Re: [Marxism] Corbyn and Brexit

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

I don't think the NRS social grading is necessarily the best way to divide
people in terms of class. Correct me if I'm wrong, but many so-called "C1s"
could also be described as white collar workers, while many "C2s" would
include the self-employed?

Irrespective, I think it's important to emphasize that there was a division
within the class in how it voted in the referendum, and this was reflected
in the swing in the election. Working class people in the cities, BME
workers, young workers and trade union members were more likely to vote
Remain, and more likely to vote Labour in the election.

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 4:15 PM Louis Proyect via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> On 12/17/19 10:45 AM, mkaradjis . wrote:
> > <
> https://newleftreview.org/issues/II100/articles/susan-watkins-casting-off>
> >
> >
> > Not sure about the two-thirds of the working class voting Brexit in
> > 2016. According to Wayne Asher in International Socialism, referring to
> > the extremely detailed Ashcroft data analysis of the brexit
> > votehttp://isj.org.uk/the-left-and-brexit/#footnote-10080-13-backlink
> >  :
>
>
> Actually, Susan Watkins draws from the same Ashcroft data for her
> numbers. For another statistical analysis that is consistent with her
> take, check:
> https://www.statista.com/statistics/518395/brexit-votes-by-social-class/
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
>
_
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] [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Re: [Discussion] Left of Europe, by Ashley Smith | Harper's Magazine

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

While Neil's analysis of the nature of the E.U. and the Tory Party is
largely correct, I take issue with his analysis of those that support
Remain:

" The main backers of Remain and a new vote on Brexit are the big
capitalists, the professional middle class, and sections of the well-paid
working class."

I don't think there's really any evidence to support that. Big capitalists
and PMC do largely support Remain, but on the basis of the vote in the
referendum, much more of the working class voted Remain than just "sections
of the well-paid working class".

Wayne Asher made this point much better than I can (
http://secure-web.cisco.com/1Ccgm2_bpkeKTepW2Yj1n5Ta0MK8cKbB8qJ55E5Nnnut9Za0-SQqqvvQdeBjQFauUZT-W-zjFcX0B0Ec6_LFVnGJhJO0Bxh9t8wsVOoDhZqMKr6RVCzEMS4Z199TEGHyw0fRIDA2NFDPYQ_08De1YnomfEJfqJKXZkhhksQhbiFJFFZXQtT2mWXm04Qaq5MxAJHA5qOGN0EkcY4hiJO_RC21BLqBU4SqjiFU4jyIyx0EFvXDAjLYWEOC1WJybJp9wVGvOL55Tn6ZrULmlVUrpacSFAHDhARU2X3PNNe0UXD0oFm2ftM6do20iQK7zUYl-gXJNNomdxXI3zzR6_btX8j9EURR7cbi7q0CO9BidSTMnNFDcYq5_ID0jfQ5SKpTV/http%3A%2F%2Fisj.org.uk%2Fthe-left-and-brexit%2F%29%3A

● "Two out of three Labour voters voted Remain. (I suppose that voting
Labour rather than Tory counts as the minimum entry level of class
consciousness.)

● A majority of those in work voted Remain, irrespective of whether they
were in part-time or full-time work.

● Two-thirds (67 percent) of those describing themselves as Asian voted
Remain. Four out of five black voters (73 percent) voted Remain, and 70
percent of Muslim voters did so too. These voters obviously understand the
real dog-whistle message during the referendum campaign.

● The generally accepted idea that working class areas voted massively for
Leave is only partially correct; many did, but traditional working class
areas in London delivered the highest Remain votes (peaking at 75 percent
in Haringey and 78 percent in Hackney and Lambeth). Remain won in most of
the great working class regional capitals (Bristol, Cardiff, Leicester,
Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.) Only three cities of
similar importance voted Leave and even then they did so by tiny margins
(Birmingham, Sheffield, Nottingham). Working class Scotland voted massively
for Remain of course."



On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 8:30 PM Louis Proyect via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> On 9/18/19 3:11 PM, DW via Marxism wrote:
> >
> > Davidson clearly stands for Brexit.
>
> I must have missed his Spiked-Online article, I guess.
>
> It strikes me that the only thing he is forthright about is the need for
> the left to break with sectarianism:
>
> That indicates that we’re coming to an end of a particular way of
> building revolutionary organization and its relationship with social and
> labor movements. We’ve tested that method for half a century but have
> not managed to succeed. That’s one reason why Kautskyism is making a bit
> of a comeback, and, although that’s not the answer, it’s clear that we
> have to do something differently, because it’s not going to happen like
> 1917 in Russia.
>
> Now, how to do that is a question. We need intellectual clarity about
> what we’re doing, first and foremost. The approach of the British
> International Socialists back in the early 1960s is more like what we
> need to do today. It was about 500 people, it had real analysis of the
> dynamics of the system, and it was open and fluid and really more
> “Luxemburgist” than Leninist. So, we need revolutionary organization of
> that sort.
>
> In the movements we need to gather together people who agree and want to
> collaborate, regardless of organizational affiliation, around shared
> viewpoints to push demands on a left government if it comes to power.
> This is classic united-front tactics, and it might be easier in Scotland
> than Britain as a whole. But we have to work together on what we agree
> on, like anti-austerity, freedom of movement, more democracy, defense
> and expansion of the welfare state, and so on.
>
> We have come to the end of the process of party building that began in
> the 1960s. We are in a new phase and there are new movements. Of course,
> there are similarities with the past, and there will always be as long
> as capitalism exists; but the left should stop expecting tomorrow to be
> like yesterday and the day before that.
>
> There are 

Re: [Marxism] Is Corbyn Becoming Prime Minister Imminent?

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

The problem with a lot of these debates about a coalition government is
that they fixate on the smaller opposition parties and their being "liberal
capitalist" parties, and grossly misunderstand the nature of the British
Labour Party.

