by speaking I would attract the attention of the German police?? ?Are you afraid that my speech will create certain difficulties?? I asked the old man cautiously. ?Yes?, answered Bebel, ?I admit I would prefer it if you did not speak.? ?Of course,? I answered, ?in that case there can be no question of my speaking.? And on that we parted. A minute later, Liebknecht literally came running up to me. He was agitated beyond measure. ?Is it true that they have proposed you do not speak?? he asked me. ?/Yes/,? I replied, ?I have just settled this matter with Bebel.? ?And you agreed?? ?How could I not agree,? I answered justifying myself, ?seeing that I am not master here but a visitor.? ?This is an outrageous act by our presidium, disgusting, an unheard-of scandal, miserable cowardice!? etc., etc. Liebknecht gave vent to his indignation in his speech where he mercilessly attacked the Tsarist government in defiance of backstage warnings by the presidium who had urged him not to create ?needless? complications in the form of offending his Tsarist majesty. From the years of her youth Rosa Luxemburg stood at the head of those Polish Social-Democrats who now together with the so-called ?Lewica? i.e. the revolutionary Section of the Polish Socialist Party have joined to form the Communist Party. Rosa Luxemburg could speak Russian beautifully, knew Russian literature profoundly, followed Russian political life day by day, was joined by close ties to the Russian revolutionaries and painstakingly elucidated the revolutionary steps of the Russian proletariat in the German press. In her second homeland, Germany, Rosa Luxemburg with her characteristic talent, mastered to perfection not only the German language but also a total understanding of German political life and occupied one of the most prominent places in the old Bebelite Social-Democratic party. There she constantly remained on the extreme left wing. In 1905 Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg in the most genuine sense of the word lived through the events of the Russian revolution. In 1905 Rosa Luxemburg left Berlin for Warsaw, not as a Pole but as a revolutionary. Released from the citadel of Warsaw on bail she arrived illegally in Petrograd in 1906, where, under an assumed name, she visited several of her friends in prison. Returning to Berlin she redoubled the struggle against opportunism opposing it with the path and methods of the Russian revolution. Together with Rosa we have lived through the greatest misfortune which has broken on the working class. I am speaking of the shameful bankruptcy of the Second International in August 1914. Together with her we raised the banner of the Third International. And now, comrades, in the work which we are carrying out day in and day out we remain true to the behests of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. If we build here in the still cold and hungry Petrograd the edifice of the socialist state, we are acting in the spirit of Liebknecht and Luxemburg; if our army advances on the front, it is defending with blood the behests of Liebknecht and Luxemburg. How bitter it is that it could not defend them too! In Germany there is no Red Army as the power there is still in enemy hands. We now have an army and it is growing and becoming stronger. And in anticipation of when the army of the German proletariat will close its ranks under the banner of Karl and Rosa, each of us will consider it his duty to draw to the attention of our Red Army, who Liebknecht and Luxemburg were, what they died for and why their memory must remain sacred for every Red soldier and for every worker and peasant. The blow inflicted on us is unbearably heavy. Yet we look ahead not only with hope but also with certainty. Despite the fact that in Germany today there flows a tide of reaction we do not for a minute lose our confidence that there, red October is nigh. The great fighters have not perished in vain. Their death will be avenged. Their shades will receive their due. In addressing their dear shades we can say: ?Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, you are no longer in the circle of the living but you are present amongst us; we sense your mighty spirit; we will fight under your banner; our fighting ranks shall be covered by your moral grandeur! And each of us swears if the hour comes, and if the revolution demands, to perish without trembling under the same banner as under which you perished, friends and comrades-in-arms, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht!? http://www.marxist.com/trotsky-on-karl-liebknecht-rosa-luxemburg.htm From nmgoro at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 17:47:25 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:47:25 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] [Spanish] The historic dilemma of the Cuban Revolution Message-ID: <4962AA1D.6090806@gmail.com> {Sorry if I can?t translate. Those who can read Spanish will, certainly, enjoy this short essay on the 50 years of the Cuban Revolution. IMHO, this is a masterpiece of political thinking.] El dilema hist?rico de la Revoluci?n Cubana Por Enrique Lacolla /Desgarrada entre la magnitud de su ambici?n liberadora y la exig?idad de su base geogr?fica, la revoluci?n cubana subsiste como precedente de una ola popular latinoamericana que se apronta a tomar su relevo y que deber?a elevarse a instancias superiores de realismo pol?tico y potencia econ?mica./ El primero de Enero la revoluci?n cubana cumpli? medio siglo de existencia. No es poca cosa, en especial si se toma en cuenta que se ha encontrado bajo asedio desde su nacimiento, y nada menos que por la hiperpotencia del Norte. Es de destacar tambi?n que pocas son las revoluciones ?si es que hay alguna- que hayan conseguido mantener una t?nica radical a la vez que realista durante tanto tiempo. Desde luego que ha habido un anquilosamiento parcial, una burocratizaci?n creciente y que la fortuna del movimiento 26 de Julio sigue estrechamente asociada a la vida de sus fundadores supervivientes; pero existe la posibilidad que el ejemplo de su integridad y el prolongado trabajo de educaci?n que la revoluci?n realiz? sobre el cuerpo de la sociedad cubana, preserve lo esencial de ese esp?ritu cuando el tiempo se tome revancha y las figuras de Fidel y Ra?l Castro desaparezcan. La revoluci?n cubana es un hito en la historia de Am?rica latina. Como se lo ha se?alado en otras ocasiones, naci? de un equ?voco: la presunci?n norteamericana de que los j?venes universitarios que se hab?an subido a la Sierra Maestra eran buenos dem?cratas en la acepci?n formal del t?rmino, y que resultaban por lo tanto asimilables a los reto?os de la peque?a burgues?a siempre dispuesta a oponerse a los reg?menes corruptos, pero presta a asimilarse a las prebendas que da el poder una vez que se lo alcanza. El autoenga?o fue mutuo. Los revolucionarios del Granma cre?an en los valores del democratismo radical y en su posibilidad de cambiar el mundo a partir de ellos. Si no hubiera sido as?, Estados Unidos se hubiera ocupado de apretarles el gaznate, en vez de dejarlos hacer y permitir incluso que desde Florida y Centroam?rica se los abasteciera con armas que servir?an, en opini?n de Washington, para derrocar a un dictador al que su corrupci?n hab?a convertido en un socio inc?modo. El reemplazo de Batista por un grupo de j?venes radicales pod?a ser, en el sentir del Departamento de Estado y tambi?n de la CIA, una peripecia manejable, como lo fuera en otras ocasiones. Pero, al rev?s de lo que suele ocurrir cuando ?los j?venes se suben a un caballo desde la izquierda y se bajan por la derecha?, aqu? sucedi? lo contrario. La experiencia de la guerra civil y la pr?ctica de la reforma agraria sobre el terreno aviv? la convicci?n de esos j?venes, ya muy arraigada entre ellos, de la necesidad de acudir a un cambio dr?stico para solventar los problemas de la sociedad cubana. Esta convicci?n justiciera se ali? a un nacionalismo exasperado por las continuas vejaciones sufridas en el curso de la historia ?independiente? cubana de parte de Estados Unidos y a la evidencia de que s?lo a trav?s de las expropiaciones de las empresas norteamericanas y de una reforma agraria a fondo se pod?an cumplir los objetivos que se hab?an fijado los dos Castro, el Che Guevara y otros. El choque sobrevino de inmediato. El desencadenamiento de la propaganda adversa a la revoluci?n en todos los medios de Estados Unidos y la fuga ?condicionada por la casi certidumbre de que ese grupo de locos no tardar?a en ser eliminado por el socio norteamericano- de la burgues?a terrateniente y empresarial cubana, fueron el anticipo de una seguidilla de intentos de desestabilizaci?n del r?gimen, entre los cuales la voladura de un barco cargado de armamento para la revoluci?n, y el desembarco en Playa Gir?n fueron los momentos culminantes. A partir de all? se abri? un per?odo de incertidumbres y asedios que condicion? todo el trayecto de la revoluci?n y desnud? su dilema, que es lo que nos proponemos examinar aqu?. La ambici?n de los revolucionarios cubanos era grande. Aunque fundada en el deseo de transformar su propia sociedad, la similitud entre las condiciones de ?sta y las de muchas otras de Am?rica latina, implicaba que su ejemplo pod?a ser contagioso. La conciencia de este hecho en los dirigentes cubanos y muy en especial en la del m?dico argentino Ernesto Guevara, que se hab?a transformado en el segundo jefe militar y en la figura m?s inspiradora de la revoluci?n despu?s de Fidel Castro, abr?an un espectro de posibilidades que galvanizaba a muchos j?venes en Am?rica latina y que, paralelamente, determinaba a Washington a liquidar esa amenaza. La expulsi?n de Cuba de la OEA y el total aislamiento en que los gobiernos latinoamericanos la dejaron en ocasi?n del desembarco en bah?a de Cochinos impon?an a los dirigentes cubanos la b?squeda de una salida. La orientaci?n ideol?gica de los dirigentes revolucionarios y la naturaleza del momento internacional (se viv?a en plena guerra fr?a) hicieron que Cuba se decantara hacia el bloque comunista, lo que traer?a aparejadas consecuencias que marcar?an el decurso de la revoluci?n por d?cadas. Esta evoluci?n, sin embargo, se produjo por etapas y estuvo determinada en principio por la inveterada hostilidad de Washington al nuevo r?gimen. Cuando Cuba procedi? a la expropiaci?n de las empresas norteamericanas y a la implantaci?n de la reforma agraria sin que, a entender de Estados Unidos, se suministrara una adecuada compensaci?n, la decisi?n norteamericana en el sentido de eliminar la cuota azucarera desequilibr? la econom?a de la isla. La Uni?n Sovi?tica acudi? en ayuda del r?gimen revolucionario ofreci?ndose a comprar, a precios ventajosos, la misma cantidad de az?car, retribuy?ndola con petr?leo, elemento del que la isla estaba muy necesitada pues hab?an cesado los aportes de combustible que antes proven?an de Estados Unidos y de Venezuela. La determinaci?n norteamericana en estrangular la revoluci?n, atestiguada por las incursiones desde el mar, el sabotaje de las cosechas, el activismo de grupos guerrilleros infiltrados desde Florida y los intentos de asesinato de Fidel, no dejaba otra opci?n que bascular hacia el bloque del Este. Y, puesto que se lo hac?a, ?por qu? no dar ese paso provey?ndose de un escudo misil?stico que disuadiera a Estados Unidos de cualquier intento de agresi?n? En toda operaci?n de este tipo, que requiere de la asistencia de un socio, el inter?s de ?ste debe ser tomado en cuenta. Sobre todo si el socio posee un peso determinante sobre los asuntos mundiales como el que la URSS ten?a a principios de la d?cada del ?60. La crisis de los cohetes de 1962 se produjo no tanto por el deseo cubano de protegerse de su enemigo del Norte, como por el c?lculo de los estrategas sovi?ticos en el sentido de que, con la instalaci?n de los misiles nucleares en Cuba pod?an lograr la remoci?n de las bases norteamericanas, de similares caracter?sticas, que estaban alojadas en Turqu?a. En esta negociaci?n, jugada en el filo del abismo, la voluntad cubana cont? poco. En definitiva, la partida se cerr? con un trueque, en parte p?blico y en parte secreto. El p?blico fue que la URSS retir? sus bases en Cuba a cambio de la renuncia norteamericana a invadir la isla; y el secreto fue el quid pro quo que determin? que, a la vuelta de seis meses m?s o menos, los norteamericanos desmantelaran sus bases en Turqu?a. *Realpolitik y revoluci?n Los dirigentes cubanos no estaban muy felices de tener que acomodarse a las exigencias de la realpolitik. La dirigencia cubana estaba dividida respecto de la t?nica que hab?a tomado la relaci?n con la Uni?n Sovi?tica. Quiz? no en el terreno pr?ctico, pues todos entend?an que no exist?a otra opci?n que consintiera la supervivencia del fen?meno revolucionario que su adhesi?n al bloque socialista, pero hab?a quienes se adecuaban m?s o menos inc?modamente a la situaci?n y otros que deseaban experimentar otras salidas. A estar por los testimonios que se han filtrado, el car?cter fosilizado, burocr?tico y mezquino del r?gimen sovi?tico era rechazado en especial por el Che, quien propugnaba la b?squeda de opciones que garantizasen la pervivencia de la premisa en la cual se hab?a inspirado la revoluci?n: esto es, que el movimiento irradiara hacia el conjunto del continente irredento de Am?rica latina, para generar en ?l un cambio profundo, similar al operado en Cuba. ?Que los Andes sean la Sierra Maestra de Am?rica latina? era el precepto ?enunciado por Fidel Castro en primer t?rmino- de esta corriente. Durante la d?cada de los sesenta y parte de los a?os setenta se intent? poner en pr?ctica este principio. La conciencia de la historia es indispensable a la acci?n pol?tica, cuando esta se encuentra inspirada en algo m?s que en el oportunismo y el af?n cremat?stico. Representarse con claridad lo ocurri? en esos a?os es, por lo tanto, un elemento esencial para evaluar las posibilidades de liberaci?n y los niveles en los que debe acomodarse un accionar transformador en Am?rica latina. Manteniendo en todo caso que, aunque Iberoam?rica es un mismo cuerpo, tiene realidades que ofrecen opciones no necesariamente id?nticas en todo momento. ?La revoluci?n no puede imponerse a punta de bayoneta? dec?a Robespierre, y sab?a bien de lo que hablaba. Desde un principio la revoluci?n cubana afront? un problema esencial: la contradicci?n que se establec?a entre la ambici?n ?o, si se quiere, la esperanza- de quienes la animaban, y la exig?idad del territorio donde se asentaba. Un territorio amenazado, aislado, sujeto al hostigamiento implacable del coloso del Norte. Una isla como Cuba, con escasos recursos, agr?colas en su mayor parte, y con una poblaci?n peque?a, ten?a poca esperanza de expandir su movimiento al resto del continente, enajenado como estaba por el fantasma de la guerra fr?a y por preponderancia de los sectores econ?micos enfeudados al imperialismo. Este dilema no pod?a ser solucionado a trav?s de la alianza con la Uni?n Sovi?tica, que propend?a justamente a mantener todos los movimientos antiimperialistas dentro de una ?rbita que no interfiriese los intereses de la pol?tica exterior rusa. Esa alianza, sin embargo, era indispensable si se quer?a que el r?gimen se encontrara relativamente al reparo de la amenaza norteamericana y contara con los recursos energ?ticos e industriales necesarios para desarrollar en su propio suelo una experiencia de rescate y superaci?n sociales como la que efectivamente ha tenido lugar a lo largo de estas cinco d?cadas, tanto en el campo de la salud como en el de la educaci?n. La necesidad de encontrar las formas de superar este dilema condicion? la experiencia cubana. Tanto Fidel Castro como el Che Guevara nutr?an la esperanza de una revoluci?n iberoamericana que rescatar?a a Cuba de su aislamiento, de la misma manera en que Lenin, Trotsky y los bolcheviques esperaban que Rusia fuera rescatada de su atraso a trav?s de la expansi?n de la revoluci?n de Octubre a Alemania primero, y a los otros pa?ses de Europa despu?s. Ambas expectativas no se cumplieron, aunque hay que convenir que, en el caso cubano, a un costo mucho menor, tanto por las dimensiones del escenario donde la experiencia se llev? a cabo, como por una moderaci?n inducida por la naturaleza en ?ltima instancia abierta de estas sociedades, cuya elasticidad y tumulto han servido para preservarlas en buena medida de la sombr?a ejecutoria de los procesos revolucionarios verificados en potencias informadas por un pasado de opresi?n feudal o bien totalitaria. Como quiera que sea, la comprensi?n de los l?deres del proceso cubano de la necesidad de escapar al encerramiento insular haciendo contacto con la tierra firme del continente, dio prueba de su intrepidez revolucionaria, as? como de su comprensi?n de su propia revoluci?n como parte constitutiva de la revoluci?n iberoamericana. Esta inteligencia estrat?gica, sin embargo, no encontr?, en los a?os de auge del proceso revolucionario, una correspondencia t?ctica que permitiese aplicar en el terreno de los hechos esa creencia. El Che fue el exponente m?s definido tanto de esa comprensi?n estrat?gica como de ese fracaso t?ctico. Este ?ltimo marc?, a un elevado coste, un l?mite al per?odo heroico de esa experiencia. La b?squeda de una salida al encierro que significaban el bloqueo norteamericano y el abrazo de oso de la URSS, llev? a la elucubraci?n de la __teor?a del foco__, con la que los dirigentes cubanos entendieron que pod?an llevar adelante su proyecto. Un escritor franc?s, Regis Debray, que se aproxim? a la isla muy en el talante del intelectual progresista que se compromete en causas ajenas porque no est? muy seguro de tener una propia, fue el encargado de difundir el proyecto. ?ste, sin embargo, nac?a no tanto de la mente de un progresista decidido a encontrar la imagen del ?buen revolucionario? en alg?n lugar para ?l ex?tico, sino de las necesidades objetivas de la experiencia cubana. El problema consist?a en que esas necesidades requer?an, m?s que del voluntarismo que impregnaba a sus dirigentes a partir del ?xito alcanzado en Sierra Maestra -?xito que, como hemos dicho, era en buena medida el resultado de un equ?voco monumental-, sino de pol?ticas capaces de penetrar en las capas medias y bajas de nuestras sociedades atendiendo a sus peculiaridades y a la experiencia proveniente del pasado. No se puede fabricar a una revoluci?n a partir de una f?rmula universal, no se puede reducir ?sta a un militarismo que, por su misma naturaleza, tiende a rechazar o a enfriar a los sectores populares, que perciben la inadecuaci?n de ese m?todo en sus propios pa?ses, si en estos ha florecido el capitalismo industrial, por deformado que su crecimiento haya sido. El cambio por la v?a b?lica s?lo es posible ?y no siempre- en el marco de una sociedad en descomposici?n, que requiera __org?nicamente__ ese tipo de renovaci?n quir?rgica. *La aventura Animado sobre todo por el Che, el experimento se puso en pr?ctica, sin embargo. Consist?a, en teor?a, en instalar un n?cleo guerrillero en alg?n lugar de dif?cil acceso para el ej?rcito regular y, a partir de all?, ir concitando la adhesi?n de la poblaci?n rural hambreada y humillada, sometida al pongaje y a los abusos de los terratenientes. El movimiento no pudo engranar en ning?n lado, fuera de Colombia, donde ya exist?a una guerrilla campesina de poderoso arraigo. Los resultados de la implementaci?n pr?ctica de esta teor?a fueron catastr?ficos. El Che Guevara, que condujo la primera tentativa de crear un foco insurreccional en Bolivia, cay? al poco tiempo abatido por los Rangers bolivianos, con asesor?a de la CIA; el cura Camilo Torres Restrepo, pionero de la teolog?a de la liberaci?n, muri? en Colombia en circunstancias similares y los restantes intentos de fomentar una guerrilla rural fueron reprimidos unos despu?s de otros. La elecci?n de Bolivia como primer objetivo por Ernesto Guevara, y la entrega de ?ste en la empresa, dieron prueba de su hero?smo y de su mirada estrat?gica, pero tambi?n de sus limitaciones como te?rico de la revoluci?n latinoamericana. Bolivia, en efecto, es una zona nuclear de la geopol?tica suramericana, pero? ?ven?a de cumplir su reforma agraria! Con todo lo parcial, timorata y tramposa que ?sta pueda haber sido, no hab?an pasado muchos a?os desde que el gobierno del Movimiento Nacional Revolucionario (MNR) la implementara despu?s de la ?pica sublevaci?n de 1952. Los campesinos no estaban en disposici?n al llamado guerrillero, por lo tanto, y a poco de andar el grupo termin? abandonado y acorralado en medio de la selva, hasta que se produjo el tr?gico desenlace. Muerto Guevara no muri? su teor?a y otros j?venes intentaron trasladar sus principios de las ?reas rurales a las urbanas, donde se puede aprovechar el anonimato de la gran ciudad, la mayor capacidad que en ella existe para disimularse y la probabilidad de acceder a fuentes de dinero, sea por v?a de los asaltos, de los secuestros extorsivos o de las donaciones de un n?mero m?s o menos importante de simpatizantes. Pero el resultado fue el mismo, con la diferencia de que el traslado del eje de la acci?n empeor? los costados m?s violentos de esta, haciendo m?s subrepticias y sangrientas tanto las operaciones de la guerrilla como la represi?n brutal que de ella efectuaron unas fuerzas armadas aut?ctonas, no necesariamente desprovistas de nervio, como en cambio suced?a en el caso de las ?guardias nacionales?, consumidas por la corrupci?n, que Estados Unidos hab?a montado en el Caribe. El ultraizquierdismo de esos n?cleos guerrilleros y sus alas pol?ticas, peg? bien en unas juventudes nutridas por el ejemplo del Mayo franc?s, una especie de sublevaci?n de corte an?rquico y l?dico de las juventudes metropolitanas, que al ser transferido a escenarios donde las relaciones sociales eran mucho m?s problem?ticas que en Europa, se desdobl? en un activismo de corte militar. Al intentar estos movimientos enancarse al ascenso popular que se estaba dando por esos a?os en varios pa?ses suramericanos (Argentina y Chile entre ellos), terminaron minando desde dentro a esas corrientes, al propiciar su divisi?n y suministrar a la reacci?n el pretexto que necesitaba para poner en pr?ctica un proyecto represivo que contaba con el aval del imperialismo y con una superioridad militar abrumadora, no contrabalanceada por un cuestionamiento social que abarcase a capas importantes de la poblaci?n. ?sta m?s bien tendi? a contemplar con indiferencia, pasmo o rechazo al accionar subversivo, abriendo paso as? a las t?cnicas demoledoras de la guerra sucia, necesarias para romper la ya bastante exigua capacidad de resistencia de estos pa?ses a la implantaci?n del capitalismo salvaje, atributo primario de la globalizaci?n neoliberal. La matanza fue generalizada e hicieron falta dos generaciones para que Am?rica latina empezase a intentar librarse de la morsa neoliberal. Hoy la etapa por la que se est? pasando registra diferencias notables respecto de las que primaban en los a?os ?60 y ?70, cuando el intento revolucionario patrocinado por Cuba se aventur? a buscar la Utop?a. El mundo bipolar se ha hundido y, para asombro de muchos, la implosi?n de la URSS no signific? el final de la revoluci?n cubana. M?s bien al contrario: tras el ?per?odo especial? de transici?n a las nuevas circunstancias, el r?gimen de Castro parece haberse reafirmado y, lo que es aun m?s importante, su mensaje parece haber calado profundamente en las masas latinoamericanas. El reclamo de igualdad social y la exigencia de soberan?a preexist?an a la revoluci?n cubana, desde luego, pero la formulaci?n original que le dio esta y el denuedo de sus jefes al ponerlos en pr?ctica son datos que no han ca?do en el vac?o. El escenario actual es complejo, el futuro esconde tantas oportunidades como emboscadas y no ser? Cuba la que ejerza ?ni pretenda ejercer- un rol dirigente en la marcha de los acontecimientos, pero la isla ya no est? sola: ha ingresado al grupo de R?o y de alguna manera es reconocida como precursora por varios gobiernos iberoamericanos. Su esp?ritu, despu?s de tantas batallas, ha escapado de la c?rcel insular y ha tocado la Tierra Firme. (www.enriquelacolla.com) From nmgoro at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 18:01:14 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:01:14 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] [Paul Woodward] Israel will lose its war against Hamas Message-ID: <4962AD5A.8050708@gmail.com> Courtesy of Bob Weiss, a Venezuelan friend [When I read this text, I was reminded of Corleone Jr. in Havanna, stating that the "revolutionaries" (that is, the "Castroite gang") might well win _because they did not fear death for their cause_.] WAR in CONTEXT ? USA ? Jabuary 5, 2008 EDITORIAL: Wars against ideas always fail By Paul Woodward, War in Context, January 5, 2009 Israel will lose its war against Hamas. How do I know? Because Hamas is a movement which even if it has highly destructible physical nodes is nevertheless tied together within a missile-proof conceptual space. The only things that bombs and bullets can destroy are human lives and property. That?s why the Israeli-American claim that this war is being fought against Hamas and not the people of Gaza is a shallow lie ? it is plainly evident that Gaza itself is under attack. The so-called ?terrorist infrastructure? also happens to be a governmental infrastructure. The effort to topple Hamas (an effort that the Israeli government in its duplicity and double-talk continues to deny it is making ? witness Shimon Peres claiming that Israel does not want to crush Hamas, merely teach it a lesson) is in serious jeopardy of making Gaza completely ungovernable. Once this is over, will the residents of Sderot be able to slumber peacefully knowing that they live on the doorstep of anarchy? And when Hamas has finished counting its dead, will those in its ranks who until recently were voices of pragmatism, favoring political engagement, be capable of or even willing to try and make themselves heard? Israel?s drive to annihilate its enemies is borne out of a seemingly irrepressible arrogance. Yet ultimately nothing gets destroyed ? it merely goes through a process of transformation. The question Israelis should now be asking themselves is this: What are we helping Hamas become? Israel demands that Hamas recognize the Jewish state?s right to exist. It is a farcical demand. Someone has you pinned to the ground, is pressing the barrel of a gun against your head and says to you: ?I?ll talk to you, but only if you recognize my right to exist.? At this moment, who is challenging whose right to exist? Israel presents an existential threat to Hamas ? not the other way around. It?s plain for the world to see. However, the difference between Israel and Hamas is that Hamas does not fear its annihilation. That has nothing to do with glorifying ?martyrdom?; it?s because the movement is much more durable than its constituent parts. From pieinsky at igc.org Mon Jan 5 17:03:08 2009 From: pieinsky at igc.org (Jay Moore) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:03:08 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Dr. Doom's