Re: [Marxism] Relief Package is neither stimulus nor workers' lifeline, it’s again massive bailout to tottering corporations By Mike Whitney
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote: A few years from now when this Sandernista crap has passed its shelf life, we'll look back at Jacobin, DSA, Joe Rogan, Jimmy Dore, A. O-C and wonder what the fuck was wrong with the left at the time. Put briefly: careerism. While I think it would be fair to accuse Jimmy Dore of being naive and misunderstanding certain structural power (such as what Bruce Spiva, DNC lawyer, laid out clearly to the court about what the DNC can do to choose its standards bearer), I don't think your description fairly characterizes what Dore is saying about Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and other politicians in power now. Dore went from being remarkably supportive of Tulsi Gabbard (to the point of being conspicuously silent about her inconsistencies and clear statements of party loyalty) to including her in his criticism as she endorsed pro-war Joe Biden. Over recent weeks Dore has grown increasingly critical of the Democratic Party and the notion that anyone can reform that party from within. That party has given Americans plenty of reason to justify strong criticism over the past few years. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Relief Package is neither stimulus nor workers' lifeline, it’s again massive bailout to tottering corporations By Mike Whitney
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * John Obrien via Marxism wrote: Jimmy Dore spews constant homophobia, such as with his favorite use of "cocksucker" as a perjorative and few challenge him for doing such - reflects the homophobia still acceptable on much of U.S. left - "as funny". Around 16 minutes into https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX3DDvrbPmM he addresses this choice of language from himself. He said, "I'm sorry I shouldn't -- there's some people who get offended when I say 'cocksucker' in a derogatory way. I love having my cock sucked. And I respect all cocksuckers.". I remain unconvinced that petty namecalling and ugly language is the important take-away message as people lose their lives during this pandemic and now stand to lose their income and homes (maybe even more) even if they live, all while seeing their self-described "progressive" Congressional representatives and so-called "progressive" media support the largest business bailout without a fight. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Relief Package is neither stimulus nor workers' lifeline, it’s again massive bailout to tottering corporations By Mike Whitney
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*
Dayne Goodwin via Marxism wrote:
AOC blasts 'shameful' $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus bill for bailing out
corporations
She raised some correct points in her rant. But don't let her empty theatrics
("blast") fool you. She didn't shame anyone but herself. She voted for that bill.
Instead of mobilizing 'the squad' and sympathetic Republicans to work against the
bill including stalling it while the public is made aware of its many shortcomings,
the so-called progressives gave grandstanding speeches like AOC's aforementioned
speech. Instead of voting against the bill and being in a position to say she was
looking out for her constituents' interests (even if the bill passed it wouldn't have
been because of her), she now joins Tulsi Gabbard, Ayanna Pressley, Ro Khanna,
Elizabeth Warren, Ilhan Omar, "and anyone else who wants to call themselves a
progressive" (as Jimmy Dore said) in voting for this massive big business bailout
bill that is the largest wealth transfer. That one-time $1,200 check some Americans
will get won't purchase what Americans need and deserve.
Jimmy Dore has been making YouTube videos on this recently
(https://www.youtube.com/user/TYTComedy/videos is his channel) including pointing out
how shameful it is to think that AOC's arm-waving speech is in any way comparable to
Congressional votes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfOPSq705To), how California's
3-month mortgage payment moratorium is going to be followed by allowing banks to
demand all of those unpaid payments on month 4
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQmn9o6NZVo) meaning that in month 4 one owes the
unpaid 3 payments plus the regular monthly payment -- 4X their regular mortgage
payment in one lump sum.
And, as Dore has been explicitly clear, "It is stunning to watch progressive media
fall down on this". Very few news and/or commentary outlets are covering what a bad
bill this is for the 99% and how things look very bad for a lot of Americans in the
short-term future. One notable example: Democracy Now! earned a reputation for
championing progressive politics during the run-up to the 2003 US/UK-led invasion of
Iraq. DN has squandered all of that good will in recent years as Amy Goodman
uncritically repeated Russiagate lies, echoed talk of the alleged gas attack in Douma
that now 4 OPCW scientists say did not happen, and DN lost critical voices like
former DN reporter Aaron Maté (who has tweeted about why he left DN and talked on
Jimmy Dore's show about why he left DN).