Firstly, there seems to be no real prospect of a coalition with other
parties. The Liberal Democrats have ruled out a coalition with Labour while
Corbyn is the leader, because they wouldn't accept his economic agenda. A
coalition with the Scottish National Party or Plaid Cymru (not simply
"liberal capitalist" parties in my view) is unlikely given the Labour
left's continued Unionism. The Greens (definitely not simply a "liberal
capitalist" party) have one MP. The only real possibilities are either, a
temporary coalition to form a government to straighten things out before an
election/referendum (I'm not certain that would be necessary really) or b)
some form of electoral pact where they agree not to campaign against each
other in seats where only one of them has a realistic chance of unseating
Tories. Both of these seem to be tactical questions rather than matters of
principle. Personally, I'd be open to both if they facilitated a defeat of
Boris and his hard right government, which a week ago was set to suspend
parliamentary democracy and force an economic crisis and possibly re-ignite
the Troubles. While formal long-term political alliances with the "liberal
bourgeoisie" are inevitably riven by class differences, there will often be
a temporary alignment of interests when dealing with rampant reaction - a
point that has been clearly illustrated this week.

However, the reason I say that many miss the point about Labour is that it *is
*a long term alliance between the liberal capitalists (or their
representatives anyway) and the working class. It's not, and never has been
a purely working class party, and has never really been a social democratic
one (in the classical meaning of the term). It has, from the beginning,
been an alliance of workers' representatives (mainly the trade union
bureaucracy) and the liberal bourgeoisie. The entire point of the battles
with the "Blairites" has been precisely because that wing was unhappy with
Corbyn's leadership. To consistently argue that we should not work with
"liberal capitalists" would mean to argue that we shouldn't be in the
Labour Party at all. Or that Corbyn should expel the majority of the PLP
(which he won't do).

I'd be opposed to a coalition with the Liberal Democrats (which isn't
offered anyway), because they would oppose the Labour Party's economic
agenda. I'm not certain that's the case for the SNP, Plaid or the Greens. A
confidence and supply agreement might be possible in exchange for support
for independence referendums (although some of the chauvinists in the party
might balk at that). Certainly, the SNP and Plaid in devolved government
have shown their not adverse to Keynesian measures (which is all Corbyn's
really advocating), and the Greens are certainly aware that intervention in
the economy is required to enact their environmental agenda (which has
largely been adopted by Labour anyway). Given Corbyn's cabinet will
definitely include "capitalist ministers" anyway, as there's plenty on his
front bench in the PLP, I see no reason to exclude representatives of the
SNP, Plaid or the Greens.

Tim N

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:52 PM Louis Proyect via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> (Forwarded from Anthony Brain.)
>
> I have just read an article by Guardian journalist Gary Younge of a
> major radicalisation within America which large layers of workers and
> middle class elements prepared to fight to what they perceive as some
> form of Socialism.  I would not be in favour of voting if these
> socialists run for any capitalist party, including the Democratic Party.
>   If they run as independent socialists or for a working class party,
> American Trotskyists should call for a critical vote for them.  Even if
> they are running for the Democratic Party American Trotskyists should
> demand they break from that party so an effective fight can be waged
> against capitalism.  As Trotskyists we patiently explain why we do not
> vote for any candidate within a capitalist party.  This will be tested
> to be proven correct as the masses go through further experiences 

[Marxism] The Left and the Myth of the Working Class Brexiteer

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

https://redmeridian.home.blog/2019/04/02/the-left-and-the-myth-of-the-working-class-brexiteer/
_
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] The British Labour Party - The Largest Sect in the World

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

https://redmeridian.home.blog/2019/03/24/the-largest-sect-in-the-world/
_
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] ISO (and Mike Gonzalez) on Venezuela

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, 3:13 p.m. Richard Fidler via Marxism, <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> https://socialistworker.org/2019/03/04/venezuela-on-the-brink
>
> According to Gonzalez, it's just an inter-imperialist struggle. But these
> imperialisms seem to be on opposite sides, so can we at least take a
> position
> between sides? No, “there is nothing to choose between Guaidó and Maduro.”
> Nor
> should the Venezuelan army defend the country's territorial sovereignty:
> “for
> the immediate withdrawal of all troops from Venezuela’s border.” Also,
> support
> for the Committee for the Defense of the Constitution’s call for a
> referendum,
> which (not mentioned) they asked Guaidó to approve, in a meeting with him.
> And
> the international left is to be condemned for “supporting” Maduro – no
> evidence
> presented, the distinction between “defence” (against imperialism) and
> political
> support being lost on Gonzalez. Not to mention various misstatements of
> facts,
> hardly worth mentioning. Pathetic.
>
> Richard
>
>
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
>
_
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] ISO (and Mike Gonzalez) on Venezuela

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

I have my criticisms of Mike on Latin America, but there needs to be a
clearer statement by the left of what is going wrong in Venezuela.

This isn't simply a revolution under attack. This is a revolution deformed.
That deformation, in part, is a result of pressure from the outside. One of
the results of that pressure is anti-democratic forces inside the
revolutionary movement became dominant.

Tim N

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, 3:13 p.m. Richard Fidler via Marxism, <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> https://socialistworker.org/2019/03/04/venezuela-on-the-brink
>
> According to Gonzalez, it's just an inter-imperialist struggle. But these
> imperialisms seem to be on opposite sides, so can we at least take a
> position
> between sides? No, “there is nothing to choose between Guaidó and Maduro.”
> Nor
> should the Venezuelan army defend the country's territorial sovereignty:
> “for
> the immediate withdrawal of all troops from Venezuela’s border.” Also,
> support
> for the Committee for the Defense of the Constitution’s call for a
> referendum,
> which (not mentioned) they asked Guaidó to approve, in a meeting with him.
> And
> the international left is to be condemned for “supporting” Maduro – no
> evidence
> presented, the distinction between “defence” (against imperialism) and
> political
> support being lost on Gonzalez. Not to mention various misstatements of
> facts,
> hardly worth mentioning. Pathetic.
>
> Richard
>
>
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
>
_
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] A fruitless conversation

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

Hi John

You have struck upon something extremely important here. The way the
Assadist anti-imperialists seem to jump seemlessly from a discussion about
facts to their "position", which is apparently independent of and above
mere facts.

It's tempting to prescribe a simple underhand disinterest in the truth
among these people, as they make contortions to justify Assad's latest
enormity. However, it goes deeper than that, and you're right that it's a
matter of their whole methodology.