Latest Missive Message-ID: <49629FBC.4080309@igc.org> Nouriel Roubini Says Worst Still Is Ahead of Us: Year in Review Commentary by Nouriel Roubini Jan. 1 (Bloomberg) -- The global financial system in 2008 experienced its worst crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Major financial institutions went bust. Others were bought up on the cheap or survived only after major bailouts. Global stock markets fell by more than 50 percent from their 2007 peaks. Interest-rate spreads spiked. A severe liquidity and credit crunch appeared. Many emerging-market economies on the verge of a crisis had to ask for help from the International Monetary Fund. The global financial system literally went into a cardiac arrest after the Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. collapse and a meltdown was barely avoided through very aggressive policy responses. So what lies ahead in 2009? Is the worst behind us or ahead of us? Unfortunately, the worst is ahead of us. The entire global economy will contract in a severe and protracted U-shaped global recession that started a year ago. The U.S. will certainly experience its worst recession in decades, a deep and protracted contraction lasting at least through the end of 2009. Even in 2010 the economic recovery may be so weak -- 1 percent growth or so -- that it will feel terrible even if the recession is technically over. Recession Spreads There also will be recessions in the euro zone, the U.K., continental Europe, Canada, Japan and the other advanced economies. A hard landing for emerging-market economies may also be at hand. Among the so-called BRICs, Russia will be in an outright recession in 2009. Growth in China will slow to 5 percent or less, representing a hard landing for a country that needs expansion of close to 10 percent to move 10 million to 15 million poor rural farmers into the urban industrial sector every year. Brazil will barely grow in 2009. Even India will experience a sharp slowdown. Most other emerging market economies will suffer a similar hard landing. This severe global recession will morph into a stag-deflation, a deadly combination of economic stagnation/recession and deflation. In the advanced economies, with aggregate demand falling below growing aggregate supply, slack in goods markets will lead to deflationary pressures as companies? pricing power is restrained. Likewise, rising unemployment will constrain labor costs and wage growth. These factors, combined with sharply falling commodity prices, will cause inflation in advanced economies to ease toward negative territory, raising concerns about deflation. Danger of Deflation Deflation is dangerous as it leads to a liquidity trap : nominal policy rates can?t fall below zero, so monetary policy becomes ineffective and even quantitative easing may not work. Falling prices mean that the real cost of capital is high and the real value of nominal debts rise. This leads to further declines in consumption and investment, thus setting in motion a vicious circle in which incomes and jobs are squeezed, aggravating the fall in demand and prices. As traditional monetary policy becomes ineffective, other unorthodox policies will continue to be used: policies to bail out investors, financial institutions, and borrowers; massive provision of liquidity to banks in order to ease the credit crunch; and even more radical actions to reduce long-term interest rates on government bonds and narrow the spread between market rates and government bonds. Triggering Event Today?s global crisis was triggered by the collapse of the U.S. housing bubble , but it wasn?t caused only by it. America?s credit excesses were in residential mortgages, commercial mortgages, credit cards, auto loans and student loans. There were also massive excesses in the securitized products that converted these debts into toxic financial derivatives; in borrowing by local governments; in financing for leveraged buyouts that should never have occurred; in corporate bonds that will suffer massive losses as defaults surge; in the dangerous and unregulated credit default swap market. Moreover, these pathologies weren?t confined to the U.S. There were housing bubbles in many other countries, fueled by excessive and cheap lending that didn?t reflect underlying risks. There was a commodities bubble and private-equity and hedge-funds bubbles. Shadow Banks We now are seeing the demise of the shadow banking system, the complex of non-bank financial institutions that looked like banks as they borrowed short term and in liquid ways, leveraged a lot, and invested in longer term and illiquid ways. As a result, the biggest asset and credit bubble in financial history is going bust, with overall credit losses likely to be more than $2 trillion. Unless governments rapidly recapitalize financial institutions, the credit crunch will become even more severe as losses mount faster than recapitalization and banks are forced to constrain credit and lending. Equity prices and other risky assets have plunged from their peaks of late 2007, but there are still significant risks for more declines. An emerging consensus argues that the prices of many risky assets -- including equities -- have fallen so much that we are at the bottom and a rapid recovery will occur. But in the next few months the macroeconomic news, the earnings and profits reports, and the financial sector news from around the world will be worse than expected. This will put more pressure on prices of risky assets, with a chance of a 20 percent fall in global equity prices. Meltdown Averted While the odds of a systemic financial meltdown have been reduced by the actions of the Group of Seven and other economies, severe vulnerabilities remain. The credit crunch will persist and spread beyond mortgages. Deleveraging will continue, as thousands of hedge funds -- many of which will go bust -- and other leveraged players are forced to sell assets into illiquid and distressed markets, thus causing price declines and driving more insolvent financial institutions out of business. Credit losses will mount as the recession deepens. And a few emerging-market economies will certainly enter a full-blown financial crisis. So 2009 will be a painful year of global recession and further financial stresses, losses and bankruptcies. Currently, the probability of an L-shaped, stag-deflation is now rising to a third, while the probability of a severe U-shaped recession is two-thirds. Only aggressive, coordinated and effective policy actions by advanced and emerging-market countries can ensure that the global economy starts to recover -- however slowly --in 2010, rather than entering a more protracted period of economic stagnation. (The opinions expressed by Mr. Roubini are his own.) To contact the writer of this columns: Nouriel Roubini at nroubini at stern.nyu.edu /Last Updated: January 1, 2009 00:01 EST/ From walterlx at earthlink.net Mon Jan 5 17:15:20 2009 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 19:15:20 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [Marxism] The historic dilemma of the Cuban Revolution Message-ID: <2124502.1231200920665.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> [Spanish] The historic dilemma of the Cuban Revolution Por Enrique Lacolla ............................................................................ I will try to get Enrique Lacolla?s essay translated later this week. Meanwhile, Monthly Review has also posted two outstanding essays on the broad sweep of the Cuban Revolution. The one by Cuban National Assembly President Recardo Alarcon is far too long to post here, and another by Diana Raby is also well worth study regarding the long sweep of the Cuban Revolution. For the moment I?d like also to share with you another article from Argentina, by Atilio Boron, which was translated to English today by Juventud Rebelde. ................................................. RICARDO ALARCON The Long March of the Cuban Revolution http://www.monthlyreview.org/090101alarcon.php DIANA RABY Why the Cuban Revolution Still Matters http://www.monthlyreview.org/090105raby.php ................................................ JUVENTUD REBELDE Cuba on the Front Line of History By: Atilio Bor?n Email: digital at jrebelde.cip.cu 2009-01-05 | 17:01:03 EST http://www.juventudrebelde.co.cu/columnists/ 2009-01-05/cuba-on-the-front-line-of-history/ It is an arduous task to sum up in just a few lines the meaning of something as special as the Cuban Revolution, something that old Hegel would not have hesitated for a single moment to describe as a ?universally historic? event. This was a revolution that destroyed deeply rooted myths and prejudices. It disproved the assumption that the revolution could never triumph on an island located only 90 miles from the US; that imperialism would never allow the existence of a socialist country in his very own backyard; that a revolution was inconceivable in an underdeveloped country, and ?to top it off? that a revolution could advance without the prominent role of a Marxist-Leninist party leading the uprising of the people. All these predictions, and so many others that would make too long a list, were refuted by the triumph of the July 26th Movement and the consolidation and heroic survival of the Cuban Revolution. In actual fact, to resist a half a century of an economic blockade unprecedented in the history of the humankind has been ?and still is? a heroic deed. Such a blockade is condemned year after year by almost all the UN member countries, with the exception of the US and a couple of unworthy ?client-states.? Let?s just think what would happen in Argentina (or any other country) if it faced a one year blockade that would drastically limit both the import of essential goods and the bandwidth of the nation?s Internet capacity. Argentina would disintegrate due to the social commotion and general crisis of suffering and privations that a blockade creates. This is why those who do not wish to speak of the US imperialism and its ongoing policy of blockading Cuba should refrain from criticizing the island?s revolution. It is quite important to highlight that ?both on the island and abroad? there are many critics who highlight the unresolved issues of the Cuban Revolution without mentioning the destabilizing influence of US policies. It is true that there is much work still left to be done in Cuba; but how can one explain its mistakes without taking into account a half a century blockade whose costs, according to conservative estimates, adds up to around $93 billion ? a number twice the Cuban GDP. Any critic of Cuba?s politics, economy or society who does not start by analyzing the blockade and its devastating impact can be considered objectively reactionary ? perhaps involuntarily, but doesn?t matter. It would be the same as criticizing those Jews who fought bravely defending the Warsaw Ghetto for not having been able to resist the Nazis military machinery; or explaining their mass annihilation as being the result of the inner dynamics of the ghetto while ignoring completely the wider context that made it possible for the Nazis to defeat them. To the restrictions inherent in the blockade, we would have to add the humiliating servility of almost all of the countries in the region, with the honorable exception of Mexico. Pressured by the United States, these countries broke diplomatic relations with Cuba in 1962, worsening the already harsh effects of the blockade of the island. Nonetheless, after 50 years, the Cuban Revolution continues to advance firmly, heading lists of accomplishments over a wide range of social development indicators. This is something that is usually taken for granted, but is important to point out, since such accomplishments were achieved under the incessant hostility of the United States, and having to deal with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON). Other countries in the Americas, usually praised by the US media and its spokespeople in the political arena, register lower social development rates ?sometimes embarrassingly lower? than those of Cuba, even though they have enjoyed the financial and political support of the White House throughout the last 50 years. There is one indicator that eloquently speaks of this situation: Cuba?s infant mortality rate. This clearly situates the nation ahead of all countries in the Americas. Our rate of only 4.7 deaths per 1,000 live births is similar to Canada?s (5), and overtakes the United States? (7), not to mention countries like Argentina, Brazil, or Mexico, whose rates are three or four times higher than Cuba?s. The 50th anniversary of the Revolution sets new challenges. These have been brought on by: (a) major changes experienced by the world economy, which evidences the obsolete nature of the ultra-centralized old model of planning; (b) the growing belligerency on the part of US imperialism, which day after day has to deal with renewed resistance movements the world over, especially after the global economic crisis that exploded a few months ago; and (c) the necessity of renewing the revolutionary movement and, above all, passing it on to the next generation. These challenges need to be addressed with creative solutions, but, as Fidel Castro himself said, this does not mean that we are going to commit the historic mistake of believing that ?socialism can be built with capitalist methods.? In other words, the indispensable reform that Cuba needs cannot take us back to reintroducing capitalist modes of production to manage our economy, as China and Vietnam did. Once again in the avant-garde of history, as occurred in the mid 20th century, Cuba will have to advance along a narrow path, keeping control of economic plans overseen by the state. At the same time, the country will have to adopt more flexible methods to plan, control, speed up and manage the implementation of projects ? otherwise, social inequality will increase, and the resulting corruption and demoralization will ultimately contribute to irreparably weakening the revolutionary movement, facilitating the plans of imperialist reaction. That was Fidel?s message in his speech at the University of Havana in 2005. That is why Cuba marches in the avant-garde of history, conducting an unprecedented experiment: the reform of socialism through strengthening socialism. As before, Cuba breaks with all the manuals and with conventional theories. We are confident that once again success will crown its boldness. One final reflection: just imagine what would have happened in Latin America if the Cuban Revolution had succumbed to acts of aggression by imperialism or because of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The answer is clear and overwhelming: in such a hypothetical case, our history would have been radically different. Without the emancipating fire heroically preserved by Cuba for half a century, the peoples of the Americas would have had difficultly finding the inspiration and audacity to resist the renewed oppression of which they were the object; nor would they have been able to rebel against the empire and its local lieutenants. Cuba was a vibrant example that set afire the prairies of Latin America in the 1960?s, which fed the huge demonstrations that impelled the ascent of Popular Unity in Chile and H?ctor C?mpora?s victory in Argentina. It was Cuba?s example that opened the way for Juan Velasco Alvarado?s radical turn in Peru and for the setting-up of the Popular Assembly and Juan Jos? Torres' government in Bolivia. The firm rejection that Cuba gave to fatalism and immobility nurtured Colonel Francisco Caama?o De???s constitutionalist insurgency in the Dominican Republic, which outraged the US invader. It was the unshakable loyalty and solidarity of Cuba with all peoples in struggles that made possible the resistance to the cruelty of the dictatorships that razed the region in the 70s and assured the victory of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. It was Cuba, along with South Africa?s sacrifice of its children, which prompted the defeat apartheid and the guarantee of independence in Angola. It was the unshakable strength of Cuba that transformed it into a forced obligation when, by the middle of the 80?s, the continent again took up the sharp and still un-concluded path of ?democratic transition? burdened by the weight of a foreign debt that already in 1985 was defined in Havana as ?irretrievable and un-payable.? This was an example that acquired gigantic dimensions when the island demonstrated its ability to resist the collapse of those countries incorrectly described as pursuing ?true socialism,? which were in fact discarded for not being socialist at all. In those terrible times, the island resisted the pressures and the siren songs of the agents of imperialism and its publicists (among whom stood out the number one lobbyist dedicated to the Spanish transnationals: Felipe Gonz?lez) who recommended that Havana ?return to its good sense? and to forget the revolution. It re-emerged victorious, like a phoenix amid the debacle of the Soviet Union and COMECON, to encourage the peoples of the whole world to say ?Enough!? It is in this context, with the indelible mark of Cuban resistance as one of its signs of identity, that the Bolivarian Revolution and the exceptional figure of Hugo Ch?vez have entered, while more to the south has emerged the Civic Revolution of Rafael Correa, and in the Bolivia of Che leads an extraordinary former farmer workers head, Evo Morales, who was elected president of a people after a recovery that was overdue for more than five centuries. There are also other processes occurring in Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and, generally, in almost all our territory. In each case they have different external characteristics but invariably ?at least in the spirit of the peoples? there is an expression of an uncompromising rejection of imperialism, capitalism and the neo-liberal policies that were rarely before reflected in the policies of those governments. All of this would not have been possible if Cuba had been defeated in the Bay of Pigs, or if its men and women had defected, abandoning their ideals, drowning the torch that they held on high for half a century with so much effort and dignity. For that reason there is immense debt to the Cuban Revolution by Latin American peoples ? and also to a great measure those of Sub-Saharan Africa. This was a revolution whose internationalism gave support to all the movements of national liberation in Latin America and the Caribbean, to all the governments that sincerely intended to change the old and unjust structures of our societies and to defeat the fascist South Africans supported by those ?western democracies? under the guidance of the United States. And as if all this were not enough, today Cuba is flooding the Third World with doctors, nurses, teachers, sports instructors; it is a revolution that sows education, health and life, against an empire and its allies which sow ignorance, destruction and death. For that reason, and for so many others that make it impossible to name, our eternal gratitude goes to the Cuban people and their government, to Fidel and Ra?l, and earlier to Che, to Camilo, to Hayd?e, and so many other anonymous Cuban heroes who ?with their daily struggle and iron tenacity? made possible the survival of the Revolution and the rebirth of the prospects of socialism in Latin America. (Taken from Rebeli?n) ========================================= WALTER LIPPMANN Havana, Cuba Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/ "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo" ========================================= From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 17:24:06 2009 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:24:06 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Gaza: What is happening? In-Reply-To: <49624DF7.9070701@igc.org> References: <49624DF7.9070701@igc.org> Message-ID: Thanks Jay: Report on organizing meeting. Last nite I attended an organising meeting for Saturday's rally. It was very large, hearteningly so, and thus a sign that disgust and anger at Israel is spreading even among Australians - the most "moderate" people on this planet. [Note to subscribers to call someone a "moderate" is an Irish insult]. It has been a long time since I attended such a meeting. I had quite forgotten what the Left are like. Or maybe that should read I had repressed the memory of what the Left are like. One third of the meeting was Arab and they took a leading role in the organising. They also represented the voice of sanity. Much of the other comrades seemed in thrall to the curse of Zinovievism. This particular disease means that when one is confronted by a duality of possibilities one will always choose the wrong one. Thus of the dangers of "isolation" or "co-option by reformists" the true Zinovievist is always terrified of co-option. This fear emerged in the debate on whether to inivite a Federal Labor MP to speak. I won't name him at this stage, as he would come under intense pressure not to attend Saturday's demo. Many in the meeting, and of course it was the organized Left in the main, were opposed to allowing him to speak. I spoke for his inclusion and in truth we will be very lucky if he comes. Above all what the Israelis want is our isolation for it mirrors the isolation of the Palestinians and allows them more space to continue their slaughter. So if we can get a Labor MP to speak on a platform at the rally that will annoy the Zionists more than anything and they will be watching. Eventually the meeting resolved to ask the MP to speak with the proviso that no one on the official patform use it to condemn Hamas. I agree totally with that caveat. Of course I have criticisms of Hamas, but at the time of their killing I will not voice such criticisms. So we are having a series of vigils and speakout in the City Mall leading up to Saturday's rally. I am very hopeful that these will build the rally and that it will be very big which in the context of Brisbane would mean about 2000. comradely Gary On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Jay Moore wrote: > For more news, try doing an Arabic-to-English translation in > translate.google.com of this URL: www.islammemo.cc. The results are not > half-bad. The Al Jazeera English Web site also has a Twitter page. > Here in Vermont, there have been several vigils in support of the > Palestinians, with some anti-Zionist Jews taking the lead. > > jay > > Gary MacLennan wrote: > > I don't know if Joaquin and Fred have any thoughts about what is > happening > > and what is likely to happen in Gaza, but it would be great if they could > > post on this. I have been monitoring the tv, Haaretz, Debka.com, Al > Jazeera > > and the Palestinian and Hizbollah sites. There appears to be no > agreement > > between Israeli and Palestinian accounts of the fighting except around > the > > question of the number of Palestinians killed. The Palestinian side is > > claiming successes with regard to 2 Israeli soldiers captured, tanks > > destroyed, helicopter down and Israeli army casualties. The Israelis are > > admitting only one death and about 30 injuries. > > > > In terms of the PR offensive that Israel launched to garner support for > > their actions, this has to be regarded as a failure. The Palestinians > have > > won clearly and decisively the PR battle. There have been massive > > mobilisations around the world and that surely must be a concern to the > > Zionists. > > As I have said repeatedly, the crucial arena for the hearts & minds is > that > > of the Arab world. Here the Palestinians seem to be doing well at least > at > > the street level. But Mubarak and the Kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia > > still cling on. > > > > As for the military situation my own best guess is that the Israelis will > > continue the killing principally thru bombing and artillery for the short > to > > medium term. They seem reluctant to commit ground troops for they may be > in > > a cleft here. If they do not do battle on the ground they boost Arab > morale > > enormously. If they do engage in street battles then they must win > > decisively. They cannot afford another defeat such as they experienced > in > > Lebanon. > > > > I am going to an organizing meeting tonite to plan next week's rally & > march > > and other action to build up support for Palesine. The Islamic daspora > is > > being galvanised by the suffering of the people of Gaza, but publicly > > Australia remains a loyal US & Israeli ally. It would be good to make a > dint > > in that. > > > > regards > > > > Gary > > ________________________________________________ > > 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/pieinsky%40igc.org > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > 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/gary.maclennan1%40gmail.com > From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 17:33:51 2009 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:33:51 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Strong statement by ... surprise ... Queen Rania of Jordan about Israeli assault on Gaza In-Reply-To: <49629FCD.5090703@gmail.com> References: <002-156c6249-24884.842@t-online.de> <49629FCD.5090703@gmail.com> Message-ID: My good comrade Nestor wrote: > That Queen Rania of all people sees herself forced to assume such a > position speaks on the level of outraged mobilisation that pervades the > popular classes in the Arab world. > My comment: Yes indeed Nestor you are right on the money as the Americans say. Isn't it amazing though how the absolute ruler is always absolutely afraid of those he rules. Only someone like Robert Fisk, who knows not dialectics, could fail to see this. Indeed "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown...."; but not for the reasons that the propagandist Shakespeare would have us believe. comradely regards Gary From nmgoro at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 18:54:32 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:54:32 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] The historic dilemma of the Cuban Revolution In-Reply-To: <2124502.1231200920665.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <2124502.1231200920665.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4962B9D8.4010204@gmail.com> Yes, Walter, I have read Bor?n?s essay already. It is essentially a heartfelt encomium of the Cuban Revolution. What the essay by Lacolla cointains, however, is an appraisal of both the heroicity and the limits of carrying on a socialist revolution in a small splinter of a great still unconstituted nation, less than 100 miles away from Leviathan. It is a "no tears" approach, a fine piece of political thinking. Best. Walter Lippmann escribi?: > [Spanish] The historic dilemma of the Cuban Revolution > Por Enrique Lacolla > ............................................................................ > > I will try to get Enrique Lacolla?s essay translated later this week. > > Meanwhile, Monthly Review has also posted two outstanding essays on > the broad sweep of the Cuban Revolution. The one by Cuban National > Assembly President Recardo Alarcon is far too long to post here, From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 17:56:40 2009 From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 19:56:40 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Alain Badiou interview, Zizek article, in upcoming issue of Critical Inquiry Message-ID: <908b689f0901051656x1be9e285p3c1bc19af991b2c6@mail.gmail.com> Slavoj Zizek, "Tolerance" and An interview with Alain Badiou [Badiou was trained formally as a philosopher as a student at the ?cole Normale Sup?rieure (ENS) from 1956 to 1961, a period during which he took courses at the Sorbonne. He had a lively and constant interest in mathematics. He was politically active very early on, and was one of the founding members of the Unified Socialist Party (PSU). The PSU was particularly active in the struggle for the decolonization of Algeria. He wrote his first novel, Almagestes, in 1964. In 1967 he joined a study group organized by Louis Althusser and grew increasingly influenced by Jacques Lacan. The student uprisings of May 1968 reinforced Badiou's commitment to the far Left, and he participated in increasingly radical communist and Maoist groups, such as the UCFML. In 1969 he joined the faculty of University of Paris VIII (Vincennes-Saint Denis), which was a bastion of counter-cultural thought. There he engaged in fierce intellectual debates with fellow professors Gilles Deleuze and Jean-Fran?ois Lyotard, whose philosophical works he considered unhealthy deviations from the Althusserian program of a scientific Marxism. He took up his current position at the ENS in 1999. He is also associated with a number of other institutions, such as the Coll?ge International de Philosophie. He is now a member of "L'Organisation Politique" which he founded with some comrades from the Maoist UCFML in 1985.] From nmgoro at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 19:01:45 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:01:45 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] Angry at Gary McL. In-Reply-To: References: <002-156c6249-24884.842@t-online.de> <49629FCD.5090703@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4962BB89.7030108@gmail.com> Gary MacLennan escribi?: > My good comrade Nestor wrote: > I strongly protest!!! Where did you leave the "honorary Irishman", Gary??? :-) From walterlx at earthlink.net Mon Jan 5 18:07:24 2009 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 20:07:24 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [Marxism] The historic dilemma of the Cuban Revolution Message-ID: <1855075.1231204044897.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Probably we don?t disagree about this. Cuba is doing about as much as anyone would have any right to expect a small underdeveloped country to do in its circumstances. Marti said ?Patria es humanidad? and advocated Latin Americana unity as part of a broader strategy to prevent US domination of the continent. That was the meaning of Marti?s final letter to Manuel Mercado. Anyway, we can talk about this at greater length when I get Lacolla?s essay translated. Walter Marti?s Letter to Manuel Mercado http://www.walterlippmann.com/marti-mercado-1895.html ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? NESTOR GOROJOVSKY writes What the essay by Lacolla cointains, however, is an appraisal of both the heroicity and the limits of carrying on a socialist revolution in a small splinter of a great still unconstituted nation, less than 100 miles away from Leviathan. It is a "no tears" approach, a fine piece of political thinking. Best. ========================================= WALTER LIPPMANN Havana, Cuba Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/ "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo" ========================================= From lnp3 at panix.com Mon Jan 5 18:08:00 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:08:00 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] From the LCR to the NPA Message-ID: <4962AEF0.1070205@panix.com> There?s a development taking place in France that has enormous implications for a new left. The Revolutionary Communist League (LCR) has announced that it is dissolving itself into a new formation, the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA). Twelve LCR leaders, including 1960s veterans Daniel Bensaid, Alain Krivine, and Pierre Rousset, have announced the LCR?s intention on International Viewpoint, an official publication of the Fourth International long associated with the late Ernest Mandel: The NPA will be clearly defined politically. Its preliminary documents set out some unmistakable terms: class struggle and support for all the struggles of the exploited and oppressed; unity in action of workers and their organizations; a break with the capitalist system; an eco-socialist project; opposition to any policy of managing the capitalist economy and the central executive powers of capitalist institutions; the struggle for a workers? government; the revolutionary transformation of society; socialist democracy; and an internationalist program and practice. To be sure, a number of questions will remain open: the nature of revolutions in the 21st century; problems of the transition to socialism; and a whole range of other questions having to do with the reformulation of the socialist and communist project. But we are not beginning from scratch; and the NPA will collectively determine its own positions on the basis of new common experiences. In other words, unlike practically every ?Leninist? formation, the NPA does not expect its members to defend a particular analysis of ?the Russian question?. In this respect, it has something in common with Solidarity, a U.S. group that is made up of people who rejected a mechanical ?Bolshevik? approach at the time of their founding and are happy to accept multiple interpretations of what the LCR called ?problems of transition to socialism?. Their founding document states: Theoretically, some of us view these states as post-capitalist societies whose transition toward socialism is blocked by bureaucratic ruling castes and the pressures of imperialism. Others of us regard the bureaucracies as ruling classes, exploiting the working class in a new way, in a social formation which is a rival to capitalism but is no less reactionary. Others of us regard them as essentially a new form of capitalism itself, state capitalism; while still others do not have a firmly held theory or regard all existing theoretical explanations as inadequate. We are determined that these differences will not prevent us from extending active solidarity to workers? struggles in Eastern Europe, nor from building a common socialist organization here in the U.S. For an interesting discussion of the LCR/NPA evolution, you can read Jim Jepps?s interview with John Mullen, an activist in a small group in France that agrees with Tony Cliff?s state capitalist analysis but has no formal connection to the world movement he founded. Mullen, who has joined the NPA, describes the kind of political diversity that will be found there: The only big organization involved is the (soon to be ex-) LCR. And a few thousand individuals, quite a few of them well known local or even national leaders of the non-party radical Left, which has been quite big here for a number of years. Inside the NPA, some activists want to draw the lines of the party fairly narrow, to be absolutely sure not to include people who are too quick to ally in local or regional government with the Socialist Party and their acceptance of neo-liberalism. Others would like to make the party considerably broader, because they are worried that people who put mass movements and strikes at the centre of their politics, and are firmly opposed to the dictatorship of profit, will be kept out of the party if the lines are drawn too narrowly. Discussions continue on this. But the present name of the party ?anti-capitalist? represents the compromise position at present. We want people who are opposed to capitalism, who generally believe that capitalism cannot be durably given a human face. This means that inside the party you have people close to anarchism, close to radical green politics, close to Guevara?s ideas etc etc. The debates are very interesting every time each current avoids simply affirming its identity and makes sure the questions are looked at in depth. Although Mullen is encouraged by this development, he does not quite get what it is about: To emphasize that the aim of the LCR is not to control the NPA, the LCR is officially dissolving itself just before the foundation of the NPA, and there is no plan to maintain an LCR current inside the NPA. I think it likely that the different currents there were in the LCR will end up setting up three or four currents in the NPA, which seems fine to me. As Socialisme International, our tiny group of comrades, along with a couple of dozen others will certainly set up openly a current based on IS ideas (close to SWP theories). Here?s a safe prediction. Mullen?s ?tiny group of comrades? will likely remain tiny. full: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/from-the-lcr-to-the-npa/ From walterlx at earthlink.net Mon Jan 5 18:15:19 2009 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 20:15:19 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [Marxism] The End of the Financial World as We Know It Message-ID: <27699616.1231204519654.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> (I like the idea of breaking up any institution which becomes ?too big to fail?. It SEEMS that the people of the United States are getting something in the way of an education about capitalism in a way they never have before, but whether or not that education will translate itself into another political direction for the country, that remains to be seen.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE NEW YORK TIMES January 4, 2009 Op-Ed Contributors The End of the Financial World as We Know It By MICHAEL LEWIS and DAVID EINHORN http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/opinion/04lewiseinhorn.html AMERICANS enter the New Year in a strange new role: financial lunatics. We?ve been viewed by the wider world with mistrust and suspicion on other matters, but on the subject of money even our harshest critics have been inclined to believe that we knew what we were doing. They watched our investment bankers and emulated them: for a long time now half the planet?s college graduates seemed to want nothing more out of life than a job on Wall Street. This is one reason the collapse of our financial system has inspired not merely a national but a global crisis of confidence. Good God, the world seems to be saying, if they don?t know what they are doing with money, who does? Incredibly, intelligent people the world over remain willing to lend us money and even listen to our advice; they appear not to have realized the full extent of our madness. We have at least a brief chance to cure ourselves. But first we need to ask: of what? To that end consider the strange story of Harry Markopolos. Mr. Markopolos is the former investment officer with Rampart Investment Management in Boston who, for nine years, tried to explain to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Bernard L. Madoff couldn?t be anything other than a fraud. Mr. Madoff?s investment performance, given his stated strategy, was not merely improbable but mathematically impossible. And so, Mr. Markopolos reasoned, Bernard Madoff must be doing something other than what he said he was doing. In his devastatingly persuasive 17-page letter to the S.E.C., Mr. Markopolos saw two possible scenarios. In the ?Unlikely? scenario: Mr. Madoff, who acted as a broker as well as an investor, was ?front-running? his brokerage customers. A customer might submit an order to Madoff Securities to buy shares in I.B.M. at a certain price, for example, and Madoff Securities instantly would buy I.B.M. shares for its own portfolio ahead of the customer order. If I.B.M.?s shares rose, Mr. Madoff kept them; if they fell he fobbed them off onto the poor customer. In the ?Highly Likely? scenario, wrote Mr. Markopolos, ?Madoff Securities is the world?s largest Ponzi Scheme.? Which, as we now know, it was. Harry Markopolos sent his report to the S.E.C. on Nov. 7, 2005 ? more than three years before Mr. Madoff was finally exposed ? but he had been trying to explain the fraud to them since 1999. He had no direct financial interest in exposing Mr. Madoff ? he wasn?t an unhappy investor or a disgruntled employee. There was no way to short shares in Madoff Securities, and so Mr. Markopolos could not have made money directly from Mr. Madoff?s failure. To judge from his letter, Harry Markopolos anticipated mainly downsides for himself: he declined to put his name on it for fear of what might happen to him and his family if anyone found out he had written it. And yet the S.E.C.?s cursory investigation of Mr. Madoff pronounced him free of fraud. What?s interesting about the Madoff scandal, in retrospect, is how little interest anyone inside the financial system had in exposing it. It wasn?t just Harry Markopolos who smelled a rat. As Mr. Markopolos explained in his letter, Goldman Sachs was refusing to do business with Mr. Madoff; many others doubted Mr. Madoff?s profits or assumed he was front-running his customers and steered clear of him. Between the lines, Mr. Markopolos hinted that even some of Mr. Madoff?s investors may have suspected that they were the beneficiaries of a scam. After all, it wasn?t all that hard to see that the profits were too good to be true. Some of Mr. Madoff?s investors may have reasoned that the worst that could happen to them, if the authorities put a stop to the front-running, was that a good thing would come to an end. The Madoff scandal echoes a deeper absence inside our financial system, which has been undermined not merely by bad behavior but by the lack of checks and balances to discourage it. ?Greed? doesn?t cut it as a satisfying explanation for the current financial crisis. Greed was necessary but insufficient; in any case, we are as likely to eliminate greed from our national character as we are lust and envy. The fixable problem isn?t the greed of the few but the misaligned interests of the many. A lot has been said and written, for instance, about the corrupting effects on Wall Street of gigantic bonuses. What happened inside the major Wall Street firms, though, was more deeply unsettling than greedy people lusting for big checks: leaders of public corporations, especially financial corporations, are as good as required to lead for the short term. Richard Fuld, the former chief executive of Lehman Brothers, E. Stanley O?Neal, the former chief executive of Merrill Lynch, and Charles O. Prince III, Citigroup?s chief executive, may have paid themselves humongous sums of money at the end of each year, as a result of the bond market bonanza. But if any one of them had set himself up as a whistleblower ? had stood up and said ?this business is irresponsible and we are not going to participate in it? ? he would probably have been fired. Not immediately, perhaps. But a few quarters of earnings that lagged behind those of every other Wall Street firm would invite outrage from subordinates, who would flee for other, less responsible firms, and from shareholders, who would call for his resignation. Eventually he?d be replaced by someone willing to make money from the credit bubble. OUR financial catastrophe, like Bernard Madoff?s pyramid scheme, required all sorts of important, plugged-in people to sacrifice our collective long-term interests for short-term gain. The pressure to do this in today?s financial markets is immense. Obviously the greater the market pressure to excel in the short term, the greater the need for pressure from outside the market to consider the longer term. But that?s the problem: there is no longer any serious pressure from outside the market. The tyranny of the short term has extended itself with frightening ease into the entities that were meant to, one way or another, discipline Wall Street, and force it to consider its enlightened self-interest. The credit-rating agencies, for instance. Everyone now knows that Moody?s and Standard & Poor?s botched their analyses of bonds backed by home mortgages. But their most costly mistake ? one that deserves a lot more attention than it has received ? lies in their area of putative expertise: measuring corporate risk. Over the last 20 years American financial institutions have taken on more and more risk, with the blessing of regulators, with hardly a word from the rating agencies, which, incidentally, are paid by the issuers of the bonds they rate. Seldom if ever did Moody?s or Standard & Poor?s say, ?If you put one more risky asset on your balance sheet, you will face a serious downgrade.? The American International Group, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, General Electric and the municipal bond guarantors Ambac Financial and MBIA all had triple-A ratings. (G.E. still does!) Large investment banks like Lehman and Merrill Lynch all had solid investment grade ratings. It?s almost as if the higher the rating of a financial institution, the more likely it was to contribute to financial catastrophe. But of course all these big financial companies fueled the creation of the credit products that in turn fueled the revenues of Moody?s and Standard & Poor?s. These oligopolies, which are actually sanctioned by the S.E.C., didn?t merely do their jobs badly. They didn?t simply miss a few calls here and there. In pursuit of their own short-term earnings, they did exactly the opposite of what they were meant to do: rather than expose financial risk they systematically disguised it. This is a subject that might be profitably explored in Washington. There are many questions an enterprising United States senator might want to ask the credit-rating agencies. Here is one: Why did you allow MBIA to keep its triple-A rating for so long? In 1990 MBIA was in the relatively simple business of insuring municipal bonds. It had $931 million in equity and only $200 million of debt ? and a plausible triple-A rating. By 2006 MBIA had plunged into the much riskier business of guaranteeing collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.?s. But by then it had $7.2 billion in equity against an astounding $26.2 billion in debt. That is, even as it insured ever-greater risks in its business, it also took greater risks on its balance sheet. Yet the rating agencies didn?t so much as blink. On Wall Street the problem was hardly a secret: many people understood that MBIA didn?t deserve to be rated triple-A. As far back as 2002, a hedge fund called Gotham Partners published a persuasive report, widely circulated, entitled: ?Is MBIA Triple A?? (The answer was obviously no.) At the same time, almost everyone believed that the rating agencies would never downgrade MBIA, because doing so was not in their short-term financial interest. A downgrade of MBIA would force the rating agencies to go through the costly and cumbersome process of re-rating tens of thousands of credits that bore triple-A ratings simply by virtue of MBIA?s guarantee. It would stick a wrench in the machine that enriched them. (In June, finally, the rating agencies downgraded MBIA, after MBIA?s failure became such an open secret that nobody any longer cared about its formal credit rating.) The S.E.C. now promises modest new measures to contain the damage that the rating agencies can do ? measures that fail to address the central problem: that the raters are paid by the issuers. But this should come as no surprise, for the S.E.C. itself is plagued by similarly wacky incentives. Indeed, one of the great social benefits of the Madoff scandal may be to finally reveal the S.E.C. for what it has become. Created to protect investors from financial predators, the commission has somehow evolved into a mechanism for protecting financial predators with political clout from investors. (The task it has performed most diligently during this crisis has been to question, intimidate and impose rules on short-sellers ? the only market players who have a financial incentive to expose fraud and abuse.) The instinct to avoid short-term political heat is part of the problem; anything the S.E.C. does to roil the markets, or reduce the share price of any given company, also roils the careers of the people who run the S.E.C. Thus it seldom penalizes serious corporate and management malfeasance ? out of some misguided notion that to do so would cause stock prices to fall, shareholders to suffer and confidence to be undermined. Preserving confidence, even when that confidence is false, has been near the top of the S.E.C.?s agenda. IT?S not hard to see why the S.E.C. behaves as it does. If you work for the enforcement division of the S.E.C. you probably know in the back of your mind, and in the front too, that if you maintain good relations with Wall Street you might soon be paid huge sums of money to be employed by it. The commission?s most recent director of enforcement is the general counsel at JPMorgan Chase; the enforcement chief before him became general counsel at Deutsche Bank; and one of his predecessors became a managing director for Credit Suisse before moving on to Morgan Stanley. A casual observer could be forgiven for thinking that the whole point of landing the job as the S.E.C.?s director of enforcement is to position oneself for the better paying one on Wall Street. At the back of the version of Harry Markopolos?s brave paper currently making the rounds is a copy of an e-mail message, dated April 2, 2008, from Mr. Markopolos to Jonathan S. Sokobin. Mr. Sokobin was then the new head of the commission?s office of risk assessment, a job that had been vacant for more than a year after its previous occupant had left to ? you guessed it ? take a higher-paying job on Wall Street. At any rate, Mr. Markopolos clearly hoped that a new face might mean a new ear ? one that might be receptive to the truth. He phoned Mr. Sokobin and then sent him his paper. ?Attached is a submission I?ve made to the S.E.C. three times in Boston,? he wrote. ?Each time Boston sent this to New York. Meagan Cheung, branch chief, in New York actually investigated this but with no result that I am aware of. In my conversations with her, I did not believe that she had the derivatives or mathematical background to understand the violations.? How does this happen? How can the person in charge of assessing Wall Street firms not have the tools to understand them? Is the S.E.C. that inept? Perhaps, but the problem inside the commission is far worse ? because inept people can be replaced. The problem is systemic. The new director of risk assessment was no more likely to grasp the risk of Bernard Madoff than the old director of risk assessment because the new guy?s thoughts and beliefs were guided by the same incentives: the need to curry favor with the politically influential and the desire to keep sweet the Wall Street elite. And here?s the most incredible thing of all: 18 months into the most spectacular man-made financial calamity in modern experience, nothing has been done to change that, or any of the other bad incentives that led us here in the first place. SAY what you will about our government?s approach to the financial crisis, you cannot accuse it of wasting its energy being consistent or trying to win over the masses. In the past year there have been at least seven different bailouts, and six different strategies. And none of them seem to have pleased anyone except a handful of financiers. When Bear Stearns failed, the government induced JPMorgan Chase to buy it by offering a knockdown price and guaranteeing Bear Stearns?s shakiest assets. Bear Stearns bondholders were made whole and its stockholders lost most of their money. Then came the collapse of the government-sponsored entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both promptly nationalized. Management was replaced, shareholders badly diluted, creditors left intact but with some uncertainty. Next came Lehman Brothers, which was, of course, allowed to go bankrupt. At first, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve claimed they had allowed Lehman to fail in order to signal that recklessly managed Wall Street firms did not all come with government guarantees; but then, when chaos ensued, and people started saying that letting Lehman fail was a dumb thing to have done, they changed their story and claimed they lacked the legal authority to rescue the firm. But then a few days later A.I.G. failed, or tried to, yet was given the gift of life with enormous government loans. Washington Mutual and Wachovia promptly followed: the first was unceremoniously seized by the Treasury, wiping out both its creditors and shareholders; the second was batted around for a bit. Initially, the Treasury tried to persuade Citigroup to buy it ? again at a knockdown price and with a guarantee of the bad assets. (The Bear Stearns model.) Eventually, Wachovia went to Wells Fargo, after the Internal Revenue Service jumped in and sweetened the pot with a tax subsidy. In the middle of all this, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. persuaded Congress that he needed $700 billion to buy distressed assets from banks ? telling the senators and representatives that if they didn?t give him the money the stock market would collapse. Once handed the money, he abandoned his promised strategy, and instead of buying assets at market prices, began to overpay for preferred stocks in the banks themselves. Which is to say that he essentially began giving away billions of dollars to Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and a few others unnaturally selected for survival. The stock market fell anyway. It?s hard to know what Mr. Paulson was thinking as he never really had to explain himself, at least not in public. But the general idea appears to be that if you give the banks capital they will in turn use it to make loans in order to stimulate the economy. Never mind that if you want banks to make smart, prudent loans, you probably shouldn?t give money to bankers who sunk themselves by making a lot of stupid, imprudent ones. If you want banks to re-lend the money, you need to provide them not with preferred stock, which is essentially a loan, but with tangible common equity ? so that they might write off their losses, resolve their troubled assets and then begin to make new loans, something they won?t be able to do until they?re confident in their own balance sheets. But as it happened, the banks took the taxpayer money and just sat on it. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/opinion/04lewiseinhornb.html January 4, 2009 Op-Ed Contributors How to Repair a Broken Financial World By MICHAEL LEWIS and DAVID EINHORN Continued from "The End of the Financial World As We Know It" Mr. Paulson must have had some reason for doing what he did. No doubt he still believes that without all this frantic activity we?d be far worse off than we are now. All we know for sure, however, is that the Treasury?s heroic deal-making has had little effect on what it claims is the problem at hand: the collapse of confidence in the companies atop our financial system. Weeks after receiving its first $25 billion taxpayer investment, Citigroup returned to the Treasury to confess that ? lo! ? the markets still didn?t trust Citigroup to survive. In response, on Nov. 24, the Treasury handed Citigroup another $20 billion from the Troubled Assets Relief Program, and then simply guaranteed $306 billion of Citigroup?s assets. The Treasury didn?t ask for its fair share of the action, or management changes, or for that matter anything much at all beyond a teaspoon of warrants and a sliver of preferred stock. The $306 billion guarantee was an undisguised gift. The Treasury didn?t even bother to explain what the crisis was, just that the action was taken in response to Citigroup?s ?declining stock price.? Three hundred billion dollars is still a lot of money. It?s almost 2 percent of gross domestic product, and about what we spend annually on the departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development and Transportation combined. Had Mr. Paulson executed his initial plan, and bought Citigroup?s pile of troubled assets at market prices, there would have been a limit to our exposure, as the money would have counted against the $700 billion Mr. Paulson had been given to dispense. Instead, he in effect granted himself the power to dispense unlimited sums of money without Congressional oversight. Now we don?t even know the nature of the assets that the Treasury is standing behind. Under TARP, these would have been disclosed. THERE are other things the Treasury might do when a major financial firm assumed to be ?too big to fail? comes knocking, asking for free money. Here?s one: Let it fail. Not as chaotically as Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail. If a failing firm is deemed ?too big? for that honor, then it should be explicitly nationalized, both to limit its effect on other firms and to protect the guts of the system. Its shareholders should be wiped out, and its management replaced. Its valuable parts should be sold off as functioning businesses to the highest bidders ? perhaps to some bank that was not swept up in the credit bubble. The rest should be liquidated, in calm markets. Do this and, for everyone except the firms that invented the mess, the pain will likely subside. This is more plausible than it may sound. Sweden, of all places, did it successfully in 1992. And remember, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury have already accepted, on behalf of the taxpayer, just about all of the downside risk of owning the bigger financial firms. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve would both no doubt argue that if you don?t prop up these banks you risk an enormous credit contraction ? if they aren?t in business who will be left to lend money? But something like the reverse seems more true: propping up failed banks and extending them huge amounts of credit has made business more difficult for the people and companies that had nothing to do with creating the mess. Perfectly solvent companies are being squeezed out of business by their creditors precisely because they are not in the Treasury?s fold. With so much lending effectively federally guaranteed, lenders are fleeing anything that is not. Rather than tackle the source of the problem, the people running the bailout desperately want to reinflate the credit bubble, prop up the stock market and head off a recession. Their efforts are clearly failing: 2008 was a historically bad year for the stock market, and we?ll be in recession for some time to come. Our leaders have framed the problem as a ?crisis of confidence? but what they actually seem to mean is ?please pay no attention to the problems we are failing to address.? In its latest push to compel confidence, for instance, the authorities are placing enormous pressure on the Financial Accounting Standards Board to suspend ?mark-to-market? accounting. Basically, this means that the banks will not have to account for the actual value of the assets on their books but can claim instead that they are worth whatever they paid for them. This will have the double effect of reducing transparency and increasing self-delusion (gorge yourself for months, but refuse to step on a scale, and maybe no one will realize you gained weight). And it will fool no one. When you shout at people ?be confident,? you shouldn?t expect them to be anything but terrified. If we are going to spend trillions of dollars of taxpayer money, it makes more sense to focus less on the failed institutions at the top of the financial system and more on the individuals at the bottom. Instead of buying dodgy assets and guaranteeing deals that should never have been made in the first place, we should use our money to A) repair the social safety net, now badly rent in ways that cause perfectly rational people to be terrified; and B) transform the bailout of the banks into a rescue of homeowners. We should begin by breaking the cycle of deteriorating housing values and resulting foreclosures. Many homeowners realize that it doesn?t make sense to make payments on a mortgage that exceeds the value of their house. As many as 20 million families face the decision of whether to make the payments or turn in the keys. Congress seems to have understood this problem, which is why last year it created a program under the Federal Housing Authority to issue homeowners new government loans based on the current appraised value of their homes. And yet the program, called Hope Now, seems to have become one more excellent example of the unhappy political influence of Wall Street. As it now stands, banks must initiate any new loan; and they are loath to do so because it requires them to recognize an immediate loss. They prefer to ?work with borrowers? through loan modifications and payment plans that present fewer accounting and earnings problems but fail to resolve and, thereby, prolong the underlying issues. It appears that the banking lobby also somehow inserted into the law the dubious requirement that troubled homeowners repay all home equity loans before qualifying. The result: very few loans will be issued through this program. THIS could be fixed. Congress might grant qualifying homeowners the ability to get new government loans based on the current appraised values without requiring their bank?s consent. When a corporation gets into trouble, its lenders often accept a partial payment in return for some share in any future recovery. Similarly, homeowners should be permitted to satisfy current first mortgages with a combination of the proceeds of the new government loan and a share in any future recovery from the future sale or refinancing of their homes. Lenders who issued second mortgages should be forced to release their claims on property. The important point is that homeowners, not lenders, be granted the right to obtain new government loans. To work, the program needs to be universal and should not require homeowners to file for bankruptcy. There are also a handful of other perfectly obvious changes in the financial system to be made, to prevent some version of what has happened from happening all over again. A short list: Stop making big regulatory decisions with long-term consequences based on their short-term effect on stock prices. Stock prices go up and down: let them. An absurd number of the official crises have been negotiated and resolved over weekends so that they may be presented as a fait accompli ?before the Asian markets open.? The hasty crisis-to-crisis policy decision-making lacks coherence for the obvious reason that it is more or less driven by a desire to please the stock market. The Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the S.E.C. all seem to view propping up stock prices as a critical part of their mission ? indeed, the Federal Reserve sometimes seems more concerned than the average Wall Street trader with the market?s day-to-day movements. If the policies are sound, the stock market will eventually learn to take care of itself. End the official status of the rating agencies. Given their performance it?s hard to believe credit rating agencies are still around. There?s no question that the world is worse off for the existence of companies like Moody?s and Standard & Poor?s. There should be a rule against issuers paying for ratings. Either investors should pay for them privately or, if public ratings are deemed essential, they should be publicly provided. Regulate credit-default swaps. There are now tens of trillions of dollars in these contracts between big financial firms. An awful lot of the bad stuff that has happened to our financial system has happened because it was never explained in plain, simple language. Financial innovators were able to create new products and markets without anyone thinking too much about their broader financial consequences ? and without regulators knowing very much about them at all. It doesn?t matter how transparent financial markets are if no one can understand what?s inside them. Until very recently, companies haven?t had to provide even cursory disclosure of credit-default swaps in their financial statements. Credit-default swaps may not be Exhibit No. 1 in the case against financial complexity, but they are useful evidence. Whatever credit defaults are in theory, in practice they have become mainly side bets on whether some company, or some subprime mortgage-backed bond, some municipality, or even the United States government will go bust. In the extreme case, subprime mortgage bonds were created so that smart investors, using credit-default swaps, could bet against them. Call it insurance if you like, but it?s not the insurance most people know. It?s more like buying fire insurance on your neighbor?s house, possibly for many times the value of that house ? from a company that probably doesn?t have any real ability to pay you if someone sets fire to the whole neighborhood. The most critical role for regulation is to make sure that the sellers of risk have the capital to support their bets. Impose new capital requirements on banks. The new international standard now being adopted by American banks is known in the trade as Basel II. Basel II is premised on the belief that banks do a better job than regulators of measuring their own risks ? because the banks have the greater interest in not failing. Back in 2004, the S.E.C. put in place its own version of this standard for investment banks. We know how that turned out. A better idea would be to require banks to hold less capital in bad times and more capital in good times. Now that we have seen how too-big-to-fail financial institutions behave, it is clear that relieving them of stringent requirements is not the way to go. Another good solution to the too-big-to-fail problem is to break up any institution that becomes too big to fail. Close the revolving door between the S.E.C. and Wall Street. At every turn we keep coming back to an enormous barrier to reform: Wall Street?s political influence. Its influence over the S.E.C. is further compromised by its ability to enrich the people who work for it. Realistically, there is only so much that can be done to fix the problem, but one measure is obvious: forbid regulators, for some meaningful amount of time after they have left the S.E.C., from accepting high-paying jobs with Wall Street firms. But keep the door open the other way. If the S.E.C. is to restore its credibility as an investor protection agency, it should have some experienced, respected investors (which is not the same thing as investment bankers) as commissioners. President-elect Barack Obama should nominate at least one with a notable career investing capital, and another with experience uncovering corporate misconduct. As it happens, the most critical job, chief of enforcement, now has a perfect candidate, a civic-minded former investor with firsthand experience of the S.E.C.?s ineptitude: Harry Markopolos. The funny thing is, there?s nothing all that radical about most of these changes. A disinterested person would probably wonder why many of them had not been made long ago. A committee of people whose financial interests are somehow bound up with Wall Street is a different matter. ========================================= WALTER LIPPMANN Havana, Cuba Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/ "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo" ========================================= From walterlx at earthlink.net Mon Jan 5 18:14:50 2009 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 20:14:50 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [Marxism] The End of the Financial World as We Know It Message-ID: <19670908.1231204490395.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> (I like the idea of breaking up any institution which becomes ?too big to fail?. It SEEMS that the people of the United States are getting something in the way of an education about capitalism in a way they never have before, but whether or not that education will translate itself into another political direction for the country, that remains to be seen.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE NEW YORK TIMES January 4, 2009 Op-Ed Contributors The End of the Financial World as We Know It By MICHAEL LEWIS and DAVID EINHORN http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/opinion/04lewiseinhorn.html AMERICANS enter the New Year in a strange new role: financial lunatics. We?ve been viewed by the wider world with mistrust and suspicion on other matters, but on the subject of money even our harshest critics have been inclined to believe that we knew what we were doing. They watched our investment bankers and emulated them: for a long time now half the planet?s college graduates seemed to want nothing more out of life than a job on Wall Street. This is one reason the collapse of our financial system has inspired not merely a national but a global crisis of confidence. Good God, the world seems to be saying, if they don?t know what they are doing with money, who does? Incredibly, intelligent people the world over remain willing to lend us money and even listen to our advice; they appear not to have realized the full extent of our madness. We have at least a brief chance to cure ourselves. But first we need to ask: of what? To that end consider the strange story of Harry Markopolos. Mr. Markopolos is the former investment officer with Rampart Investment Management in Boston who, for nine years, tried to explain to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Bernard L. Madoff couldn?t be anything other than a fraud. Mr. Madoff?s investment performance, given his stated strategy, was not merely improbable but mathematically impossible. And so, Mr. Markopolos reasoned, Bernard Madoff must be doing something other than what he said he was doing. In his devastatingly persuasive 17-page letter to the S.E.C., Mr. Markopolos saw two possible scenarios. In the ?Unlikely? scenario: Mr. Madoff, who acted as a broker as well as an investor, was ?front-running? his brokerage customers. A customer might submit an order to Madoff Securities to buy shares in I.B.M. at a certain price, for example, and Madoff Securities instantly would buy I.B.M. shares for its own portfolio ahead of the customer order. If I.B.M.?s shares rose, Mr. Madoff kept them; if they fell he fobbed them off onto the poor customer. In the ?Highly Likely? scenario, wrote Mr. Markopolos, ?Madoff Securities is the world?s largest Ponzi Scheme.? Which, as we now know, it was. Harry Markopolos sent his report to the S.E.C. on Nov. 7, 2005 ? more than three years before Mr. Madoff was finally exposed ? but he had been trying to explain the fraud to them since 1999. He had no direct financial interest in exposing Mr. Madoff ? he wasn?t an unhappy investor or a disgruntled employee. There was no way to short shares in Madoff Securities, and so Mr. Markopolos could not have made money directly from Mr. Madoff?s failure. To judge from his letter, Harry Markopolos anticipated mainly downsides for himself: he declined to put his name on it for fear of what might happen to him and his family if anyone found out he had written it. And yet the S.E.C.?s cursory investigation of Mr. Madoff pronounced him free of fraud. What?s interesting about the Madoff scandal, in retrospect, is how little interest anyone inside the financial system had in exposing it. It wasn?t just Harry Markopolos who smelled a rat. As Mr. Markopolos explained in his letter, Goldman Sachs was refusing to do business with Mr. Madoff; many others doubted Mr. Madoff?s profits or assumed he was front-running his customers and steered clear of him. Between the lines, Mr. Markopolos hinted that even some of Mr. Madoff?s investors may have suspected that they were the beneficiaries of a scam. After all, it wasn?t all that hard to see that the profits were too good to be true. Some of Mr. Madoff?s investors may have reasoned that the worst that could happen to them, if the authorities put a stop to the front-running, was that a good thing would come to an end. The Madoff scandal echoes a deeper absence inside our financial system, which has been undermined not merely by bad behavior but by the lack of checks and balances to discourage it. ?Greed? doesn?t cut it as a satisfying explanation for the current financial crisis. Greed was necessary but insufficient; in any case, we are as likely to eliminate greed from our national character as we are lust and envy. The fixable problem isn?t the greed of the few but the misaligned interests of the many. A lot has been said and written, for instance, about the corrupting effects on Wall Street of gigantic bonuses. What happened inside the major Wall Street firms, though, was more deeply unsettling than greedy people lusting for big checks: leaders of public corporations, especially financial corporations, are as good as required to lead for the short term. Richard Fuld, the former chief executive of Lehman Brothers, E. Stanley O?Neal, the former chief executive of Merrill Lynch, and Charles O. Prince III, Citigroup?s chief executive, may have paid themselves humongous sums of money at the end of each year, as a result of the bond market bonanza. But if any one of them had set himself up as a whistleblower ? had stood up and said ?this business is irresponsible and we are not going to participate in it? ? he would probably have been fired. Not immediately, perhaps. But a few quarters of earnings that lagged behind those of every other Wall Street firm would invite outrage from subordinates, who would flee for other, less responsible firms, and from shareholders, who would call for his resignation. Eventually he?d be replaced by someone willing to make money from the credit bubble. OUR financial catastrophe, like Bernard Madoff?s pyramid scheme, required all sorts of important, plugged-in people to sacrifice our collective long-term interests for short-term gain. The pressure to do this in today?s financial markets is immense. Obviously the greater the market pressure to excel in the short term, the greater the need for pressure from outside the market to consider the longer term. But that?s the problem: there is no longer any serious pressure from outside the market. The tyranny of the short term has extended itself with frightening ease into the entities that were meant to, one way or another, discipline Wall Street, and force it to consider its enlightened self-interest. The credit-rating agencies, for instance. Everyone now knows that Moody?s and Standard & Poor?s botched their analyses of bonds backed by home mortgages. But their most costly mistake ? one that deserves a lot more attention than it has received ? lies in their area of putative expertise: measuring corporate risk. Over the last 20 years American financial institutions have taken on more and more risk, with the blessing of regulators, with hardly a word from the rating agencies, which, incidentally, are paid by the issuers of the bonds they rate. Seldom if ever did Moody?s or Standard & Poor?s say, ?If you put one more risky asset on your balance sheet, you will face a serious downgrade.? The American International Group, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, General Electric and the municipal bond guarantors Ambac Financial and MBIA all had triple-A ratings. (G.E. still does!) Large investment banks like Lehman and Merrill Lynch all had solid investment grade ratings. It?s almost as if the higher the rating of a financial institution, the more likely it was to contribute to financial catastrophe. But of course all these big financial companies fueled the creation of the credit products that in turn fueled the revenues of Moody?s and Standard & Poor?s. These oligopolies, which are actually sanctioned by the S.E.C., didn?t merely do their jobs badly. They didn?t simply miss a few calls here and there. In pursuit of their own short-term earnings, they did exactly the opposite of what they were meant to do: rather than expose financial risk they systematically disguised it. This is a subject that might be profitably explored in Washington. There are many questions an enterprising United States senator might want to ask the credit-rating agencies. Here is one: Why did you allow MBIA to keep its triple-A rating for so long? In 1990 MBIA was in the relatively simple business of insuring municipal bonds. It had $931 million in equity and only $200 million of debt ? and a plausible triple-A rating. By 2006 MBIA had plunged into the much riskier business of guaranteeing collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.?s. But by then it had $7.2 billion in equity against an astounding $26.2 billion in debt. That is, even as it insured ever-greater risks in its business, it also took greater risks on its balance sheet. Yet the rating agencies didn?t so much as blink. On Wall Street the problem was hardly a secret: many people understood that MBIA didn?t deserve to be rated triple-A. As far back as 2002, a hedge fund called Gotham Partners published a persuasive report, widely circulated, entitled: ?Is MBIA Triple A?? (The answer was obviously no.) At the same time, almost everyone believed that the rating agencies would never downgrade MBIA, because doing so was not in their short-term financial interest. A downgrade of MBIA would force the rating agencies to go through the costly and cumbersome process of re-rating tens of thousands of credits that bore triple-A ratings simply by virtue of MBIA?s guarantee. It would stick a wrench in the machine that enriched them. (In June, finally, the rating agencies downgraded MBIA, after MBIA?s failure became such an open secret that nobody any longer cared about its formal credit rating.) The S.E.C. now promises modest new measures to contain the damage that the rating agencies can do ? measures that fail to address the central problem: that the raters are paid by the issuers. But this should come as no surprise, for the S.E.C. itself is plagued by similarly wacky incentives. Indeed, one of the great social benefits of the Madoff scandal may be to finally reveal the S.E.C. for what it has become. Created to protect investors from financial predators, the commission has somehow evolved into a mechanism for protecting financial predators with political clout from investors. (The task it has performed most diligently during this crisis has been to question, intimidate and impose rules on short-sellers ? the only market players who have a financial incentive to expose fraud and abuse.) The instinct to avoid short-term political heat is part of the problem; anything the S.E.C. does to roil the markets, or reduce the share price of any given company, also roils the careers of the people who run the S.E.C. Thus it seldom penalizes serious corporate and management malfeasance ? out of some misguided notion that to do so would cause stock prices to fall, shareholders to suffer and confidence to be undermined. Preserving confidence, even when that confidence is false, has been near the top of the S.E.C.?s agenda. IT?S not hard to see why the S.E.C. behaves as it does. If you work for the enforcement division of the S.E.C. you probably know in the back of your mind, and in the front too, that if you maintain good relations with Wall Street you might soon be paid huge sums of money to be employed by it. The commission?s most recent director of enforcement is the general counsel at JPMorgan Chase; the enforcement chief before him became general counsel at Deutsche Bank; and one of his predecessors became a managing director for Credit Suisse before moving on to Morgan Stanley. A casual observer could be forgiven for thinking that the whole point of landing the job as the S.E.C.?s director of enforcement is to position oneself for the better paying one on Wall Street. At the back of the version of Harry Markopolos?s brave paper currently making the rounds is a copy of an e-mail message, dated April 2, 2008, from Mr. Markopolos to Jonathan S. Sokobin. Mr. Sokobin was then the new head of the commission?s office of risk assessment, a job that had been vacant for more than a year after its previous occupant had left to ? you guessed it ? take a higher-paying job on Wall Street. At any rate, Mr. Markopolos clearly hoped that a new face might mean a new ear ? one that might be receptive to the truth. He phoned Mr. Sokobin and then sent him his paper. ?Attached is a submission I?ve made to the S.E.C. three times in Boston,? he wrote. ?Each time Boston sent this to New York. Meagan Cheung, branch chief, in New York actually investigated this but with no result that I am aware of. In my conversations with her, I did not believe that she had the derivatives or mathematical background to understand the violations.? How does this happen? How can the person in charge of assessing Wall Street firms not have the tools to understand them? Is the S.E.C. that inept? Perhaps, but the problem inside the commission is far worse ? because inept people can be replaced. The problem is systemic. The new director of risk assessment was no more likely to grasp the risk of Bernard Madoff than the old director of risk assessment because the new guy?s thoughts and beliefs were guided by the same incentives: the need to curry favor with the politically influential and the desire to keep sweet the Wall Street elite. And here?s the most incredible thing of all: 18 months into the most spectacular man-made financial calamity in modern experience, nothing has been done to change that, or any of the other bad incentives that led us here in the first place. SAY what you will about our government?s approach to the financial crisis, you cannot accuse it of wasting its energy being consistent or trying to win over the masses. In the past year there have been at least seven different bailouts, and six different strategies. And none of them seem to have pleased anyone except a handful of financiers. When Bear Stearns failed, the government induced JPMorgan Chase to buy it by offering a knockdown price and guaranteeing Bear Stearns?s shakiest assets. Bear Stearns bondholders were made whole and its stockholders lost most of their money. Then came the collapse of the government-sponsored entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both promptly nationalized. Management was replaced, shareholders badly diluted, creditors left intact but with some uncertainty. Next came Lehman Brothers, which was, of course, allowed to go bankrupt. At first, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve claimed they had allowed Lehman to fail in order to signal that recklessly managed Wall Street firms did not all come with government guarantees; but then, when chaos ensued, and people started saying that letting Lehman fail was a dumb thing to have done, they changed their story and claimed they lacked the legal authority to rescue the firm. But then a few days later A.I.G. failed, or tried to, yet was given the gift of life with enormous government loans. Washington Mutual and Wachovia promptly followed: the first was unceremoniously seized by the Treasury, wiping out both its creditors and shareholders; the second was batted around for a bit. Initially, the Treasury tried to persuade Citigroup to buy it ? again at a knockdown price and with a guarantee of the bad assets. (The Bear Stearns model.) Eventually, Wachovia went to Wells Fargo, after the Internal Revenue Service jumped in and sweetened the pot with a tax subsidy. In the middle of all this, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. persuaded Congress that he needed $700 billion to buy distressed assets from banks ? telling the senators and representatives that if they didn?t give him the money the stock market would collapse. Once handed the money, he abandoned his promised strategy, and instead of buying assets at market prices, began to overpay for preferred stocks in the banks themselves. Which is to say that he essentially began giving away billions of dollars to Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and a few others unnaturally selected for survival. The stock market fell anyway. It?s hard to know what Mr. Paulson was thinking as he never really had to explain himself, at least not in public. But the general idea appears to be that if you give the banks capital they will in turn use it to make loans in order to stimulate the economy. Never mind that if you want banks to make smart, prudent loans, you probably shouldn?t give money to bankers who sunk themselves by making a lot of stupid, imprudent ones. If you want banks to re-lend the money, you need to provide them not with preferred stock, which is essentially a loan, but with tangible common equity ? so that they might write off their losses, resolve their troubled assets and then begin to make new loans, something they won?t be able to do until they?re confident in their own balance sheets. But as it happened, the banks took the taxpayer money and just sat on it. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/opinion/04lewiseinhornb.html January 4, 2009 Op-Ed Contributors How to Repair a Broken Financial World By MICHAEL LEWIS and DAVID EINHORN Continued from "The End of the Financial World As We Know It" Mr. Paulson must have had some reason for doing what he did. No doubt he still believes that without all this frantic activity we?d be far worse off than we are now. All we know for sure, however, is that the Treasury?s heroic deal-making has had little effect on what it claims is the problem at hand: the collapse of confidence in the companies atop our financial system. Weeks after receiving its first $25 billion taxpayer investment, Citigroup returned to the Treasury to confess that ? lo! ? the markets still didn?t trust Citigroup to survive. In response, on Nov. 24, the Treasury handed Citigroup another $20 billion from the Troubled Assets Relief Program, and then simply guaranteed $306 billion of Citigroup?s assets. The Treasury didn?t ask for its fair share of the action, or management changes, or for that matter anything much at all beyond a teaspoon of warrants and a sliver of preferred stock. The $306 billion guarantee was an undisguised gift. The Treasury didn?t even bother to explain what the crisis was, just that the action was taken in response to Citigroup?s ?declining stock price.? Three hundred billion dollars is still a lot of money. It?s almost 2 percent of gross domestic product, and about what we spend annually on the departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development and Transportation combined. Had Mr. Paulson executed his initial plan, and bought Citigroup?s pile of troubled assets at market prices, there would have been a limit to our exposure, as the money would have counted against the $700 billion Mr. Paulson had been given to dispense. Instead, he in effect granted himself the power to dispense unlimited sums of money without Congressional oversight. Now we don?t even know the nature of the assets that the Treasury is standing behind. Under TARP, these would have been disclosed. THERE are other things the Treasury might do when a major financial firm assumed to be ?too big to fail? comes knocking, asking for free money. Here?s one: Let it fail. Not as chaotically as Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail. If a failing firm is deemed ?too big? for that honor, then it should be explicitly nationalized, both to limit its effect on other firms and to protect the guts of the system. Its shareholders should be wiped out, and its management replaced. Its valuable parts should be sold off as functioning businesses to the highest bidders ? perhaps to some bank that was not swept up in the credit bubble. The rest should be liquidated, in calm markets. Do this and, for everyone except the firms that invented the mess, the pain will likely subside. This is more plausible than it may sound. Sweden, of all places, did it successfully in 1992. And remember, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury have already accepted, on behalf of the taxpayer, just about all of the downside risk of owning the bigger financial firms. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve would both no doubt argue that if you don?t prop up these banks you risk an enormous credit contraction ? if they aren?t in business who will be left to lend money? But something like the reverse seems more true: propping up failed banks and extending them huge amounts of credit has made business more difficult for the people and companies that had nothing to do with creating the mess. Perfectly solvent companies are being squeezed out of business by their creditors precisely because they are not in the Treasury?s fold. With so much lending effectively federally guaranteed, lenders are fleeing anything that is not. Rather than tackle the source of the problem, the people running the bailout desperately want to reinflate the credit bubble, prop up the stock market and head off a recession. Their efforts are clearly failing: 2008 was a historically bad year for the stock market, and we?ll be in recession for some time to come. Our leaders have framed the problem as a ?crisis of confidence? but what they actually seem to mean is ?please pay no attention to the problems we are failing to address.? In its latest push to compel confidence, for instance, the authorities are placing enormous pressure on the Financial Accounting Standards Board to suspend ?mark-to-market? accounting. Basically, this means that the banks will not have to account for the actual value of the assets on their books but can claim instead that they are worth whatever they paid for them. This will have the double effect of reducing transparency and increasing self-delusion (gorge yourself for months, but refuse to step on a scale, and maybe no one will realize you gained weight). And it will fool no one. When you shout at people ?be confident,? you shouldn?t expect them to be anything but terrified. If we are going to spend trillions of dollars of taxpayer money, it makes more sense to focus less on the failed institutions at the top of the financial system and more on the individuals at the bottom. Instead of buying dodgy assets and guaranteeing deals that should never have been made in the first place, we should use our money to A) repair the social safety net, now badly rent in ways that cause perfectly rational people to be terrified; and B) transform the bailout of the banks into a rescue of homeowners. We should begin by breaking the cycle of deteriorating housing values and resulting foreclosures. Many homeowners realize that it doesn?t make sense to make payments on a mortgage that exceeds the value of their house. As many as 20 million families face the decision of whether to make the payments or turn in the keys. Congress seems to have understood this problem, which is why last year it created a program under the Federal Housing Authority to issue homeowners new government loans based on the current appraised value of their homes. And yet the program, called Hope Now, seems to have become one more excellent example of the unhappy political influence of Wall Street. As it now stands, banks must initiate any new loan; and they are loath to do so because it requires them to recognize an immediate loss. They prefer to ?work with borrowers? through loan modifications and payment plans that present fewer accounting and earnings problems but fail to resolve and, thereby, prolong the underlying issues. It appears that the banking lobby also somehow inserted into the law the dubious requirement that troubled homeowners repay all home equity loans before qualifying. The result: very few loans will be issued through this program. THIS could be fixed. Congress might grant qualifying homeowners the ability to get new government loans based on the current appraised values without requiring their bank?s consent. When a corporation gets into trouble, its lenders often accept a partial payment in return for some share in any future recovery. Similarly, homeowners should be permitted to satisfy current first mortgages with a combination of the proceeds of the new government loan and a share in any future recovery from the future sale or refinancing of their homes. Lenders who issued second mortgages should be forced to release their claims on property. The important point is that homeowners, not lenders, be granted the right to obtain new government loans. To work, the program needs to be universal and should not require homeowners to file for bankruptcy. There are also a handful of other perfectly obvious changes in the financial system to be made, to prevent some version of what has happened from happening all over again. A short list: Stop making big regulatory decisions with long-term consequences based on their short-term effect on stock prices. Stock prices go up and down: let them. An absurd number of the official crises have been negotiated and resolved over weekends so that they may be presented as a fait accompli ?before the Asian markets open.? The hasty crisis-to-crisis policy decision-making lacks coherence for the obvious reason that it is more or less driven by a desire to please the stock market. The Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the S.E.C. all seem to view propping up stock prices as a critical part of their mission ? indeed, the Federal Reserve sometimes seems more concerned than the average Wall Street trader with the market?s day-to-day movements. If the policies are sound, the stock market will eventually learn to take care of itself. End the official status of the rating agencies. Given their performance it?s hard to believe credit rating agencies are still around. There?s no question that the world is worse off for the existence of companies like Moody?s and Standard & Poor?s. There should be a rule against issuers paying for ratings. Either investors should pay for them privately or, if public ratings are deemed essential, they should be publicly provided. Regulate credit-default swaps. There are now tens of trillions of dollars in these contracts between big financial firms. An awful lot of the bad stuff that has happened to our financial system has happened because it was never explained in plain, simple language. Financial innovators were able to create new products and markets without anyone thinking too much about their broader financial consequences ? and without regulators knowing very much about them at all. It doesn?t matter how transparent financial markets are if no one can understand what?s inside them. Until very recently, companies haven?t had to provide even cursory disclosure of credit-default swaps in their financial statements. Credit-default swaps may not be Exhibit No. 1 in the case against financial complexity, but they are useful evidence. Whatever credit defaults are in theory, in practice they have become mainly side bets on whether some company, or some subprime mortgage-backed bond, some municipality, or even the United States government will go bust. In the extreme case, subprime mortgage bonds were created so that smart investors, using credit-default swaps, could bet against them. Call it insurance if you like, but it?s not the insurance most people know. It?s more like buying fire insurance on your neighbor?s house, possibly for many times the value of that house ? from a company that probably doesn?t have any real ability to pay you if someone sets fire to the whole neighborhood. The most critical role for regulation is to make sure that the sellers of risk have the capital to support their bets. Impose new capital requirements on banks. The new international standard now being adopted by American banks is known in the trade as Basel II. Basel II is premised on the belief that banks do a better job than regulators of measuring their own risks ? because the banks have the greater interest in not failing. Back in 2004, the S.E.C. put in place its own version of this standard for investment banks. We know how that turned out. A better idea would be to require banks to hold less capital in bad times and more capital in good times. Now that we have seen how too-big-to-fail financial institutions behave, it is clear that relieving them of stringent requirements is not the way to go. Another good solution to the too-big-to-fail problem is to break up any institution that becomes too big to fail. Close the revolving door between the S.E.C. and Wall Street. At every turn we keep coming back to an enormous barrier to reform: Wall Street?s political influence. Its influence over the S.E.C. is further compromised by its ability to enrich the people who work for it. Realistically, there is only so much that can be done to fix the problem, but one measure is obvious: forbid regulators, for some meaningful amount of time after they have left the S.E.C., from accepting high-paying jobs with Wall Street firms. But keep the door open the other way. If the S.E.C. is to restore its credibility as an investor protection agency, it should have some experienced, respected investors (which is not the same thing as investment bankers) as commissioners. President-elect Barack Obama should nominate at least one with a notable career investing capital, and another with experience uncovering corporate misconduct. As it happens, the most critical job, chief of enforcement, now has a perfect candidate, a civic-minded former investor with firsthand experience of the S.E.C.?s ineptitude: Harry Markopolos. The funny thing is, there?s nothing all that radical about most of these changes. A disinterested person would probably wonder why many of them had not been made long ago. A committee of people whose financial interests are somehow bound up with Wall Street is a different matter. ========================================= WALTER LIPPMANN Havana, Cuba Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/ "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo" ========================================= From stuartmunckton at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 19:32:08 2009 From: stuartmunckton at gmail.com (Stuart Munckton) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:32:08 +1100 Subject: [Marxism] Chavez calls on Israel to end invasion, sends food and medicine to Gaza Message-ID: <2c6145850901051832sfad0774g8cc01c6b4b0bef97@mail.gmail.com> *President Ch?vez **Urges Israel to Stop Invasion * *of Gaza Strip*** * * The President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Hugo Ch?vez urged Israel "to stop the invasion of the Gaza Strip and the murder of thousand innocent people." The Bolivarian leader denounced the government of Israel and described it as murderous and genocidal. "It is sad that Israel continues acting as the killing arm of the yankee empire." Likewise, he pointed out that the Latin American and European countries, as well as the United Nations Organization, should stand up and declare against this attack on the Gaza Strip. As an action of solidarity with the Palestinian people, the Venezuelan president will undertake humanitarian actions to supply Palestine with medicines and food, "in spite of some opposition leaders who continue attacking me and saying that I am giving away the money Venezuela needs to face the world economic crisis." "The yankee empire has no mercy and the evidence is what they are supporting in Gaza, where a real slaughter, bombardments every 15 minutes and a ground invasion are taking place; this is all supported by the current government of the United States," said President Ch?vez. "Nobody knows what their plans are to expand the war in the Middle East and other parts of the world. That's the reason why we will undertake humanitarian actions with the Palestinian people; no matter what the opposition says," stressed the Venezuelan leader. * * *Bolivarian News Agency / January 5, 2009 * -- "The free market is perfectly natural... do you think I am some kind of dummy?" - Jarvis Cocker "Our demands are moderate ? we only want the Earth" - James Connolly From farmelantj at juno.com Mon Jan 5 19:34:30 2009 From: farmelantj at juno.com (Jim Farmelant) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 21:34:30 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism Message-ID: <20090105.213430.5216.0.farmelantj@juno.com> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:53:54 -0500 Louis Proyect writes: > > The issue is not whether you think that Hamas deserves "support" or > not. > It is rather the need to oppose Zionist brutality. On that score, > the > trend is against Israel. > > http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3446492,00.html > > Study: US Jews distance themselves from Israel > > Feelings of attachment to Israel declining among non-Orthodox > American > Jews, and are replaced by indifference and even alienation, study > finds. This is a phenomena that has been discussed both on this and related lists in the past. See: http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu/msg03661.h tml http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu/msg03663.h tml http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2002/msg06486.htm http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2002/msg06508.htm ____________________________________________________________ Click to compare life insurance rates. Great rates, quick and easy. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2PVUnT9Y88EW4zl4twaORsYbp09ldcdxGayCg6OU5ufaOez/ From markalause at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 20:00:52 2009 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 22:00:52 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] http://www.petitiononline.com/freegaza/petition.html Message-ID: Forwarded from Bruce Levine.... ML > From: "Marilyn B. Young" > Date: January 5, 2009 6:28:19 AM CST > Subject: Fwd: What to do about Gaza? > > > > Best petition around, written by Israeli personalities and human > rights activists like Jeff Halper (ICAHD): > http://www.petitiononline.com/freegaza/petition.html > > Follows, press release from the few international human rights > activists that stayed in Gaza, to protect ambulances that otherwise > get targeted. > This must stop, > Martina > www.unponteper.it > > > Australian Human Rights Volunteer reports: Five Palestinian medics > were killed today by Israeli forces > > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > > > January 4, 2009 > > > International Solidarity Movement activists spent the night > accompanying ambulances in Gaza. They were working with medical > personnel during the Israeli occupation forces ground invasion into > northern Gaza. > > > "In addition to the doctor and medic that the Israeli military > murdered on the 31st of December, they have killed five more medics > today. One was shot in Jabaliya, one in Al Sheikh Ejleen. Three > have just been killed when a missile directly hit their ambulance > in the Tal Hawye neighborhood in Gaza City. The medics are > constantly in contact with the Red Cross for them to negotiate > passage with the Israelis. The Israelis constantly refuse." > > Sharon Lock (Australia) ? International Solidarity Movement > > > "The Israelis dropped a bomb in front of our ambulance to prevent > us accessing wounded people. However a donkey cart emerged carrying > a wounded family: a mother and father and three teenage brothers. > One of the teenagers was attempting to shield the other two with a > blanket. They were both horrifically injured; I could see the lungs > of one of them. As I assisted the medics to move him off the cart I > found my hand inside his body." > > Alberto Arce (Spain) ? International Solidarity Movement > > > "I got a call 30 minutes ago, on a poor phone line, saying that > Arafat is dead ? killed while working ? by Israeli fire. He was one > of the emergency medics I met two nights ago, compassionate, > emotionally strong, and with an unabashedly wacky sense of humor. > I'm more saddened by his death than I can express." > > Eva Bartlett (Canada) ? International Solidarity Movement > > > "Israel is claiming that there is no humanitarian crisis because > they do not consider us as humans." > > Natalie Abu Shakra (Lebanon) ? International Solidarity Movement > > > "Israel continues to violate international conventions by attacking > medical personnel. They are massacring the people of Gaza. With the > swelling number of civilian casualties, Israel must ensure that > medical assistance is available. Instead, they are intentionally > targeting the medical teams that are protected by the Geneva > Conventions. Israel's disregard for international law must be > confronted by the international community." > > Vittorio Arrigoni (Italy) ? International Solidarity Movement > > > "The ground invasion of last night has lead to Beit Lahiya and Beit > Hanoun being shut down. We managed to get into Beit Hanoun to > collect bodies of some of the dead. We are now headed to Jabaliya > to continue our work with ambulance accompaniment. There is nowhere > for the Gazan people to escape to, civilians cannot leave for > safety because of the siege. These prolonged attacks on Gaza are > horrific and last night's ground invasion by the Israeli occupation > forces has led to a swelling amount of civilian casualties." > > Ewa Jasiewicz ? Free Gaza Movement > > > Please Contact: > > Ewa Jasiewicz - Poland/Britain (Polish, English and Arabic) + > 447749421576k > > > Other Human Rights Activists now in Gaza: > > Alberto Arce Spain - (Spanish) - +972 59 8786094 > > Dr. Haider Eid - South Africa (English and Arabic) - + 972 59 9441766 > > Sharon Lock - Australia (English) - +972 59 8826513 > > Fida Qishta - Palestine (English and Arabic) +972 599681669 > > Jenny Linnel - Britain (English) - +972 59 8765377 > > Natalie Abu Shakra - Lebanon (Arabic and English) +972 59 8336 328 > > Vittorio Arrigoni - Italy (Italian) - +973 59 8378945 > > Eva Bartlett - Canada (English) - +972 59 8836308 > > > For More General Information, Please Contact: > > Adam Taylor - ISM media office in Ramallah - +972 598 503 948 > > > > From jonflanders at jflan.net Mon Jan 5 20:24:48 2009 From: jonflanders at jflan.net (Jon Flanders) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:24:48 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Gaza: What is happening? In-Reply-To: References: <49624DF7.9070701@igc.org> Message-ID: <1231212288.5038.43.camel@localhost> On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 16:24 -0800, Gary MacLennan wrote: > Eventually the meeting resolved to ask the MP to speak with the > proviso that > no one on the official patform use it to condemn Hamas. I agree > totally > with that caveat. Of course I have criticisms of Hamas, but at the > time of > their killing I will not voice such criticisms. > I don't know about this, Gary. Sounds like a disinvitation to me. It would be better to have him come and speak and hear the boos when he boilerplates the usual Hamas is no good line. If you want the united front you favor. Jon Flanders From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 20:31:05 2009 From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 22:31:05 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Gaza: What is happening? In-Reply-To: <1231212288.5038.43.camel@localhost> References: <49624DF7.9070701@igc.org> <1231212288.5038.43.