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Sanders never planned to win; structural elements were always in place to prevent that victory
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Louis Proyect wrote: (So, he only had himself to blame.) Meanwhile, a small group of senior aides had been pushing Sanders for months to go harder on Biden. The problem: Sanders actually liked him [Biden]. There was no problem for Sanders. Sanders had (in 2016 and now) a different goal. Sanders made a series of campaign choices aimed at allowing him to put on the fiction that he wanted to become POTUS but seemed to lose the chance at some early stage. His endorsed policies made him perhaps the country's most famous current politician and very well-liked in polls (still seen as one of very few who can "beat Trump" as the Dems say). But his refusing to run outside the party that treated him badly, and praising/endorsing his opponents even when he didn't know who precisely that chief opponent would be such as pledging to support the nominee whomever that person was), all were structured to prevent him from ever becoming POTUS. The late Bruce Dixon had it right years ago in https://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary -- Sanders is a sheepdog for the Democratic Party. Change a few of the names to match current-day specifics and the rest of this article reads fine today. It wouldn't be surprising to me if this overall strategy continues with some younger person taking the mantle of sheepdog to replace Sanders. Sanders was never an effective threat to establishment interests. The DNC corporation knew that (and so did all of the elites putting on the political theater of opposing Sanders[1]), and Sanders knew it too. Sanders' goal: get more people to support the dying Democratic Party even while it pursues neolib/neocon ends harder than ever. It's telling and a shame that so many read Sanders' efforts (like in 2016) as a candidate who genuinely ran to win. [1] From http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/042517cw2.pdf > Bruce Spiva: [...] We're gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we're > gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, > we could have — and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go > into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that > way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also > been their right [...] This tells the real tale of the power the DNC corporation never lost to choose who represents their corporation (aka party primary nominee). The Democrats don't pull this power out in order to not lose too many Democratic Party supporters but that power remains in place. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Black Agenda Report: Sanders vs the Endless Austerity Regime
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Andrew Stewart wrote: It depends on how you look at things. In my view, Obama has made plenty of statements since exiting office that he was a success and made great achievements on behalf of his donors. There's also the time he told Wall Street to thank him for making them so much money -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjVFfX4BtvI Obama said: I know we're an oil country, and we need American energy and, by the way, American energy production. You wouldn't always know it but it went up every year I was president. [light applause] And that whole suddenly America's like the biggest oil producer and the biggest ga-- that was me, people, I just want you to-- [laughter] So, so [Obama chuckles] It's a little like, sometimes you go to Wall Street and folks be grumblin' about anti-business. I said, "Have you checked where your stocks were when I came into office and where they are now? What? What are you talkin'-- What are you complainin' about? Just say 'Thank you' please.". Because I wanna raise your taxes a couple percent to make sure, you know, kids have a chance to go to school? He also kept all of G.W. Bush's wars going (despite calling the 2003 US-led Iraq invasion and occupation "A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics." in which "weekend warriors [...] shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."[1]) which helped create the illusion that he was the peace candidate. Then in office he added more wars including sharply ramping up the drone war (Noam Chomsky called the Obama drone war "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times"[2]). Those choices enriched war profiteers. [1] https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469 [2] https://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/19/noam-chomsky-obamas-drone-program-most-extreme-terrorist-campaign-modern-times Andrew Stewart wrote: It's a jaded and cynical look at his legacy, I cede that readily, but it also seems pretty obvious given how miserable things were when he left office. These are important issues which people are right to enthusiastically examine. That examination helps us understand what motivates such lethal and impoverishing policy choices. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Is Rep. Tulsi Gabbard being doubly described unfairly for holding pro-drone, pro-occupation views?
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * In https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/10/bernie-sanders-and-the-movement-that-might-have-been/ Louis Proyect reviewed Jeffrey St. Clair's "Bernie & The Sandernistas" book and makes a point to highlight Sen. Sanders' support for drone war citing his 2016 "Meet the Press" interview. It seems to me that although Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) doesn't call herself a socialist, much the same criticism of being pro-drone could be raised about her. I've written about this in https://digitalcitizen.info/2019/02/13/is-tulsi-gabbard-really-anti-war-no-shes-pro-drone-and-for-surgical-strikes/ where it seems to me that Gabbard is called "anti-war" or "anti-establishment" from supporters and critics alike and neither is correct in this description. In 2018 she told Jeremy Scahill of The Intercept that she's pro-drone and used considerable pro-war propaganda anti-war activists used to oppose: Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the U.S. military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is that still your position? Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those current AUMFs. So, with these terrorist cells, for example, yes, I do still believe that the right approach to take is these quick strike forces, surgical strikes, in and out, very quickly, no long-term deployment, no long-term occupation to be able to get rid of the threat that exists and then get out and the very limited use of drones in those situations where our military is not able to get in without creating an unacceptable level of risk, and where you can make sure that you’re not causing, you know, a large amount of civilian casualties. Source: https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ around 28m43s into the audio recording. She's also for some occupations (so long as they're not "long-term" whatever that means) and what she said then she's never contradicted or claimed was unrepresentative of her views. She did another interview with The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald on 2019-05-09 (https://theintercept.com/2019/05/09/watch-interview-with-democratic-congresswoman-and-2020-presidential-candidate-tulsi-gabbard/) and contradicted none of what she said to The Intercept in 2018. In other words, there's no reason to believe that the establishment-compatible language she told The Intercept in 2018 has changed. Anti-war progressives and anti-war conservatives are interested in talking to her and about her campaign but they're not at all keen on bringing up this unchallenged 2018 Intercept interview. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