Stalinists have a mechanistic, faux materialism which is best shown by
their obsession with labelling people "objectively" revolutionary or
counter revolutionary. Rather than seeing people of having their own
agency, they see them as mindlessly driven by "objective" forces beyond
their control. Dialectical mysticism. Therefore, a Stalinist can genuinely
believe that the Syrian people are "objectively" reactionary because they
are opposed to Assad, who is "objectively" progressive because he is
(supposedly) opposed to U.S. Imperialism.

Facts, when you think in this manner, are irrelevant. Facts themselves
become "objectively" revolutionary or counter revolutionary depending on
whether they fit your world view.

Tim N

On Sat, 5 Jan 2019, 12:44 p.m. John Reimann via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> I had the misfortune of having a discussion with one of those left
> Assadists. He made all the claims about US "regime change" in Syria. He
> also denied that the US is just a bit player in Syria, that the major
> imperialist force there is Russian imperialism. I told him I'd send him
> some articles. I sent him three: One was an article of Michael Karadjis.
> The second was this article of mine (
>
> https://oaklandsocialist.com/2018/05/19/revolution-and-counter-revolution-in-syria-a-reply-to-r-l-stephens/?fbclid=IwAR0qg1Ky3NC5vQ4I2Mf15uTbfVS5Hd2EImZulZSBPF8BDwxjSPhhR-QpoHU
> )
>
> The third was a recent article from the Washington Post about what's
> happening in Assad's prisons. I also commented that we should start from
> the point of view of what the Syrian working class is experiencing. Here's
> his response:
>
> Don't agree. We have to look at it from the point of view of the US WC
> which is rife with the chauvinist, nationalist and racist justifications
> that have been given for continued US presence in the ME and everywhere
> else on the globe.
>
> Read article by Michael K.. There is no position in it except for a
> backhanded justification for maintaining a US presence there to defend
> Kurds, topple a dictator (Assad) and fight Islamic fascism (ISIS). Its
> pro-imperialist, anti-imperialism which is all I hear from the left.
>
> Here is what I stand for. A defeat of the US army in Syria or anywhere else
> it is located on the globe. The best way to be an internationalist in the
> US is to call for the removal of ALL US forces everywhere on the globe and
> our goal as revolutionaries is for our soldiers to come home and turn their
> guns on their rulers who sent them abroad for the interest of Capitol. I
> support a removal of troops in Syria (as I support the removal of ALL our
> troops everywhere) but recognize the this was NOT accomplished by the
> anti-war movement which collapses entirely behind the Dems and the Obama
> regime once he took power and has to recovered since.
>
> My reply:
> I wasn't going to reply because my experience is that discussions are
> fruitless with those who use the same method as you do, (I say that because
> your method is absolutely rampant on the left).
> If you recall, the discussion started over a dispute not over our
> "position" but over actual facts, over the actual history and actual
> situation in Syria. I told you that I'd send you some articles to show that
> you had the facts wrong. You don't comment on that. Instead, you jump
> immediately to your "position".
> You have the facts wrong on what is happening and what has been happening
> in Syria. And facts matter. That is the starting point of Marxism, as
> opposed to idealism.
> I'll note another thing: All three articles start with the situation in
> Syria, what the Syrian masses have been experiencing. The Washington Post
> article - which I take it you didn't read - is very graphic on that. It
> shows very clearly that Assad's methods differ very little from 

Re: [Marxism] Che

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

Thanks comrades, very useful

On Fri, 4 Jan 2019, 2:27 p.m. Louis Proyect via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> I used this for an article on the Cuban revolution:
>
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Che-Guevara-Economics-Transition-Socialism/dp/0873488768
>
>  From my article:
>
> Guevara laid out his main ideas on socialist construction in a so-called
> "budgetary finance system." According to Carlos Tablada, author of "Che
> Guevara: Economics and Politics in the Transition to Socialism", Cuba
> would draw upon the following measures to make a planned economy work:
>
> --advanced accounting techniques that permitted a better system of
> controls and an efficient, centralized management; as well as studies
> and practical application of methods of centralization and
> decentralization by the monopoly corporations;
>
> --computer technology applied to the economy and management, and the
> application of mathematical methods to the economy;
>
> --techniques of programming production and production controls;
>
> --use of budgetary techniques as an instrument of financial planning and
> controls;
>
> --techniques of economic controls through administrative means;
>
> --the experience of the socialist countries.
>
> Che summed up the spirit of the system as follows:
>
> "We propose a centralized system of economic management based on
> rigorous supervision within the enterprises, and, at the same time,
> conscious supervision by their directors. We view the entire economy as
> one big enterprise. In the framework of building socialism, our aim is
> to establish collaboration between all the participants as members of
> one big enterprise, instead of treating each other like little wolves."
>
> If accounting and controls was all there was to Guevara's concept of
> socialism, we would be unimpressed. After all, isn't what the United
> States and other advanced capitalist countries going through today
> nothing but an exercise in bottom-line mentality. Wouldn't Guevara's
> seeming obsession with efficiency and control crush the human spirit? At
> the same time he was writing articles on the necessity to introduce
> technology into the Cuban economy, students at Berkeley University, many
> of whom were sympathetic to the Cuban revolution, were demanding not to
> be "mutilated, folded or spindled." The mid-1960s were a period when
> large-scale computing had begun to be felt everywhere, including the
> liberal arts universities.
>
> Key to understanding the relationship between the overall goal of
> efficiency and the importance of putting people first can be found in
> Guevara's approach to the Marxist category of value. It would be value
> that would mediate between society and the economy.
>
> Simply put, Guevara believed that the law of value operates as a "blind,
> spontaneous force" under capitalism. Socialism, on the other hand, would
> allow conscious action upon the law of value in accordance with an
> understanding of the greater needs of society. In his Manual of
> Political Economy, Guevara spells out the way the socialist state can
> make use of the law of value.
>
> "We consider the law of value to be partially operative because remnants
> of the commodity society still exist. This is also reflected in the type
> of exchange that takes place between the state as supplier and as the
> consumer. We believe that particularly in a society such as ours, with a
> highly developed foreign trade, the law of value on an international
> scale must be recognized as a fact governing commercial transactions,
> even within the socialist camp. We recognize the need for this trade to
> assume a higher form in countries of the new society, to prevent a
> widening of the differences between the developed and the more backward
> countries as a result of the exchange. In other words, it is necessary
> to develop terms of trade that permit the financing of industrial
> developments even if it contravenes the price systems prevailing in the
> capitalist world market. This would allow the entire socialist camp to
> progress more evenly, which would naturally have the effect of smoothing
> off the rough edges and of unifying the spirit of proletarian
> internationalism.
>
> "We reject the possibility of consciously using the law of value in the
> absence of a free market that 

Re: [Marxism] Che

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

Thanks. I've read that and the diaries. Was hoping for a sympathetic
analysis of his thought/action if someone could recommend one?