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <908b689f0901051931v44056c8cl6bb7fa11c824a30c@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Jon Flanders wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 16:24 -0800, Gary MacLennan wrote: >> Of course I have criticisms of Hamas, but at the >> time of >> their killing I will not voice such criticisms. But not only are they being killed, they seem to be, also, recklessly endangering other people's lives: "Shireen Shihab, 30, a resident of Gaza City, said Monday that she had seen Hamas fighters firing rockets toward Israel from a site two blocks away from her home. She said she and others could not express any opposition for fear of being labeled spies." Honesty and integrity demand that one denounces such things, even as one condemns the invasion. From jonflanders at jflan.net Mon Jan 5 20:43:51 2009 From: jonflanders at jflan.net (Jon Flanders) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:43:51 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Gaza: What is happening? In-Reply-To: <908b689f0901051931v44056c8cl6bb7fa11c824a30c@mail.gmail.com> References: <49624DF7.9070701@igc.org> <1231212288.5038.43.camel@localhost> <908b689f0901051931v44056c8cl6bb7fa11c824a30c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1231213431.5038.52.camel@localhost> On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 22:31 -0500, Ruthless Critic of All that Exists wrote: > > Honesty and integrity demand that one denounces such things, even as > one condemns the invasion. Where exactly in Gaza could Hamas fire rockets that would be a safe distance from the local population????????????? Jon Flanders > From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 21:04:02 2009 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 20:04:02 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Gaza: What is happening? In-Reply-To: <1231212288.5038.43.camel@localhost> References: <49624DF7.9070701@igc.org> <1231212288.5038.43.camel@localhost> Message-ID: > I don't know about this, Gary. Sounds like a disinvitation to me. It > would be better to have him come and speak and hear the boos when he > boilerplates the usual Hamas is no good line. > > If you want the united front you favor. > > Jon Flanders > > Hi Jon > There is no danger, as far as I understand, of him repeating the line advanced by the former communist and now turncoat Julie Gillard that Hamas started the crisis. In that case there is a lot to be gained by having a main stream politician who has huge credibility with the left liberals get up and make a statement on the nature of the humanitarian disaster that is taking place. One has always to bear in mind that liberalism is the default setting for dissidence in Australia. One of the big problems with that fact is that liberals are very easily persuaded to be critical what they perceive as religious fundamentalism. Think of the liberals who read the war in Afghanistan as a crusade against the burqa. This particular MP is set to be the leader of the left liberal set, if he so wishes. My advice to him would be to go for it. In any case we are in a situation where the more people we can get out on the street protesting against the obscenity that is Zionism, then the more chance we have of limiting their killing. Isaraeli politicians have created a scenario where the world sees that if you want to win an election in Israel then you kill a lot of Arabs. What does that say about Israel? More and more people are asking that question. regards Gary From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 21:07:20 2009 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 20:07:20 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Gaza: What is happening? In-Reply-To: <908b689f0901051931v44056c8cl6bb7fa11c824a30c@mail.gmail.com> References: <49624DF7.9070701@igc.org> <1231212288.5038.43.camel@localhost> <908b689f0901051931v44056c8cl6bb7fa11c824a30c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Ruthless, I cannot really answer this without breaking my resolution not to criticise Hamas while they are victims of the killing frenzy that is going on. But I hope you were not implying in any way that my decision is motivated by anything like an absence of courage. I am as brave as any lap top revolutionary I'll have you know. regards Gary From wsredden at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 22:40:57 2009 From: wsredden at gmail.com (Shawn Redden) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 00:40:57 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Update from the PIC In-Reply-To: <685ad9b30810302217n4fa91e70y3b6db6404ca179c3@mail.gmail.com> References: <685ad9b30810302217n4fa91e70y3b6db6404ca179c3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: The latest from the Palestine Information Center, an organization with close ties to Hamas. In Solidarity, Shawn ----- 10 IOF troops killed and 30 others wounded [ 06/01/2009 - 01:54 AM ] GAZA, (PIC)-- At least 10 IOF soldiers were killed and 30 others were wounded, Monday night, when Qassam fighters lured them in a trap. Qassam sources told PIC correspondent that the fighters managed to lure a group of infantry elite soldiers into a booby-trapped building in the northern Gaza Strip, detonated the explosives planted in the building and clashed with the soldiers until helicopters arrived and bombed the area around the building to evacuate the dead and injured soldiers. The Qassam Brigades which confirmed theses figures said it will publish the details of this special operation later. The Qassam Brigades spokesman had earlier warned IOF troops that they will be met with stiff resistance and "will not leave the Gaza Strip in one piece." Meanwhile, the Israeli occupation military has admitted to the death of 3 soldiers and the wounding of 24 others in friendly fire. The Qassam Brigades also said that its fighters managed to down an Israeli occupation drone which is used for spying as well as launching rockets. From sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com Mon Jan 5 23:13:15 2009 From: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com (sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:13:15 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Who else defends Gaza? Message-ID: <20090106061316.17D52118049@smtp.hushmail.com> Steve Palmer wrote: > Who else is fighting the oppressor? Who else >is defending the population of Gaza in any >significant way? Anyone foolish enough believe the crap on CNN thinks the current battle raging is solely between Hamas and the IDF. This is not true. The war in Gaza is being fought between the Palestinian resistance and imperialism. I have no doubt that the Izzadeen al-Qassam Brigades of Hamas will provide the bulk of the fighters defending the Palestinian population. I also have no doubt that other forces will make a significant contribution. Who are these other forces? Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Fatah) Saraya al-Quds (Islamic Jihad) Popular Resistance Committees (A break away faction of Fatah that sided with Hamas when most of Fatah was driven from Gaza), National Resistance Brigades (Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine) According to a statement by the PFLP on 30 December, their armed wing, the AAMB, "...confirmed that it is fully participating in a unified Palestinian resistance response to the massacres and crimes, that the level of coordination between all resistance brigades is high, and that AAMB is calling to further strengthen that coordination and development of a united resistance command." According to a news release of 4 Jan., "PFLP forces in the Gaza Strip have been engaged in constant and fierce confrontation on the eastern borders of the homeland" by means of snipers, RPG's, and mortars. Some have alleged that the revolutionary forces of the Palestinain resistance are relics of the past and non-existent in Gaza. This is as false as anything in the bourgeois media. Throughout 2008 Israeli occupation forces waged a constant campaign of raids and targeted asassinations directed against the PFLP. On Christmas Day this year, the Secretary- General of the PFLP was sentenced to life in prison by an Israeli Military court. He had been held for the four previous years in a PNA prison and was forcibly taken by Israeli soldiers. Obviously the Israeli government does not think Palestinian revolutionaries are a relic. Watching CNN tonight (the 5th), I am listening to one of the experts tell Anderson Cooper that as IDF enters the cities, they will confront different armed groups, "faction after faction, block after bloc." Cooper then intoned that three Israeli soliers and been killed and twenty wounded in a "friendly fire" incident involving a tank firing a round into a building full of their own soldiers. The resistance has already announced that Israeli commandos had been lured into a booby trapped building which fighters had detonated as they withdrew "killing three and injuring thirty." Whatever the truth, Gaza burns and a untied Palestinian resistance is figthing with courage and determination. From his jail cell, Comrade Sa'adat "called upon the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank to immediately release its political prisoners and for PA President Mahmoud Abbas to make clear where he stands - on the side of the resistance, or on the side of the enemy." -- Click for free info on criminal justice degrees, $150K/ year potential. http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/PnY6qxtpLI7vQaDmAxtKVT2geTMLoc5yb3KvZPx88eWrqPqibGUb1/ From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com Tue Jan 6 00:01:29 2009 From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 02:01:29 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Who else defends Gaza? In-Reply-To: <20090106061316.17D52118049@smtp.hushmail.com> References: <20090106061316.17D52118049@smtp.hushmail.com> Message-ID: <908b689f0901052301n5a4fa03di79cc1c9c6124ef36@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:13 AM, wrote: > > Some have alleged that the revolutionary > forces of the Palestinain resistance are relics of > the past and non-existent in Gaza. This is as false > as anything in the bourgeois media. Throughout 2008 > Israeli occupation forces waged a constant campaign > of raids and targeted asassinations directed against > the PFLP. On Christmas Day this year, the Secretary- > General of the PFLP was sentenced to life in prison > by an Israeli Military court. He had been held for > the four previous years in a PNA prison and was > forcibly taken by Israeli soldiers. Obviously the > Israeli government does not think Palestinian > revolutionaries are a relic. Wikipedia says: "The current PFLP draws its support from urban, usually university educated Palestinians of varying ages who lead a more secular lifestyle, hold liberal beliefs on social issues, and socialist views on economic issues. Whereas Hamas completely dominates the lower class Gaza, Qalqilya, and Hebron, the PFLP has its roots among the urban middle class, often Christians like their founder George Habash who fear Islamisation of the Palestinians and the erasure of the rights of minorities within a Hamas theocracy. "The PFLP's armed wing, in the West Bank and Gaza, the Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades, draws much of its support from student organizations in universities like Al-Quds University (eastern Jerusalem), Bir Zeit University (Ramallah area), An-Najah National University (Nablus), and the Arab American University - Jenin. The movement has thousands of active or passive activists in the West Bank, and a few hundred behind bars in Israeli prisons. "The PFLP opposed the conflict between Hamas and Fatah and believes that the Salam Fayad government is not helpful in solving the conflict." From Jscotlive at aol.com Tue Jan 6 01:50:36 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 03:50:36 EST Subject: [Marxism] Who else defends Gaza? Message-ID: sobuad: Some have alleged that the revolutionary > forces of the Palestinain resistance are relics of > the past and non-existent in Gaza. This is as false > as anything in the bourgeois media. Throughout 2008 > Israeli occupation forces waged a constant campaign > of raids and targeted asassinations directed against > the PFLP. Reply: You still miss the point. So let me try again. The Israeli propaganda machine and their allies in the West have extended themselves in demonising Hamas for two reasons: 1. To try and divide the Palestinians within Gaza (as they already have between Gaza and the West Bank) by turning them against Hamas. 2. To justify the ongoing and indiscriminate slaughter of civilians as part of their military operation and reduce the Palestinians to their knees. The fact that the other factions are unified with Hamas at a time when Israeli tanks are rolling over their homes and you and others choose this time to flag up doctrinal differences on this list is significant. This is not solidarity worthy of the name. It is empty political posturing. Whether you like it or not, Hamas are the organisation currently synonymous with intractable resistance to Israeli ethnic cleansing in Palestine. It is this, not their Charter, which gives them legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of Palestinian people. Enough with the fucking paternalism. The issue in the current period isn't the political or religious orientation of the resistance or its biggest faction, the issue is how best we can demonstrate international solidarity with an oppressed, colonial people as they're fighting for their survival. From lueko.willms at t-online.de Tue Jan 6 02:16:30 2009 From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:16:30 +0100 (MEZ) Subject: [Marxism] Who else defends Gaza? In-Reply-To: <908b689f0901052301n5a4fa03di79cc1c9c6124ef36@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090106061316.17D52118049@smtp.hushmail.com> <20090106061316.17D52118049@smtp.hushmail.com> <908b689f0901052301n5a4fa03di79cc1c9c6124ef36@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002-6e216349-24629.1155@lws-media.de> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 02:01:29 -0500, Ruthless Critic of All that Exists wrote: > Wikipedia says: Be very very careful with articles on Wikipedia on hotly debated topics. I can tell you that for example all the articles on Angola and other parts of Southern Africa are deeply soaked with a rightist imperialist-colonialist attitude. And that there is hardly a chance to make factual corrections since a brigade of falsifiers will change that back immediately. Cheers, L?ko Willms Frankfurt, Germany -------------------------------- From lueko.willms at t-online.de Mon Jan 5 14:27:27 2009 From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:27:27 +0100 (MEZ) Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism In-Reply-To: <908b689f0901051249w10c2fa1dv9c8198039b62784@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b8a676d0901041857s5e4ce459tf2a56df7690fbf16@mail.gmail.com> <2fa158550901050540r328b3046o977f5c000134805b@mail.gmail.com> <355CD531801F476DA427A7516777F8A6@dmsthinkpad> <908b689f0901050943w6ebace80t5523f2edc24c4b24@mail.gmail.com> <908b689f0901051249w10c2fa1dv9c8198039b62784@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002-3f7b6249-37175.871@lws-media.de> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 15:49:22 -0500, Ruthless Critic of All that Exists wrote: > I am not sure that the comparison with South Africa is valid here. The > ANC never expressed hatred for "whites in general", while Hamas > official pronouncements do tend to demonize Jews in general. What do you expect after decades of massacre after massacre of Arab Palestinians by the colonial settler ethoncracy committed in the name of "The Jews" of the whole world? The brutality is going out from people and collectives which claim to commit their crimes against humanity in the name and interest of _all_ Jews on this planet? Where the people driven out of their homes in 1948 were never allowed back and their villages destroyed by the hundreds, all this in the name and purported interest of "The Jews", while each and everyone from everywhere who could claim to be a Jews was given immediately citizenship of this colonial settler state? How can you not expect the victims of this racist oppression not to take seriously the propaganda and of their torturer? There are today many Jews who would never set their foot on German soil are try to do everything to prevent music from German composer Wagner being performed. I guess you can understand them just as I do. But then -- how not understand the same wrath of the victims of the colonial settler state which pretends to act in the name and interest of all Jews of this planet? Comradely, L?ko Willms Frankfurt, Germany -------------------------------- From lueko.willms at t-online.de Tue Jan 6 02:34:47 2009 From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:34:47 +0100 (MEZ) Subject: [Marxism] Gaza: What is happening? In-Reply-To: <1231213431.5038.52.camel@localhost> References: <49624DF7.9070701@igc.org> <1231212288.5038.43.camel@localhost> <908b689f0901051931v44056c8cl6bb7fa11c824a30c@mail.gmail.com> <908b689f0901051931v44056c8cl6bb7fa11c824a30c@mail.gmail.com> <1231213431.5038.52.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <002-b7256349-13921.1167@lws-media.de> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:43:51 -0500, Jon Flanders wrote: > On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 22:31 -0500, Ruthless Critic of All that Exists > wrote: > > > > Honesty and integrity demand that one denounces such things, even as > > one condemns the invasion. This referred to this: "Shireen Shihab, 30, a resident of Gaza City, said Monday that she had seen Hamas fighters firing rockets toward Israel from a site two blocks away from her home." > Where exactly in Gaza could Hamas fire rockets that would be a safe > distance from the local population????????????? The blonde valkyrie who appeared several times on Al Jazeera as spokesperson for the Israeli military bragged several times that those bad Palestinians store their weaponry, like the hand-made missiles, in their living quarters, and thus endangered the civilians. Well, all Palestinian fighters are civilians. If I were the journalist interviewing her, I would have asked her about where she thinks the militants of the Warshaw Ghetto stored their weapons, or the militias of the Jewish colonial settlers before the victory in the colonial war establishing the state of Israel. The Gaza strip is quite a small area; making this comprehensible to people knowing a little bit of Germany, the Gaza strip with his 365 square km has one tenth less of the surface of the city of Cologne, but with approximately 1.5 million people about oneandhalf the population of Cologne, or it has 18% more surface than the city of Munich, but a quarter more of population. Comradely yours, L?ko Willms Frankfurt, Germany -------------------------------- From Jscotlive at aol.com Tue Jan 6 05:47:50 2009 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:47:50 EST Subject: [Marxism] First Hamas Then Hezbollah Message-ID: Evidence points to the fact that Israel?s military operation in Gaza is being viewed by the Israelis as a dress rehearsal for another war with Hezbollah. Since its defeat at the hands of the Iranian-backed Lebanese resistance movement during an attempted invasion of Southern Lebanon in 2006, the IDF has undergone intensive training in urban warfare tactics, utilising mock-up towns and urban centres specially built in the Negev Desert. Combined air and land military exercises have also been taking place on the Golan Heights, terrain chose specifically to mimic the open terrain between the villages and towns of Southern Lebanon full: _http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3314_ (http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3314) From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com Tue Jan 6 06:32:17 2009 From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 08:32:17 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism In-Reply-To: <002-3f7b6249-37175.871@lws-media.de> References: <7b8a676d0901041857s5e4ce459tf2a56df7690fbf16@mail.gmail.com> <2fa158550901050540r328b3046o977f5c000134805b@mail.gmail.com> <355CD531801F476DA427A7516777F8A6@dmsthinkpad> <908b689f0901050943w6ebace80t5523f2edc24c4b24@mail.gmail.com> <908b689f0901051249w10c2fa1dv9c8198039b62784@mail.gmail.com> <002-3f7b6249-37175.871@lws-media.de> Message-ID: <908b689f0901060532y71bd5e89kd3d94a3c06bb46fe@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:27 PM, L?ko Willms wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 15:49:22 -0500, Ruthless Critic of All that Exists wrote: > >> I am not sure that the comparison with South Africa is valid here. The >> ANC never expressed hatred for "whites in general", while Hamas >> official pronouncements do tend to demonize Jews in general. > > What do you expect after decades of massacre after massacre of Arab > Palestinians by the colonial settler ethoncracy committed in the name of "The > Jews" of the whole world? Blacks in South Africa had also suffered horribly, generation after generation. A group purporting to lead a national liberation movement _must_ discriminate (whatever the provocation) between the actual oppressors and the oppressor's religion/ethnicity in general. Because if not, it would not succeed very well in the liberation task iself. And as Marxists we_must_ point this out. Otherwise we run the risk of becoming cheerleaders for simply anyone who purports to lead a liberation movement. We are Marxists. We need to be more critical of this -- even as we support the goal of national liberation. > How can you not expect the victims of this racist oppression not to take > seriously the propaganda and of their torturer? This may be "expected", in the sense that we can understand why this might ocur easily. But that does not mean that we should accept it uncritically. It means even less that we should condone it. > There are today many Jews who would never set their foot on German soil > are try to do everything to prevent music from German composer Wagner > being performed. I guess you can understand them just as I do. But then -- > how not understand the same wrath of the victims of the colonial settler state > which pretends to act in the name and interest of all Jews of this planet? The analogy is not valid at all. Wagner *specifically* was anti-semitic. If Jews tried to prevent music by _any_ German composer (just for being German), *that* would have been the analog of Hamas' antipathy towards _any_ Jew. From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Jan 6 06:42:34 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:42:34 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Moderator's note In-Reply-To: <908b689f0901051931v44056c8cl6bb7fa11c824a30c@mail.gmail.com> References: <49624DF7.9070701@igc.org> <1231212288.5038.43.camel@localhost> <908b689f0901051931v44056c8cl6bb7fa11c824a30c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49635FCA.9050400@panix.com> Ruthless Critic of All that Exists wrote: > On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Jon Flanders wrote: >> On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 16:24 -0800, Gary MacLennan wrote: > >>> Of course I have criticisms of Hamas, but at the >>> time of >>> their killing I will not voice such criticisms. > > But not only are they being killed, they seem to be, also, recklessly > endangering other people's lives: > > "Shireen Shihab, 30, a resident of Gaza City, said Monday that she had > seen Hamas fighters firing rockets toward Israel from a site two > blocks away from her home. She said she and others could not express > any opposition for fear of being labeled spies." > > > > Honesty and integrity demand that one denounces such things, even as > one condemns the invasion. This is totally out of order. If I hear anything more like this from Sayan again, he will be banned permanently. From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Jan 6 06:58:03 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:58:03 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Behind Obama's "stimulus" plan Message-ID: <4963636B.7090000@panix.com> http://wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/stim-j06.shtml Obama stimulus plan to include major corporate tax cuts By Jerry White 6 January 2009 For weeks, spokesmen for the incoming Barack Obama administration have suggested that they would respond to the economic crisis by launching a massive program of public spending, with some supporters comparing the scope of the planned economic stimulus package to Roosevelt's New Deal measures during the Great Depression. Details of Obama's proposals began to emerge on Monday, and it is clear that the US president-elect is proposing a relatively small "stimulus" package, which will include further massive tax incentives for corporate America. The provisions for ordinary people will do next to nothing to alleviate the impact of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. This weekend the Obama transition team revealed that 40 percent of the estimated $675-775 billion it plans to spend over the next two years on its economic package would be earmarked for tax cuts, with about half going to big business. The Wall Street Journal noted that the "Obama tax-cut proposals, if enacted, could pack more punch in two years than either of George W. Bush's tax cuts did in their first two years." Many of Obama's proposals, the newspaper wrote, were, in fact, extensions of measures carried out by the Republican administration over the last eight years. One such provision under the Obama plan would allow businesses to reduce taxes by claiming immediate depreciation of half of their spending on new equipment, rather than spreading out that depreciation over years. Another would allow businesses to write off the huge losses they incurred last year and any suffered in 2009, enabling corporations to apply retroactively for refunds on taxes paid over the last five years. Corporations will also get thousands of dollars in tax credits for each job supposedly created or retained. Under the plan, ordinary working people will receive a tax credit worth up to $500 for individual workers and $1,000 for families?adding up to about $150 billion of the total package. This under conditions in which the decline in the value of US homes alone will lead to the wiping out of some $6 trillion in US household wealth. This means families crushed by high levels of debt and other living expenses will either pay a little less in taxes or receive a rebate of a few hundred dollars. The new administration will also adjust payroll taxes for the current year, meaning an average worker is likely to see his or her paycheck increase by about $10 a week! The proposed $300 billion in tax cuts were greater than expected and immediately won praise from Republicans who had criticized the previous focus on government spending. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Rep.-Kentucky) praised the tax cuts, saying they were "the sort of thing we could have bipartisan agreement on," adding that "Republicans, by and large, think tax relief is a great way to get money to people immediately." The Democrats, who will increase their majority when the 111th Congress convenes Tuesday, had said they hoped to have a stimulus package approved for Obama to sign immediately after being sworn in on January 20. Congressional leaders are now saying they will need until mid-February to craft a bipartisan agreement. Obama has said he wants an 80 percent approval from Congress?giving the Republican minority that was overwhelmingly defeated at the polls virtual veto power over the legislation. In discussions with congressional leaders Monday, Republicans reportedly pressed for even larger tax cuts along with deep cuts to the federal budget to offset increased spending. For their part, Obama and leading Democrats, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, insisted they would be "fiscally responsible" and vowed to carry out "radical reforms" to reduce spending. Ten percent of the package is directed towards extending unemployment benefits or providing temporary extensions of health care coverage, even though millions are facing the loss of their incomes and medical benefits. On Friday, the Labor Department is expected to announce that another 500,000 jobs were lost in December, bringing to 2.4 million the number of jobs lost in 2008, the most since World War II. While a portion of the stimulus money is directed toward public infrastructure improvements and aiding city and state governments, the Democrats, like the Republicans, insist these projects will be based on corporate profitability. Obama aides indicate that 80 percent of the 3 million jobs the package will supposedly create or "save" will be in the private sector, including private contractors working for the government. In his weekly address, President-elect Obama said, "If we don't act swiftly and boldly, we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment." These measures, however, are likely to have little effect on the hemorrhaging of jobs, which is continuing unabated as manufacturing activity, consumer spending and lending contract sharply. William Gale, a tax policy analyst at the Brookings Institution, told the Wall Street Journal that much of the money would likely go to companies that would have hired more people anyway. Other critics have noted that companies could simply add temporary or contract employees to qualify for the tax breaks. In addition, several corporations have already "retained" jobs by imposing unpaid holidays and reducing wages and benefits, as several corporations have already done. During his campaign Obama said he would eliminate the Bush tax breaks for those making above $200,000. No tax increases on the wealthy, however, were included in the plan, with spokesmen for the incoming administration suggesting such measures would undermine efforts to encourage businesses to hire workers. According to the New York Times, his aides "have signaled that they will wait to let Mr. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire in 2010, rather than try to repeal them sooner." Just as he has done on foreign policy, Obama has embraced the most right-wing economic policies in order to defend the interests of America's financial elite. This will produce shock and disappointment, and ultimately anger and opposition, among working people who voted to end these reactionary policies. On Monday Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman?who is one of the liberal media supporters of Obama?expressed concern over the Democrats' collaboration with the Republicans and warned that a stimulus package could be too little and too late to prevent a financial meltdown. "The fact is that recent economic numbers have been terrifying, not just in the United States but around the world," he wrote. "Manufacturing, in particular, is plunging everywhere. Banks aren't lending; businesses and consumers aren't spending. Let's not mince words: This looks an awful lot like the beginning of a second Great Depression." The precarious state of the US economy was underscored Monday with the reports of sharp declines in auto sales in December, closing out one of the worst years in the history of the US auto industry. GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda and Nissan all suffered more than 30 percent falloffs, with Chrysler sales plummeting by more than 50 percent. From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Jan 6 07:07:10 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:07:10 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Hitchens denounces Hamas Message-ID: <4963658E.5040205@panix.com> I know that this might seem like "dog bites man" but Hitchens has not been this vociferously on the side of Israel in the past. It is a case of worser going to worsest. http://www.slate.com/id/2207872/ From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Jan 6 07:09:13 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:09:13 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Unprecedented Numbers of Americans Question Israel Message-ID: <49636609.2060008@panix.com> http://www.alternet.org/story/117568/ Unprecedented Numbers of Americans Question Israel's Actions in Gaza By Max Blumenthal, Huffington Post Posted on January 6, 2009, Printed on January 6, 2009 Almost as soon as the first Israeli missile struck the Gaza Strip, a veteran cheering squad suited up to support the home team. "Israel is so scrupulous about civilian life," Charles Krauthammer claimed in the Washington Post. Echoing Krauthammer, Alan Dershowitz called the Israeli attack on Gaza, "Perfectly 'Proportionate.'" And in the New York Times, Israeli historian Benny Morris described his country's airstrikes as "highly efficient." While the cheerleaders testified to the superior moral fiber of their team, the Palestinian civilian death toll mounted. Israeli missiles tore at least fifteen Palestinian police cadets to shreds at a graduation ceremony, blew twelve worshipers to pieces (including six children) while they left evening prayers at a mosque, flattened the elite American International School, killed five sisters while they slept in their beds, and liquidated 9 women and children in order to kill a single Hamas leader. So far, Israeli forces have killed at least 500 Gazans and wounded some two thousand, including hundreds of children. Yesterday, the IDF blanketed parts of Gaza with white phosphorus, a chemical weapon Saddam Hussein once deployed against Kurdish rebels. "It was Israel at its best," Yossi Klein Halevi declared in the New Republic. By New Year's Day, Israel's cheering squad had turned the opinion pages of major American newspapers into their own personal romper room. Of all the editorial contributions published by the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times since the Israel's war on Gaza began, to my knowledge only one offered a skeptical view of the assault. But that editorial, by Israeli novelist David Grossman, contained not a single word about the Palestinian casualties of IDF attacks. Even while calling for a cease fire, Grossman promised, "We can always start shooting again." Israeli public relations agents fanned out to broadcast studios from the US to Europe, fulfilling an aggressive strategy conceived after the country's catastrophic 2006 attack on Lebanon. An analysis by Israel's foreign ministry of eight hours of coverage across international broadcast media concluded that Israeli representatives received a whopping 58 minutes of airtime compared to only 19 minutes for Palestinians. "Quite a few outlets are very favorable to Israel, namely by showing [its] suffering. I am sure it is a result of the new co-ordination," said Major Avital Leibovich, an IDF spokesperson who has become a fixture on cable news in the past weeks. But while Israel's PR machine cranked its Mighty Wurlitzer to full blast, drowning out all opposing voices with its droning sound, a surprisingly substantial portion of the American public decided to dance to its own tune. According to a December 31 Rasmussen poll (so far the only measure of US opinion on the Gaza assault), while Americans remained overwhelmingly supportive of Israel, they were split almost evenly on the question of whether Israel should attack Gaza -- 44% in favor of the assault and 41% against it. The internals are even more remarkable. While Republicans supported the assault on Gaza by a large margin, a predictable finding, only 31% of Democrats did. Members of the Democratic base thus stood in sharp contrast to most of their elected representatives (freshman Rep. Donna Edwards is a notable exception), who backed the latest Israeli assault in lockstep, and seem to support Israel no matter what it does. The rift between the progressive base and the party played out on Barack Obama's Change.gov site, which was deluged in recent days with demands for a statement condemning Israel's assault on Gaza. So what accounts for the surprising trend in American opinion on Gaza? The proliferation of progressive online media and social networking sites could be a factor, but I have another theory: The same pundits who are cheerleading Israel's assault on Gaza once sold the occupation of Iraq to America, and with a nearly identical set of arguments. In their voices and those of the grim Israeli PR agents carted out for cable news, many Americans hear echoes of the Bush administration's most fantastical lies. When they see images of Gazans under withering bombardment, they flash back to Fallujah and the assorted horrors of Iraq. When they look at Israel, they see themselves during the darkest days of the Bush era. Now, an increasing share of Americans know what Israel is doing to Gaza. And they reject it, even when Israel is "at its best." Max Blumenthal is a Puffin Foundation writing fellow at the Nation Institute based in Washington, DC. Read his blog at maxblumenthal.blogspot.com. From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Jan 6 07:15:43 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:15:43 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Justin Podur on Gaza Message-ID: <4963678F.3070708@panix.com> http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/20173 This kind of "war" January 06, 2009 By Justin Podur The current crisis in Gaza began with Israel's breaking the ceasefire with Hamas on November 4, 2008. The five-month ceasefire was unsustainable for two reasons. First and most importantly, because it condemned the Palestinians of Gaza to a slow and wasting death: part of the ceasefire was the continuation of Israel's blockade of Gaza. As part of this blockade, Palestinians could not leave the territory. This included, in high-profile cases, students who had obtained admission and visas to study abroad, but also people who later died because they could not receive treatment for cancers and other medical problems. Remember that the Gaza strip is 360 square kilometers, with 1.5 million people. The people have skills, strong social cohesion, and traditions of hospitality, but the area is not self-sufficient and the economy cannot function without free movement of people and goods in and out. Leave aside that the moral right and legal right of Palestinians to self-defense was denied by the prevention of arms supplies (to even mention this as a possibility is to break a taboo). Every other aspect of life was also disrupted by the blockade. Education was disrupted as Israel refused to allow paper, ink, books, and other supplies in. Health care was disrupted as Israel refused to allow medical supplies. Nutrition and normal child development was disrupted both by the refusal of Israel to allow food supplies, but also by the use of sonic booms, which the Israeli air force uses to frighten the population, and periodic bombing and assassinations. (clip) From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Jan 6 07:27:56 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:27:56 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Fatah = quisling Message-ID: <49636A6C.6040708@panix.com> NY Times, January 6, 2009 In Fatah-Governed West Bank, Solidarity With Hamas By STEVEN ERLANGER NABLUS, West Bank ? Fewer than 100 people showed up on Monday in the busy center of Nablus for a demonstration in solidarity with the suffering Palestinians of Gaza. There were a few Palestinian flags, and some posters that featured bombs with Jewish stars and dripping blood and demanded, ?Where is the conscience of the world?? But when an organizer asked passers-by to join the rally, only a handful responded. The lack of interest was not, for certain, lack of support for Hamas. Fury is rising here over the war in Gaza, as are support for Hamas and anger with the Palestinian Authority in this city, which has long been the beating heart of opposition to Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Many want the authority and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas of the Fatah party, to do more to criticize Israel. But a complicated internal struggle is also playing out here in the West Bank, separate geographically and governed by the Palestinian Authority, not, like Gaza, by Hamas. Fatah leaders are growing deeply worried over popular reaction and support for its rival, Hamas, to the point of crushing recent demonstrations. There is also, after so many years of struggle, of Palestinian against Israeli and of Palestinian against Palestinian, no small degree of weariness with yet another deadly round. Even with the war in Gaza, there is no sign of a third intifada, or uprising, despite Hamas?s call for one. ?The people are tired,? said Jamal Fayez, who runs a modest restaurant in the city center. ?They?re tired, and they?re poor. They?re tired of the conflict between Hamas and Fatah, and they?re tired from trying to earn bread to eat.? In a series of interviews, people here said they were enraged by the photographs and television images of the Palestinian dead in Hamas-controlled Gaza, which they consider part of themselves. They said that support for Hamas would grow as this conflict went on, and that they were intimidated by the Palestinian security forces of Mr. Abbas and his appointed prime minister, Salam Fayyad ? forces subsidized by the United States and trained by Jordan ? which have cracked down on a series of demonstrations and banned the showing of the Hamas flag. With American support, Mr. Fayyad, an economist, is trying to create stability, security and a working model of productive life in the region that can provide an alternative to the vision of Hamas. But the same newly organized police forces that are providing better security on the streets of Nablus, Jenin and Hebron in the West Bank are trying to repress popular anger over Gaza. That is a balancing act they may not be delicate enough to pull off. On Monday afternoon, for example, a march of several hundred students from Birzeit University outside Ramallah toward the nearby Atarot checkpoint was broken up by Palestinian security forces wielding clubs. The students wanted to confront Israeli soldiers at Atarot, and the security forces wanted to prevent the confrontation. Last Friday, security forces broke up larger demonstrations in Hebron and Ramallah, arresting Hamas supporters, confiscating Hamas flags and ripping up placards with pro-Hamas slogans. For the first time in memory, the Palestinian police used tear gas against their own people. ?The Palestinian Authority is preventing people from going to the streets,? said an angry Hassan Hassan, 50, a lawyer. ?They only want their point of view to pertain, and they share the view of Israel and the United States that Hamas should be crushed. They only want Fatah here, they don?t want anyone else, despite the fact that 80 percent of the people are in total solidarity with Gaza and against the repression of the Palestinian Authority.? Mahmoud Hanaisheh, 69, a weather-beaten farmer, went to the demonstration to show solidarity. ?It was important for me to be here,? he said. ?I have to raise my voice, even if no one listens.? Asked if Mr. Abbas was doing enough for the people of Gaza, he yelled, ?No, no, no!? He said Mr. Abbas was negotiating with no result and was complicit with Israel in the attacks on Hamas. The Israelis will negotiate seriously only with a partner they respect, he said. ?The only right thing is resistance,? Mr. Hanaisheh said. ?If there is no resistance against the occupation, there is no Palestinian cause. But if you resist now, everyone says you?re Hamas, and it?s wrong!? Khalil Shikaki is one of the most highly regarded Palestinian pollsters, director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah, and a sometime adviser to Mr. Abbas. ?This conflict will destabilize what Salam Fayyad has tried to do in the West Bank,? Mr. Shikaki said. ?There is certainly destabilization already, and if Hamas sees itself on the way to some kind of victory in Gaza, the West Bank will be a different ballgame. As the war drags on, Abbas and Fayyad are more on the defensive, and their ability to crack down will be affected, too.? The impact of the Fatah-Hamas struggle is strong, Mr. Shikaki said, with Fatah having lost legislative elections to Hamas in January 2006 and having lost control of Gaza to Hamas in a short but fierce civil war in June 2007. ?There is anger with the Israelis over Gaza, but also anger with Hamas, and for the first time, Israel is waging war with a faction of the Palestinian people that has been in a bloody conflict with another Palestinian faction,? Mr. Shikaki said. ?There is a sense of frustration with both Hamas and Abu Mazen,? as Mr. Abbas is known. Palestinians have conflicting sentiments, Mr. Shikaki said. There is sympathy for those under attack, respect for those who fight and the need to show support for the victims of Israel. ?All this is affecting Abu Mazen and Fatah,? he said, ?and if Hamas can declare some kind of victory in Gaza, this support for Hamas will remain, and Hamas will be able to regain the initiative in the West Bank that they lost after the civil war in Gaza.? On the West Bank, he said, people do not blame Hamas now, as Mr. Abbas did. ?This is not the moment for blame,? Mr. Shikaki said, ?which is why Abu Mazen saying that Hamas is responsible for the Israeli attacks did not go down well.? But he said that much would depend, in both Israeli and Palestinian politics, on the outcome of the conflict and on whether Hamas or Israel was perceived to have won. Raida Yassin, 30, was one of the teachers who demonstrated. ?You see this atmosphere,? she said, shrugging and readjusting her head scarf. ?We are here for solidarity, but we can do nothing more for Gaza. We have nothing in our hands.? She hoped the Palestinian Authority would do more, she said. ?But the Palestinian Authority is one thing and the people are another,? she said. ?What I care about is the people; the Palestinian Authority is in a different world.? Mr. Fayez, the restaurateur, said: ?People feel caught in this conflict between Hamas and Fatah. If you have a business here, it?s better to be neutral; I have customers from both sides.? The mood is unstable, he said. ?There is no question, this generates more support and sympathy for Hamas, so it really worries the Palestinian Authority,? he said. Then he stopped and said, not really joking, ?I hope tomorrow I won?t find myself in jail.? Khaled Abu Aker contributed reporting. From bashbangala at yahoo.com Tue Jan 6 07:35:22 2009 From: bashbangala at yahoo.com (Bashiru Abubakar) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:35:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] http://www.petitiononline.com/freegaza/petition.html In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <68386.53310.qm@web45905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> in addition we should also be prayerfull to the people GAZA --- On Tue, 1/6/09, Mark Lause wrote: From: Mark Lause Subject: [Marxism] http://www.petitiononline.com/freegaza/petition.html To: "abubakar" Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 3:00 AM Forwarded from Bruce Levine.... ML > From: "Marilyn B. Young" > Date: January 5, 2009 6:28:19 AM CST > Subject: Fwd: What to do about Gaza? > > > > Best petition around, written by Israeli personalities and human > rights activists like Jeff Halper (ICAHD): > http://www.petitiononline.com/freegaza/petition.html > > Follows, press release from the few international human rights > activists that stayed in Gaza, to protect ambulances that otherwise > get targeted. > This must stop, > Martina > www.unponteper.it > > > Australian Human Rights Volunteer reports: Five Palestinian medics > were killed today by Israeli forces > > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > > > January 4, 2009 > > > International Solidarity Movement activists spent the night > accompanying ambulances in Gaza. They were working with medical > personnel during the Israeli occupation forces ground invasion into > northern Gaza. > > > "In addition to the doctor and medic that the Israeli military > murdered on the 31st of December, they have killed five more medics > today. One was shot in Jabaliya, one in Al Sheikh Ejleen. Three > have just been killed when a missile directly hit their ambulance > in the Tal Hawye neighborhood in Gaza City. The medics are > constantly in contact with the Red Cross for them to negotiate > passage with the Israelis. The Israelis constantly refuse." > > Sharon Lock (Australia) ? International Solidarity Movement > > > "The Israelis dropped a bomb in front of our ambulance to prevent > us accessing wounded people. However a donkey cart emerged carrying > a wounded family: a mother and father and three teenage brothers. > One of the teenagers was attempting to shield the other two with a > blanket. They were both horrifically injured; I could see the lungs > of one of them. As I assisted the medics to move him off the cart I > found my hand inside his body." > > Alberto Arce (Spain) ? International Solidarity Movement > > > "I got a call 30 minutes ago, on a poor phone line, saying that > Arafat is dead ? killed while working ? by Israeli fire. He was one > of the emergency medics I met two nights ago, compassionate, > emotionally strong, and with an unabashedly wacky sense of humor. > I'm more saddened by his death than I can express." > > Eva Bartlett (Canada) ? International Solidarity Movement > > > "Israel is claiming that there is no humanitarian crisis because > they do not consider us as humans." > > Natalie Abu Shakra (Lebanon) ? International Solidarity Movement > > > "Israel continues to violate international conventions by attacking > medical personnel. They are massacring the people of Gaza. With the > swelling number of civilian casualties, Israel must ensure that > medical assistance is available. Instead, they are intentionally > targeting the medical teams that are protected by the Geneva > Conventions. Israel's disregard for international law must be > confronted by the international community." > > Vittorio Arrigoni (Italy) ? International Solidarity Movement > > > "The ground invasion of last night has lead to Beit Lahiya and Beit > Hanoun being shut down. We managed to get into Beit Hanoun to > collect bodies of some of the dead. We are now headed to Jabaliya > to continue our work with ambulance accompaniment. There is nowhere > for the Gazan people to escape to, civilians cannot leave for > safety because of the siege. These prolonged attacks on Gaza are > horrific and last night's ground invasion by the Israeli occupation > forces has led to a swelling amount of civilian casualties." > > Ewa Jasiewicz ? Free Gaza Movement > > > Please Contact: > > Ewa Jasiewicz - Poland/Britain (Polish, English and Arabic) + > 447749421576k > > > Other Human Rights Activists now in Gaza: > > Alberto Arce Spain - (Spanish) - +972 59 8786094 > > Dr. Haider Eid - South Africa (English and Arabic) - + 972 59 9441766 > > Sharon Lock - Australia (English) - +972 59 8826513 > > Fida Qishta - Palestine (English and Arabic) +972 599681669 > > Jenny Linnel - Britain (English) - +972 59 8765377 > > Natalie Abu Shakra - Lebanon (Arabic and English) +972 59 8336 328 > > Vittorio Arrigoni - Italy (Italian) - +973 59 8378945 > > Eva Bartlett - Canada (English) - +972 59 8836308 > > > For More General Information, Please Contact: > > Adam Taylor - ISM media office in Ramallah - +972 598 503 948 > > > > ________________________________________________ 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/bashbangala%40yahoo.com From davidrail68 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 6 07:42:02 2009 From: davidrail68 at yahoo.com (David Walsh) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:42:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] Fw: Unconventional Weapons against The People of Gaza. CRG E-Newsletter Message-ID: <366858.11151.qm@web45313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Jan 6 07:48:38 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:48:38 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Moderator's note #2 Message-ID: <49636F46.3050506@panix.com> I have unsubbed "Ruthless Critic" not because of his business about Hamas "recklessly endangering civilian lives" but because I just noticed that he posted 8 times yesterday, 3 posts over the limit. I had warned him repeatedly in the past about overposting and finally suspended his posting privileges in mid-November to be reinstated on Jan. 1. Just 4 days after his posting privileges were restored, he is at it again. I am not in the habit of counting the number of times that comrades post, but in instances where there is a clear pattern of ignoring my instructions I will finally take action. There is a political aspect to this of course. "Ruthless" is not a Marxist. He is a social democrat who enjoys trading barbs with Marxists, as he did for over a decade on the alt.politics.socialism.trotsky newsgroup. I encourage him to return to that newsgroup where there is neither a limit on the number of posts nor on what you can write. From davidrail68 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 6 08:11:21 2009 From: davidrail68 at yahoo.com (David Walsh) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:11:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] ADC Calls for Investigations Into Reported Israeli use of White Phosphorus on Gaza Message-ID: <353644.87735.qm@web45306.