On Fri, 4 Jan 2019, 12:10 p.m. A.R. G  Che's own works have been translated into English. I recommend On Guerilla
> Warfare.
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019, 3:37 AM Tim Nelson via Marxism <
> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote:
>
>>   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.
>> *
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> Please could anyone on here recommend a good book on the political thought
>> of Che Guevara?
>>
>> Tim N
>> _
>> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
>> Set your options at:
>> https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/amithrgupta%40gmail.com
>>
>
_
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] Che

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

Hello

Please could anyone on here recommend a good book on the political thought
of Che Guevara?

Tim N
_
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] The assault on gender-critical feminists

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

One of the problems with this “debate” is that it seems to have become
needlessly polarised. It seems that both sides have become entrenched, and
one of the main causes of this is the insistence by certain wings of the
“Rad Fem” movement and their allies to label anyone who supports Trans
rights or Trans activism as somehow motivated by misogyny.

I have to say, the OP email here is a case in point. You can disagree on
this issue without being a sexist.

That being said, I am also disturbed by some of the tactics employed by
some wings of Trans activism recently. While they of course have a right to
protest outside whatever meetings they want, attempts to shut down feminist
meetings (however insulted Trans people may be by what some feminists have
to say about them) using tactics such as blocking entrances and heckling,
are not acceptable; and will needlessly backfire. While I would agree that
the worst examples of violent and sexualised rhetoric are isolated cases,
there is a wider problem of such rhetoric not being challenged, or ignored.
Generally, the whole tone of the debate is toxic.

In my opinion, one of the problems has been that both sides of this
argument have become dominated by sectarian groupings, who seem entirely
unconcerned about alienating broad layers of people. The Rad Fems are
pretty much separatists by definition. Many trans activists (in Britain at
least, I don’t know about elsewhere), seem to have adopted anarchist
tactics (which is to see any alternative opinion as “oppressive”, and
therefore anything goes in opposing them).

The problem with this is that most people will not be particularly read-up
on the ins and outs of this issue. Many will have any number of confused
ideas on this subject. Whatever position people land on this, to dismiss
those who don’t fit your own firm views as misogynists, on the one hand, or
transphobes, on the other, would be a mistake. Most people will come to
this debate fresh, and open to being convinced either way. And many, in
coming across this debate for the first time, will run a mile when they see
the level of toxicity.


Tim N

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 2:28 PM Dennis Brasky via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> AGREED!
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 9:22 AM MM via Marxism <
> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 19, 2018, at 7:42 AM, Philip Ferguson via Marxism <
> > marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > What I find truly callous and cowardly is the preparedness of a swathe
> of
> > > male leftists to ignore this campaign and, in a number of cases, to
> > > actually help enable it.
> > >
> > > The campaign itself is largely being conducted, of course, by
> biological
> > > males albeit ones who self-ID as women and even lesbians (albeit
> > > lesbians-with-penises-and-testicles).
> > >
> > > Some of the men here really need to seriously look at themselves and
> > their
> > > silence on this vicious - and misogynistic - campaign.  Take a look,
> for
> > > instance, at some of the material highlighted on the peaktrans site:
> > > https://www.peaktrans.org/ 
> >
> > This is a deflection. No one here (as far as I’m aware) has even hinted
> at
> > support for de-platforming, social media attacks, harassment, or anything
> > similar, and at least some of us have been actively involved in struggles
> > for women’s rights for many years. But all of the evidence offered by
> > Whitmore et al — as unfortunate and even objectionable as some the
> reported
> > behaviour may be — is still essentially anecdotal, and there’s been no
> > acknowledgment at all of the overwhelming *statistical* counter-evidence.
> > So this is just a continuation of the argument-from-moral-panic, with a
> > dollop of ad hominem and identitarian moral policing thrown in for
> > rhetorical good measure.
> >
> >
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
_
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] Democrats and Trump

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

Sorry, that question was directed at Richard,  not Ken.

Tim N

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, 2:59 p.m. Tim Nelson  Ken - do you think there were any circumstances or conditions specific to
> Quebec at that time which led to left groups to behave in that manner?
>
> Similar projects have been embarked upon many times in other countries,
> and are often unsuccessful. "Setting aside our differences" is objectively
> and obviously a good idea, but seems much easier said than done.
>
> Tim N
>
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, 3:52 p.m. Richard Fidler via Marxism <
> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote:
>
>>   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.
>> *
>>
>> " Québec solidaire can be traced back to small, far left groups.  There
>> were years of slogging before they got where they are today.  That, I
>> think, is a lesson that can be taken from the Quebec experience."
>>
>> Ken misses the point. The breakthrough in Quebec came in the late 1990s
>> when the "small, far left groups" realized the need to stop slogging on
>> their own, to rethink the question of how to build an effective party of
>> the left, to set aside largely irrelevant or untimely differences and to
>> single out key forward-looking themes around which to unite and reach out
>> to broader forces.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> -Original Message-
>>
>> Ken Hiebert replies:
>> I read Richard’s reports on Quebec, and in particular Québec solitaire,
>> with great interest.  And I expect others do as well, but I wouldn’t be
>> surprised to learn that while they take heart from his reports they also
>> feel that the situation is so different in their own country, that they
>> can’t see how to apply the lessons of Quebec.
>> I will concede that there is insularity in English Canada. But even if in
>> English Canada we are closer to the experience in Quebec, it also seems
>> somewhat remote from what we confront in our own part of the country.
>>
>> Speaking from a distance, I would still like to contribute to the
>> discussion in the US.  If we are to make a break from the Democratic Party,
>> it must start with the limited forces we now have.  The first initiatives
>> will be small and have a modest impact.  Is there another way to break with
>> the Democrats?  Should we wait?  What would we be waiting for?  Inaction on
>> our part only reinforces the hegemony of the Democratic Party.
>>
>> Québec solidaire can be traced back to small, far left groups.  There
>> were years of slogging before they got where they are today.  That, I
>> think, is a lesson that can be taken from the Quebec experience.
>>
>>
>>
>> _
>> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
>> Set your options at:
>> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
>
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

Ken - do you think there were any circumstances or conditions specific to
Quebec at that time which led to left groups to behave in that manner?