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> ADC Calls for Investigations Into Reported Israeli use of White Phosphorus on Gaza Written by ADC Monday, 05 January 2009 Reports - Israel Using Illegal Chemical Weapon in Gaza ADC Calls for Investigations Into Reported Israeli use of White Phosphorus on Gaza Washington, DC | January 5, 2009 | www.adc.org | The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) today called on the United States Government; including members of Congress, and the international community; including the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), to investigate Israel's reported use of White Phosphorus in its ongoing attack on Gaza. According to the United Nations Israel's overwhelming attacks on Gaza, now in their tenth day, have thus far killed 540 people, 30% of whom are civilians, and injured over 2,750 people; including over 1,000 children. Among those killed today was a family of seven from Shati refugee camp, who were killed by Israeli navy shelling. Three siblings from one family, as well as a girl and her grandfather, also died in the Zeitoun neighborhood of Gaza during Israeli artillery shelling. Emergency medical services have also come under Israeli attack with the al-Awda hospital in Jabaliya being hit by two Israeli shells today. The attacks have also destroyed 12 Mosques. Since the Israeli attacks began, rocket fire from militants in Gaza has thus far killed 5 Israelis including one soldier. Credible media reports have indicated that the Israeli military is using White Phosphorus artillery shells in its bombing of Gaza. ADC National Executive Director Kareem Shora said, "White Phosphorus is categorized as a chemical weapon by most governments and its use in civilian areas is banned by the 1980 Geneva Convention. It is a violation of international humanitarian law and the laws of war to use White Phosphorus ammunition, an incendiary weapon, in civilian areas." The UN has listed Gaza, with a population of 1.5-Million people, as the most densely populated area in the world with a population density that is higher than that of Manhattan in New York City. White Phosphorus causes painful burn injuries to exposed human flesh. The Israeli military used White Phosphorus ammunition during the 2006 war on Lebanon as documented by ADC in its extensive 233-page report Eyewitness Lebanon: an International Law Inquiry. White phosphorus is an indiscriminate killer that ignites once it is exposed to oxygen, producing such heat that it bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. www.adc.org From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Jan 6 08:15:16 2009 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:15:16 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Krugman critiques Obama stimulus plan Message-ID: <49637584.1030204@panix.com> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithmetic-wonkish-but-important/ January 6, 2009, 9:26 am Stimulus arithmetic (wonkish but important) Bit by bit we?re getting information on the Obama stimulus plan, enough to start making back-of-the-envelope estimates of impact. The bottom line is this: we?re probably looking at a plan that will shave less than 2 percentage points off the average unemployment rate for the next two years, and possibly quite a lot less. This raises real concerns about whether the incoming administration is lowballing its plans in an attempt to get bipartisan consensus. In the extended entry, a look at my calculations. The starting point for this discussion is Okun?s Law, the relationship between changes in real GDP and changes in the unemployment rate. Estimates of the Okun?s Law coefficient range from 2 to 3. I?ll use 2, which is an optimistic estimate for current purposes: it says that you have to raise real GDP by 2 percent from what it would otherwise have been to reduce the unemployment rate 1 percentage point from what it would otherwise have been. Since GDP is roughly $15 trillion, this means that you have to raise GDP by $300 billion per year to reduce unemployment by 1 percentage point. Now, what we?re hearing about the Obama plan is that it calls for $775 billion over two years, with $300 billion in tax cuts and the rest in spending. Call that $150 billion per year in tax cuts, $240 billion each year in spending. How much do tax cuts and spending raise GDP? The widely cited estimates of Mark Zandi of Economy.com indicate a multiplier of around 1.5 for spending, with widely varying estimates for tax cuts. Payroll tax cuts, which make up about half the Obama proposal, are pretty good, with a multiplier of 1.29; business tax cuts, which make up the rest, are much less effective. In particular, letting businesses get refunds on past taxes based on current losses, which is reportedly a key feature of the plan, looks an awful lot like a lump-sum transfer with no incentive effects. Let?s be generous and assume that the overall multiplier on tax cuts is 1. Then the per-year effect of the plan on GDP is 150 x 1 + 240 x 1.5 = $510 billion. Since it takes $300 billion to reduce the unemployment rate by 1 percentage point, this is shaving 1.7 points off what unemployment would otherwise have been. Finally, compare this with the economic outlook. ?Full employment? clearly means an unemployment rate near 5 ? the CBO says 5.2 for the NAIRU, which seems high to me. Unemployment is currently about 7 percent, and heading much higher; Obama himself says that absent stimulus it could go into double digits. Suppose that we?re looking at an economy that, absent stimulus, would have an average unemployment rate of 9 percent over the next two years; this plan would cut that to 7.3 percent, which would be a help but could easily be spun by critics as a failure. And that gets us to politics. This really does look like a plan that falls well short of what advocates of strong stimulus were hoping for ? and it seems as if that was done in order to win Republican votes. Yet even if the plan gets the hoped-for 80 votes in the Senate, which seems doubtful, responsibility for the plan?s perceived failure, if it?s spun that way, will be placed on Democrats. I see the following scenario: a weak stimulus plan, perhaps even weaker than what we?re talking about now, is crafted to win those extra GOP votes. The plan limits the rise in unemployment, but things are still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 9 percent and coming down only slowly. And then Mitch McConnell says ?See, government spending doesn?t work.? Let?s hope I?ve got this wrong. From Dbachmozart at aol.com Tue Jan 6 08:39:31 2009 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:39:31 EST Subject: [Marxism] Israel's aim in Gaza attack - At what point does it become genocide? Message-ID: Lenin's Tomb - Tuesday, January 06, 2009 _At what point does it become genocide?_ (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/01/at-what-point-does-it-become-genocide.html) posted by _lenin_ () clip There is also an aspect of territorial expansionism in this war, which will squeeze the population of Gaza into an even tighter, more overpopulated and less viable space. The threatening phone calls and leaflets being dropped on Gaza, it is now confirmed, comprise part of an ethnic cleansing operation starting in the north of Gaza similar to that attempted in southern Lebanon in 2006. The Guardian _reports_ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-palestine-civilian-toll) that 15,000 people have responded to the threats by fleeing major urban centres such as Beit Hanoun. The next step is surely the annexing of a sizeable portion of Gaza (or 'the Land of Israel' as Israeli politicians call it and any other territory they think belongs to them by right) under the rubric of creating a 'security zone'. (It was _reported_ (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/03/israel-planning-ethnic-cleansing-in.html ) as early as March last year that the Israeli government was considering an operation to secure such ends.) Israel now claims that its aim is to _drive Hamas out of Gaza_ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-hamas) . Taken literally, and on Israel's own terms, this would mean the expulsion of the greater part of the population of Gaza. full - <_http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/01/at-what-point-does-it-become-genocide .html_ (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/01/at-what-point-does-it-become-genocide.html) > **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From sartesian at earthlink.net Tue Jan 6 09:42:37 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:42:37 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] ADC Calls for Investigations Into Reported Israeli use ofWhite Phosphorus on Gaza References: <353644.87735.qm@web45306.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <451D3AA8B27542CFB26863F462EED94B@dmsthinkpad> White phosphorous is terrorism practiced on the most miserable of grand scales. Burns on contact with air, worse on contact with water-- will burn right through to the bone-- if it gets on you you can either try covering it with vaseline-- but if it has already burned into your skin that won't work, so you might as well slice off, literally, that part of the flesh. Used in WW 2, Korea, and extensively in Vietnam, usually in artillery rounds, where the word was "Willy Peter will make you a believer." Used by the US against the population of Fallujah, as punishment after the US mercenaries got strung up by their own guts. I believe the US used an air dispersal method [rather than impact/explosion], to create a fire storm from which there was no escape. "Crime against humanity," "war crimes," are obscene euphemisms when it comes to white phosporous. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Walsh" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 4:11 PM Subject: [Marxism] ADC Calls for Investigations Into Reported Israeli use ofWhite Phosphorus on Gaza From sartesian at earthlink.net Tue Jan 6 09:54:21 2009 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:54:21 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] Census Bureau Report Message-ID: <6A7D011050714E25BE47BCB43C890602@dmsthinkpad> Summary New orders for manufactured goods in November, down four consecutive months, decreased $18.7 billion or 4.6 percent to $384.6 billion, the U.S. Census Bureau reported today. This followed a 6.0 percent October decrease. Excluding transportation, new orders decreased 4.2 percent. Shipments, also down four consecutive months, decreased $22.1 billion or 5.3 percent to $393.8 billion. This was the largest percent decrease since the series was first published on a NAICS basis in 1992 and followed a 3.6 percent October decrease. Unfilled orders, down two consecutive months, decreased $5.3 billion or 0.6 percent to $815.4 billion. This followed a 0.9 percent October decrease. The unfilled orders-to-shipments ratio was 5.82, up from 5.69 in October. Inventories, down three consecutive months, decreased $1.6 billion or 0.3 percent to $553.4 billion. This followed a 0.6 percent October decrease. The inventories-to-shipments ratio was 1.41, up from 1.33 in October. full at: http://www.census.gov:80/indicator/www/m3/index.htm From johnaimani at earthlink.net Tue Jan 6 12:15:53 2009 From: johnaimani at earthlink.net (johnaimani) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:15:53 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] WSJ-"Manufacturing Tumbles Globally " Message-ID: <94E4B52A17144C759EC706DBFBC3F355@D4PKYZ41> ("A drop in the rate of profit is attended by a rise in the minimum capital required by an individual capitalist for the productive employment of labour...Concentration increases simultaneously, because beyond certain limits a large capital with a small rate of profit accumulates faster than a small capital with a large rate of profit. At a certain high point this increasing concentration in its turn causes a new fall in the rate of profit. The mass of small dispersed capitals is thereby driven along the adventurous road of speculation, credit frauds, stock swindles, and crises." Marx. Capital. Vol 3. Chap XV. Sec III. PP250-1 (Int'l Publishers 1967 Edition.) http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch15.htm ) (Chart Redacted) a.. JANUARY 3, 2009 Page A-1 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123094144619950373.html Manufacturing Tumbles Globally By KELLY EVANS and ROBERT GUY MATTHEWS Manufacturing activity around the world fell sharply in December, suggesting that the U.S. recession will extend well into 2009, if not longer, and that unemployment will rise globally. A broad index of change in U.S. manufacturing activity fell to its lowest level since June 1980, when the economy was on the verge of a severe double-dip recession, according to the Institute for Supply Management. Not one of the 18 industries surveyed reported growth, and some, such as wood products, have been in decline for more than two years. New orders, a gauge of future activity, sank to the lowest index level since records began 60 years ago. Exports and production also sank, and employment levels declined. The downturn in demand for manufactured goods is prompting companies of all sizes to lay off workers, shut down plants and reduce production of machinery, steel, plastics and other basic components. Separate surveys of manufacturing activity around the world released on Friday, the first business day of the new year, were also bleak. Manufacturing is a key component of a country's gross domestic product, and the data often serve as a barometer of future economic growth. Nevertheless, on Friday, stock markets around the world shrugged off the manufacturing numbers, posting gains in Hong Kong, Seoul and Europe on light trading volume. The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 258.3 points, or 2.94%, to close at 9034.69. Some analysts say global weakness is already priced into shares, which in the U.S. just closed their worst year since 1931. Manufacturing activity contracted in Germany, France, Italy and Spain, pushing the Markit Economics survey of euro-zone manufacturing last month to the lowest level in its 11-year history. In Russia, the VTB Bank Europe manufacturing index fell to its lowest level since it began in September 1997. The data from Asia also looked grim. A survey by brokerage firm CLSA showed employment and output fell at a record clip in Chinese factories in December. Indian manufacturers cut jobs for the first time in the history of a survey by ABN AMRO Bank. The simultaneous woes of manufacturing in rich countries and poor countries are something new in the global economy. In the past, weaknesses in U.S. and European manufacturing meant a windfall for developing economies, which took up the slack. Hong Kong, which like the euro zone slipped into recession in the third quarter, saw manufacturing activity as surveyed by Markit decline for the sixth straight month. Earlier this week, Japan's Nomura/JMMA index of manufacturing sank to a new low, due to a reduction in overseas demand and the deteriorating global economy. The spreading and deepening manufacturing slump has some experts worried that the global economy in 2009 won't fare much better than last year. J.P. Morgan's global manufacturing index, released Friday and compiled from surveys in 19 countries, reached a new low in December, consistent with a "severe" 17% annualized contraction in global activity. J.P. Morgan estimates global output declined 4% in the last three months of 2008 compared to the previous quarter, reflecting reduced spending and available financing on autos, housing and capital equipment. Manufacturers around the world have already begun layoffs to conserve cash and reduce production, but many more are expected this year. The job cuts are coming across industries and borders. Nickent Golf, a golf-club manufacturer in the Los Angeles area, recently cut assembly workers in China and the U.S. to cope with falling demand. In Elbow Lake, Minn., Cosmos Enterprises Inc., which makes metal and plastic parts for manufacturers including car and farm-equipment makers, has cut capacity, and in October it laid off five machinists and one quality inspector. "What is 2009 going to bring? There's a scary thought," says sales manager Kelly Chandler. The struggles of big steel companies are particularly troubling, because that industry's health is considered an early indicator of how other industries are faring. ArcelorMittal, U.S. Steel Corp. and AK Steel all have announced layoffs in the U.S. or Canada. In the U.S., mills that produce raw steel are working at only about 43% of capacity. Gerdau Macsteel Inc., a specialty-steel maker, said it would eliminate 300 employees by Jan. 16 at its Jackson, Mich., plant, although it is unclear whether the layoffs will be permanent. The steelmaker has been hit especially hard because about 50% of its output goes into automotive applications. The U.S. shed some 1.9 million jobs in 2008, through November, and the unemployment rate, currently 6.7%, is expected to rise when the government reports December figures next Friday. The surveys "underscore the depth of the global recession, which we believe will prove to be the worst in the post-war era," says Nigel Gault, an economist with IHS Global Insight. His firm estimates that U.S. gross domestic product declined at a 5.6% annualized rate in the fourth quarter. "With no evidence that the rate of contraction is moderating, we expect declines almost that large in the first quarter of 2009," he says. "The long-awaited fiscal-stimulus package cannot come soon enough." In Germany, Europe's largest economy, machinery, equipment and auto makers are struggling. Volkswagen AG, Europe's largest car maker, said on Dec. 9 that waning sales may make it harder to reach growth targets for 2010. BMW and Mercedes-Benz both saw about 25% drops in November sales. Unemployment across the euro zone hit 7.7% in October, its highest level in nearly two years. The rate is expected to continue rising this year. In December, European Central Bank staffers forecast the euro-zone economy will contract by about 0.5% in 2009. Many private-sector economists contend that prediction is too optimistic, arguing that the bloc could face its sharpest recession since World War II. Sentiment is similar in Asia. Countries such as India and China, heralded for their rapid growth, are cooling as demand for their goods weakens. Chinese manufacturing activity in December posted its second lowest reading since 2004, when CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets began its survey. Both new orders and employment in China fell for the fifth month in a row. Indian employment and manufacturing activity in December fell to their lowest levels since the survey, jointly produced by ABN AMRO Bank and Markit Economics, began in 2005. The global manufacturing decline could put pressure on governments to pull harder on monetary and fiscal levers. The European Central Bank, in particular, has been criticized for failing to move rapidly enough, despite cutting its key rate by 1.75 percentage points since October, to its current 2.5%. By contrast, the U.S. Federal Reserve has slashed its lending rate to near 0%. Investors are betting the ECB will lower its rate by another half percentage point to 2% at its next meeting on Jan. 15. The International Monetary Fund's campaign to get countries to boost government spending by a total of 2% of global gross domestic product -- more than $1 trillion -- could get a lift as well. In the U.S., President-elect Obama has been talking of a stimulus plan of between $675 billion and $775 billion over two years, largely geared to construction spending. China has talked of greatly increasing spending, although some analysts say the numbers Beijing is using are inflated. European nations, more concerned about budget deficits, have been more reluctant to adopt such tactics. -Joellen Perry, Conor Dougherty, Chester Yung and Paul Hannon contributed to this article. Write to Kelly Evans at kelly.evans at wsj.com and Robert Guy Matthews at robertguy.matthews at wsj.com From elishastephens at hotmail.com Tue Jan 6 12:28:53 2009 From: elishastephens at hotmail.com (Eli Stephens) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:28:53 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] How many civilians are dead in Gaza? Message-ID: From: http://lefti.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html#42932995686482972 The news, for example this story as just one of many, is widely reporting that "as many as 25 (sometimes 30) percent [of the dead in Gaza] are civilians." But U.N. humanitarian chief John Holmes, who is the source of that "25%" figure, just appeared on Al Jazeera and claimed in no uncertain terms that, while there is no way of knowing just how many civilians are dead, that his office has claimed that "*at least* 25 percent are civilians." Which is quite different from AP's (and other's) misstatement that "*as many* as 25 percent are civilians." Indeed, when questioned by the Al Jazeera reporter as to whether the real figure might be 50%, or even 75%, he indicated that that was possible, but unknowable, and stood by the "at least" 25% figure. The bottom line is simple - since the U.N. doesn't even know the identity of who has been killed, and even if it did is hardly in a position to look into the background of each one to determine if they were a "civilian" (or a "non-combatant") or not, the "25%" figure basically reflects the percentage which are women and children. Which is certainly a conservative way of arriving at a conclusion, but certainly misleading, and potentially very misleading. Bear this in mind the next time (and it won't be long, I'm sure) that you hear that "25%" figure. Eli Stephens Left I on the News http://lefti.blogspot.com _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail anywhere. No map, no compass. http://windowslive.com/oneline/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_anywhere_122008 From sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com Tue Jan 6 13:02:04 2009 From: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com (sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:02:04 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Unity and resistance-Gaza still burns Message-ID: <20090106200204.90AEF20044@smtp.hushmail.com> At this time of both unimaginable suffering and heroic resistance in Gaza, unity is absolutely essential. According to press reports the force of events is working now, in the West Bank and in Beirut, to overcome division to form a united front of nationalist and Islamic forces. It is no wonder that the political sophistication of revolutionary groups such as the PFLP have long called for and demonstrated the need for such a united front in all of Palestine. At a mass rally in Gaza in August, political bureau member Comrade Maryam Daqqa stressed that "the guns of the PFLP will always be clean and aimed only at the occupation, on the path to liberation, return, an end to the occupation, and the freedom of the prisoners." This is why the revolutionary forces in Gaza did not take part in the tragic bloodletting between Hamas and Fatah and why their example of principled unity is so important. In fact, the leadership of the PFLP worked throughout August meeting with both Fatah and Hamas trying to bring them together. In October, Comrade Sounaal-Rai was released after 12 years of harsh Israeli imprisonment and " carried a letter from the prisoners, calling upon all Palestinian parties and the resistance factions to work together." The need for unity is also pressing at the more prosaic level of working in solidarity in America. I do not enjoy liberals emoting about Barak Obama and I have had to listen to a lot of it lately. Nevertheless, it is necessary to build and support the demonstrations and try to work effectively with any group there is trying to expose the horror and brutality of the invasion. I will readily unite with them in their goal to cut off the torrent of money and weapons from the US that enables this slaughter while struggling against their ignorance of the realities of a prolonged people's war. It is agaonizing to think of how much there needs to be done and how limited our individual abilities.We do what we can do and know in our hearts it is never enough. Whatever the trials, the people of Palestine will survive and continue their fight for total liberation. I make no apologies here for sharing the inspiring truth that, within the united resistance of Gaza, comrades fight on under the red flag of revolution. Gaza still burns, Revolution until victory -- Become a Top Chef! http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/PnY6qxtWo8vB6Ot3WSkhlUlpC2LvHI5pLyEe0HA9SL8jLtLNFOjZ1/ From elishastephens at hotmail.com Tue Jan 6 13:13:50 2009 From: elishastephens at hotmail.com (Eli Stephens) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:13:50 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] New blog: Critique of Crisis Theory Message-ID: Here's the url of a new blog that will be presenting a critique of crisis theory from a Marxist perspective: http://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com _________________________________________________________________ It?s the same Hotmail?. If by ?same? you mean up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad1_122008 From nmgoro at gmail.com Tue Jan 6 14:16:49 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:16:49 -0300 Subject: [Marxism] =?iso-8859-1?q?=22Hello=2C_madam=2C_we=B4re_about_to_te?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ar_your_home_down=22?= Message-ID: <4963CA41.3000009@gmail.com> I don?t know if this is true. A Spanish blog informs that, according to IDF sources, their attitude is so humanitarian that they "phone" those who live at the houses they are about to blast. One would think that the listing includes some red-painted lines, which is where "terrorists" live. "Yes, don?t call this phone at Appartment 503, they?re terrorists". Anyone can check this monstruosity? The most monstruous issue around this, if true, is that the IDF suppose it is not a monstruosity. In fact, it shows the power of life and death that the State of Israel has on the residents in Gaza. Any similitude with a Polish Ghetto in 1940 is anything but coincidence. From lueko.willms at t-online.de Tue Jan 6 05:11:35 2009 From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:11:35 +0100 (MEZ) Subject: [Marxism] Revolution and Religious Fundamentalism Message-ID: <002-764a6349-24888.001@lws-media.de> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 03:51:55 EST, Jscotlive at aol.com wrote: > Connolly's admonition of a 'carnival of reaction on both sides > of the border' came to pass precisely because the poison > of religious sectarianism had riven the country as a direct > consequence of the hegemony of a transplanted > loyalist ascendancy in the North. Well, I think it was yourself who explained that the first leaders of the fight for Irish independence came from the protestant North. But this changed later. Why? The Belfast capitalists preferred not to be cut of from the market on Great Britain for their products, and therefore switched sides. They then _used_ religious sectarianism to push for the Union with Britain. Comradely yours, L?ko Willms Frankfurt, Germany -------------------------------- From lueko.willms at t-online.de Tue Jan 6 13:12:16 2009 From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:12:16 +0100 (MEZ) Subject: [Marxism] How many civilians are dead in Gaza? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002-20bb6349-23649.005@lws-media.de> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:28:53 -0800, Eli Stephens wrote: > The news, for example this story as just one of many, is > widely reporting that "as many as 25 (sometimes 30) percent > [of the dead in Gaza] are civilians." One can be sure that all people killed by the Israeli onslought are civilians, except those killed on the first day when the bombings hit the police stations, especially the headquarters where a swearing-in ceremony was just held. Also the militants fighting the aggressor with arms are civilians, they are not part of a standing army or conscripts as the aggressors are. On the other hand, virtually all Israeli citizens are part of the military as reservists, except the Arabs and some very orthodox Jeshiva students which are exempt from military service. So there are hardly any civilian vi