Similar projects have been embarked upon many times in other countries, and
are often unsuccessful. "Setting aside our differences" is objectively and
obviously a good idea, but seems much easier said than done.

Tim N

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, 3:52 p.m. Richard Fidler via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> " Québec solidaire can be traced back to small, far left groups.  There
> were years of slogging before they got where they are today.  That, I
> think, is a lesson that can be taken from the Quebec experience."
>
> Ken misses the point. The breakthrough in Quebec came in the late 1990s
> when the "small, far left groups" realized the need to stop slogging on
> their own, to rethink the question of how to build an effective party of
> the left, to set aside largely irrelevant or untimely differences and to
> single out key forward-looking themes around which to unite and reach out
> to broader forces.
>
> Richard
>
> -Original Message-
>
> Ken Hiebert replies:
> I read Richard’s reports on Quebec, and in particular Québec solitaire,
> with great interest.  And I expect others do as well, but I wouldn’t be
> surprised to learn that while they take heart from his reports they also
> feel that the situation is so different in their own country, that they
> can’t see how to apply the lessons of Quebec.
> I will concede that there is insularity in English Canada. But even if in
> English Canada we are closer to the experience in Quebec, it also seems
> somewhat remote from what we confront in our own part of the country.
>
> Speaking from a distance, I would still like to contribute to the
> discussion in the US.  If we are to make a break from the Democratic Party,
> it must start with the limited forces we now have.  The first initiatives
> will be small and have a modest impact.  Is there another way to break with
> the Democrats?  Should we wait?  What would we be waiting for?  Inaction on
> our part only reinforces the hegemony of the Democratic Party.
>
> Québec solidaire can be traced back to small, far left groups.  There were
> years of slogging before they got where they are today.  That, I think, is
> a lesson that can be taken from the Quebec experience.
>
>
>
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Sanders and Varoufakis to Launch Progressive International

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

Interesting that there's no mention of approaches to the British Labour
Party, Corbyn, or Momentum in these articles. You would expect them to be
at the top of the list.

All in all, I think the idea is a good one, in fact necessary given the
growth of the far right internationally.

I'm tentative, given the plethora of "internationals" that have come and
gone over the years, but I can't think of any that have included a) such
internationally known figures like Sanders and Varoufakis, b) had such a
clear focus. So I'm hopeful.

I'm sure some comrades may be concerned at the potential inclusion of
liberal groupings, or worried that it will not take a clearly proletarian
character, but I think we should start where we are.

Tim N

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018, 12:25 p.m. RKOB via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
>
> https://portside.org/2018-10-26/sanders-and-varoufakis-launch-progressive-international
>
>
> https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/10/26/sanders-and-varoufakis-announce-alliance-craft-common-blueprint-international-new
>
>
> --
> Revolutionär-Kommunistische Organisation BEFREIUNG
> (Österreichische Sektion der RCIT, www.thecommunists.net)
> www.rkob.net
> ak...@rkob.net
> Tel./SMS/WhatsApp/Telegram: +43-650-4068314
>
>
>
> ---
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Has America Become a Dictatorship Disguised as a Democracy?

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

Hi Louis

I don't think we're disagreeing as much as you think we are.

Trump/Brexit is the natural culmination of neoliberalism, in my opinion,
rather than an antithesis to it. It's actually disaster capitalism writ
large. Trump rarely says anything that hasn't been said by Republican
politicians for years.

I don't think this new wave of reactionaries taking power is a response to
neoliberalism. Among its supporters it may be a nihilistic response to
neoliberalism's effects; but mostly it's just a natural extension of the
neoliberal project.

That being said, the racialism of Trump's movement, while hardly new in the
US right, is troubling, considering that it's the central mobilising point
of a mass movement.




On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, 7:44 p.m. Louis Proyect,  wrote:

> On 10/24/18 12:10 PM, Tim Nelson wrote:
> >
> > The Trump "regime" isn't a dictatorship, but it is an ultra-reactionary
> > government which has race at the centre of its agenda. Is this a new
> > phenomenon in a Western democracy? No. But that's precisely the point.
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, such governments are sweeping across the
> planet. It is all a reaction to the neo-liberal onslaught that began in
> the early 70s and culminated in the Thatcher and Reagan regimes. When
> voted out, it continued under the Blair and Clinton regimes. This shit
> has been going on now for almost a half-century, which constitutes an
> epoch of world history.
>
> The only way to get rid of Trump, Orban, Modi, Putin, Duterte, et al is
> to wage revolutionary struggles led by the kind of party that took power
> in 1917. But what people are ready to get behind is the DSA, Corbyn's
> Labour, Podemos, neo-Keynesian formations in Latin America that have
> passed their shelf-life and every other kind of half-measure.
>
> It will be up to the next generation to produce a solution, I'm afraid.
> But there will be a solution or else we will die because of nuclear war
> or climate catastrophe. I just finished reading an article in the April
> 2018 Harpers about an anthrax epidemic in northern Russia near the
> Arctic Circle that mostly affected reindeer but also some of the
> indigenous people who herded them. The cause? Climate change had warmed
> up the earth to such an extent that anthrax germs lodged in the dead
> bodies of reindeer from decades and centuries ago had risen through the
> soil.
>
> Oh well. I did everything I could to make the case for non-sectarian
> revolutionary parties over the past 37 years. I probably should have
> gone into business like Bhaskar Sunkara instead. On second thought, I'd
> rather have sold real estate.
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Has America Become a Dictatorship Disguised as a Democracy?

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

Hi Louis

While I'm not convinced that the designation of Trumpism as fascist is
necessarily helpful to understanding it, I do think that there's an
important point to be addressed here.

Most fascist regimes are a throwback to a previous age in many respects.
The reason fascist regimes in Eastern and Central Europe relied upon
anti-Semitism is exactly because it was a traditional reactionary position
in that region. Similarly, we can expect British and American fascism to
use anti-Black racism, as these were the mainstays of colonialism and
slavery. Similarly, we can expect American fascism to use racism against
Latin Americans.

The Trump "regime" isn't a dictatorship, but it is an ultra-reactionary
government which has race at the centre of its agenda. Is this a new
phenomenon in a Western democracy? No. But that's precisely the point.


On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, 2:49 p.m. Louis Proyect via Marxism, <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> Clearly, we are now ruled by an oligarchic elite of governmental and
> corporate interests.
>
>
> https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/10/24/has-america-become-a-dictatorship-disguised-as-a-democracy/
>
> ---
>
> Almost every day I see an article along these lines. Have the people
> writing them ever studied American history? Or better yet, read Howard
> Zinn? In the 19th century and much of the 20th century, Chinese-American
> workers were prevented by law from becoming American citizens while the
> KKK was involved in a reign of terror throughout the South.
> Meanwhile,that bastion of liberal thought, the Nation Magazine,
> editorialized against passing legislation reining in the KKK. Workers
> were brutalized for simply trying to organize as this IWW website
> indicates in great detail:
> http://depts.washington.edu/iww/persecution.shtml
>
> As for the newspapers, the only source of information prior to radio,
> yellow journalism made Fox News look scrupulous by comparison.
>
> Donald Trump is a throwback to the 19th century and nothing more.
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] FB Community Standards

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

There are some countries,  Germany for example, where Nazi imagery is
banned. Maybe Facebook have to take that into account?

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, 10:43 p.m. A.R. G via Marxism, <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> I doubt it. It's probably an algorithm. If the photo is of Hitler or has
> Hitler in the filename they probably just remove the page automatically. I
> recall some prominent anti-racist activists getting blocked for this
> reason. Try complaining.
>
> Amith R. Gupta
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 4:24 PM Andrew Stewart via Marxism <
> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
> >   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.
> > *
> >
> > I would not be closed off to the potential that this is something much
> more
> > than just Hitler pictures. What exactly, I honestly don't know, but
> > Facebook is clearly operating in tandem with the state in a fashion that
> is
> > reminiscent of COINTEL-PRO, upgrading old operational procedures for the
> > social media systems.
> >
> > 
> >
> > One of the more astounding and frankly fascinating aspects of
> neoliberalism
> > and biopolitics is how the system inverts things so that people actively
> > volunteer their time, information, and money to participate in the
> > COINTEL-PRO system.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Andrew Stewart
> >
> >
> > Message: 7
> > Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 17:48:48 -0400
> > From: Louis Proyect 
> > To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
> > 
> > Subject: [Marxism] FB Community Standards
> > Message-ID: 
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> >
> > I can't fucking believe it. I am prevented from posting to FB for the
> > next 24 hours because of this post:
> >
> >
> >
> https://louisproyect.org/2017/10/25/reactions-to-recent-anti-fascist-analysis/
> >
> > I assume it is because I included a photo of Hitler. Since I was
> > analyzing Nazism, which photo should I have used? Mark Zuckerberg?
> > _
> > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> > Set your options at:
> > http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/amithrgupta%40gmail.com
> >
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] The Petrov Pictures

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

Exactly my thoughts. And if they were in Sailsbury, as they admitted, why
would the security services need to produce doctored images, as surely, as
they came through an airport, there would be actual images to use?

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 4:30 PM Louis Proyect via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> On 10/4/18 11:03 AM, Ken Hiebert via Marxism wrote:
> >   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.
> > *
> >
> > https://www.newcoldwar.org/the-petrov-pictures/ <
> https://www.newcoldwar.org/the-petrov-pictures/>
> >
> > I’m not sure when this article was posted to NewColdWar.  It is my
> understanding that two people have appeared on Russian television and have
> agreed that they are the people photographed and that they entered the UK
> and travelled to Salisbury.
> > I suppose it is possible that the two men did travel to Salisbury, but
> that the photos offered as proof are fraudulent.
> >   ken h
> >
>
> If the images of them passing through immigration control was
> photoshopped, why would they go on RT.com and admit that they were in
> Salisbury for a sightseeing weekend? I wouldn't expect Roger Annis to
> grapple with this inconsistency since he is such a hard-core Putinite.
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Jeremy Corbyn and the Crisis of Anti-Semitism | The Nation

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

;
>>> Amith R. Gupta
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Tim Nelson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Amith
>>>>
>>>> The evidence of anti-Semitism on the left and in the Labour Party is
>>>> quite clear. If you can't see anti-Semitism in Ken Livingston 's comments,
>>>> or George Galloways, or Jackie Walker's, I don't know what you mean by
>>>> anti-Semitism.
>>>>
>>>> I'm confused by what you mean by "institutional backing". (Honestly,
>>>> I'm not being disingenuous, I'm actually confused ). Do you mean that the
>>>> Party doesn't have an openly anti-Semitic position, and  therefore
>>>> anti-Semitism in the labour party doesn't exist? Or do you mean
>>>> anti-Semitism isn't advanced by British institutions?
>>>>
>>>> The former is obviously nonsensical. The latter is simply false.
>>>>
>>>> I may have misread your point, of course.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see how I'm "redefining anti-Semitism". Anti-Semitism is
>>>> anti-Jewish racism. The right wing of the Party is trawling through left
>>>> wing members' public statements to find things they can spin as
>>>> anti-Semitic. I'm not doing that. I'm just refusing to ignore anti-Semitism
>>>> because it happens to be weaponised by the Right.
>>>>
>>>> Tim N
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2018, 18:54 A.R. G,  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Based on the previous discussion which was totally devoid of any
>>>>> empirical evidence or merit and a whole lot of "common sense" from people
>>>>> who had no evidence to back up their claims, I am not going to waste time
>>>>> with a lengthy back and forth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suffice to say that the posts above from Tim are completely tone deaf.
>>>>> The issue of anti-Semitism isn't a matter of how many people believe in
>>>>> such ideas, though it is, in fact, very very few. The issue is that it has
>>>>> no institutional backing, which is why it is so rare, both on the Left and
>>>>> within British society in general. The people alleging otherwise are
>>>>> purposely re-defining anti-Semitism so they can "find it," and surely
>>>>> enough, even then they can barely drudge up anything. That is also why
>>>>> Tim's comparison to anti-black sentiment is absurd.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amith R. Gupta
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Tim Nelson 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It does exist. Does it exist *more* than in any other large group of
>>>>>> people? Probably not, but that's irrelevant for some rather obvious
>>>>>> reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We strive to make the left more tolerant and less racist than any
>>>>>> other random selection of people. If anti-Semitism on the left I'd on a
>>>>>> parr with anti-Semitism amongst society as a whole, we have a problem. If
>>>>>> you said, for example, that anti-black racism did exist on the left, but 
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> more than elsewhere in society,  that would mean the labour movement had 
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> problem with anti-black racism I think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The role of the left is to combat racism in the class, not reflect it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The mural was quite obviously anti-Semitic. I choose to believe that
>>>>>> Corbyn didn't notice that, but the issue is that anti-Semitic cranks are
>>>>>> able to swim about on the left, and pass their actions off as progessive,
>>>>>> enough to hoodwink a leading leftist MP into endorsing their bullshit.   
>>>>>> We
>>>>>> may want to look into that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The issues of Assadism, Stalinism and Anti-Semitism are linked.
>>>>>> However, that's not what this is about, at least for me. It's about the
>>>>>> left, as so often has been the case, refusing to accept criticism for
>>>>>> actual problems and blaming it all on "lies of the capitalist press" or
>>>>>> some such nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tim N
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>

Re: [Marxism] Jeremy Corbyn and the Crisis of Anti-Semitism | The Nation

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

That seems to me to be a symptom of a remarkably a-political article to be
honest. There is no real attempt to work out *why* anti-Semitism exists on
the fringes of the Labour Party, and what tendencies within the Corbynist
movement are preventing it being dealt with.

Frankly, I think the article is a bit lazy.

Tim N

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018, 14:24 Louis Proyect via Marxism, <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> A useful article that is compromised by its failure to point out
> Corbyn's reliance on the atrocious Craig Murray and Seumas Milne for
> advice.
>
>
> https://www.thenation.com/article/jeremy-corbyn-and-the-crisis-of-anti-semitism/
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] John McCain

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

I have no love for John McCain. But I do know an end of an era when I see
one.

There was, once upon a time, such a thing as principled conservatism, in
Britain and America. Their principles weren't ours, but they were real.

John McCain was an imperialist, a naked supporter of capitalism, a racist.
The list goes on and on, and I won't defend him.

However, his brand of conservatism is being replaced by a new kind of right
wing authoritarianism. He, Bush and Palin undoubtedly contributed to
creating the conditions that produced this state of affairs. But it is
different.

Tim N

On Mon, 27 Aug 2018, 17:40 Louis Proyect via Marxism, <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> On 8/27/18 12:19 PM, A.R. G via Marxism wrote:
> > Let's not overlook the bright side of this, namely that he's dead. I wish
> > that Sarah Palin would also develop brain cancer, but unfortunately one
> > needs a brain for that.
>
> I am put off by comments like this. As someone who spent the best five
> years of my life building the Vietnam antiwar movement, I was always
> happy to hear about an American plane being shot down.
>
> But I also spent two years working at Memorial Sloan Kettering in the
> mid-80s and never got used to seeing cancer patients walking down the
> hall dragging their chemo gear behind them. It reminded me of
> illustrations for Dante's Inferno. I used to have bad dreams about
> walking through the hospital decades after I stopped working there.
>
> Brain cancer is really nasty shit. When I was in Houston in the mid-70s,
> the guy in the next cubicle came down with it. Who knows? Maybe from the
> oil refineries. I am glad I didn't stick around to get sick myself. A
> month when he returned to work after his initial treatments, he was
> wearing an eye-patch and bumping into walls. Unlike lung cancer or
> cancer of the pancreas, two equally lethal varieties, brain cancer
> punishes you from day one with blinding headaches, diminished cognition,
> paralysis and other hellish symptoms.
>
> I felt the same way about Christopher Hitchens, another villainous
> figure. I just felt pity for him and could not bring myself to write
> snarky schadenfreude messages.
>
> Maybe all this stuff is more relevant to me because an old friend died
> of lung cancer a couple of months ago and another one had to deal with
> prostate cancer treatments last summer.
>
> As far as McCain is concerned, he is a symbol of a Republican Party that
> no longer exists. When I was young, this is what its main leader was
> saying. It seems not like 64 years ago but 640.
>
> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
> unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you
> would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a
> tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these
> things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional
> politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible
> and they are stupid."
>
> --Dwight Eisenhower, 1954
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Reply to David McDonald

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

Having been debating John on this over the last couple of days, I would
agree that David got this wrong. John has clearly stated his anti-Assad
position.

I imagine David just misread the exchange.

Ps. I don't know either of these gentlemen, and have no dog in this fight.

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018, 19:53 John Reimann via Marxism, <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> I was not going to write any further on the subject of alleged
> anti-Semitism in the LP, but I must defend myself:
>
> "The real discussion should be Corbyn's, the Labor Party's, and the Stop
> the War Coalition's views AND actions on Syria," writes David McDonald.
> He writes that among others I am guilty of drawing attention away from this
> issue.
>
> Has he even bothered to read anything beyond maybe a sentence here and
> there of what I wrote? In every letter I sent on the issue, I have said
> that the real issue is the support for Assad. What on earth would justify
> McDonald's false accusation?
>
> John Reimann
>
> --
> *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black
> Jacobins" by C. L. R. James
> Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Labour can be Jo Cox?s party or Chris Williamson?s ? it cannot be both

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

"Because the Syrian Revolution, as an extension of the Arab Spring, is
the signal event of the 21st Century. It has ripped through what we used to
call the left, made certain Stalinists ally with certain Trotskyists, made
that claque ally with straightforward rightists, and generally upended the
comfort zone of a lot of people."

This is a very important point. I'm reminded of some vaguely remembered
quote that I heard from a socialist in 1914. The gist of it is, after the
SPD voted for war credits, all the certainties of the proceeding decades
became obsolete. It was like waking up to a new world. It may seem
hyperbolic to make the comparison, but I think it's valid. Syria has blown
the Western left apart.

"How has this escaped the attention of the leader of the Labour Party? The
man  John Reimann thinks should be the next Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom? Is it because Corbyn is, as Reimann avers, "confused" about Syria?
This is not even vaguely possible, unless by "confused" you mean prepared
to sell out an actual, real, ongoing revolution because you are a Stalinist
hack who assumes any evil committed by your leaders is 1) OK, or 2)
regrettable but just the price of doing the people's business."
As I stated earlier, I don't think Corbyns position is confused. It's a
standard position for the labour left, with an ideology and tradition
behind it. However, I'd be shocked if a left social democratic leader in
Britain actually took a consistent  internationalist position on a
rebellion in the third world. It's not their tradition. Their tradition is
to support dictatorships in the third world that oppose "imperialism " (I.
E. US imperialism ). They've done this since 1939 and will continue to do
so.

That being said, I still want Corbyn to be PM, as that at least provides an
opportunity for a socialist foreign policy to be argued for. That
opportunity won't arise under Prime Minister Boris Johnson. But from now
on, scathing criticism of his abominable policy on Syria should be central
to any real left wing critique of Corbyn.

We can't be caught saying "well he may be overlooking genocide in the
Middle East, but at least he's promised to nationalise the trains". It's
inane, and makes the British left look pathetic.

Tim  N




On Wed, 22 Aug 2018, 17:04 David McDonald via Marxism, <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> I agree fully with Tim Nelson's comments on John Reimann's contribution to
> this thread.
>
> Let's forget about the jejune discussion of whether Corbyn has slipped from
> Anti-Zionism to antisemitism. This has been posed as the real issue because
> it's something that Stalinists, and apparently John Reimann, are
> comfortable arguing about. The real discussion should be Corbyn's, the
> Labor Party's, and the Stop the War Coalition's views AND actions on Syria.
> (Corbyn was Chairman of the Stop the War Coalition until elected as Labour
> leader.)
>
> Why? Because the Syrian Revolution, as an extension of the Arab Spring, is
> the signal event of the 21st Century. It has ripped through what we used to
> call the left, made certain Stalinists ally with certain Trotskyists, made
> that claque ally with straightforward rightists, and generally upended the
> comfort zone of a lot of people.
>
> The Revolution's enemies have caused the greatest human migration since
> World War II, and this in turn has helped to fuel the nationalist plague
> sweeping right-wing parties into or close to power throughout Europe.
>
> I am close to concluding that Syria has become a totalitarian state in the
> sense that Arendt uses that term: a state based on absolute subjugation of
> the population through terror of the secret police with the goal, not of
> world conquest (as with Hitler and Stalin) but of conquest of his own
> country even at the cost of the total destruction of that same country. As
> the secret police themselves say it in their graffiti, "Assad or we burn
> the country."
>
> This horror has been ignored by most of the world for 7 years. That's way
> longer than the entire arc of Hitler's Final Solution. Not just
> governments, but many so-called leftists have refused to aid or even
> verbally defend the Syrian Revolution. Yassin al-Haj Saleh, as close to
> being the spiritual father of the Syrian Revolution as anyone living, drips
> with contempt 

Re: [Marxism] Labour can be Jo Cox?s party or Chris Williamson?s ? it cannot be both

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

"Jason writes, "my claim (of anti-Semitism on the left) needs to be backed
up and I'm not going to do it here and I'm not asking anyone to just take
my word for it." But that is exactly what he's doing. And I have to say,
Tim's notes more or less do the same."

I don't actually, there are plenty of examples which are a matter of public
record. Galloway's I've already cited. Jackie Walker's as well. There are
plenty of examples going through the Labour Party's disciplinary
procedures. Some of them are vexatious or spurious. Some of them are valid.

"The cries of anti-Semitism also help drown out any
legitimate criticism of the racist State of Israel. Let's not fall into
that trap."

My view is that we continuously fall into a trap every time we join the
supporters of the Israeli state by doing the same as them. They claim all
anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. People on the left see all accusations of
anti-Semitism as an attempt to discredit anti-Zionism. We should separate
the two, not help conflate them.

"It's support for Assad that is the real issue."

There's no one "real issue", there are several real issues, many of which
interconnect.




On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 3:01 PM John Reimann via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> Jason writes, "my claim (of anti-Semitism on the left) needs to be backed
> up and I'm not going to do it here and I'm not asking anyone to just take
> my word for it." But that is exactly what he's doing. And I have to say,
> Tim's notes more or less do the same.
>
> As we all know, "anti-Semitism" is the first line of defense for the
> Zionists, and in fact  Jason's arguments indirectly bolster that. He points
> to the fact that so many of those active in the movement against the racist
> State of Israel ignore at best the war crimes of Assad if they don't
> outright support him. For Jason, this is evidence of anti-Semitism. It has
> nothing whatsoever to do with anti-Semitism, and Jason's argument comes
> dangerously close to merging with the Zionists' claim that criticism of
> Zionism is automatically anti-Semitism. The hypocritical approach of the
> left Assadists is all about a shallow reading of "opposition" to US
> imperialism, a refusal to even half way seriously study the facts. It's
> related to their silliness regarding Trump, as I pointed out in my last
> note. It's related to their considering any criticism of the Trump-Putin
> links to being support for US imperialism and for war. Is the refusal of
> these lefts to look at what is happening to the Rohingya evidence of
> Islamophobia?
>
> Again: The real issue is defense of Assad. By falling into the campaign
> against Corbyn with the claims of anti-Semitism, they are actually
> detracting from that main issue. The Blairites and the Tories are happy to
> distract from that issue, because (I assume) British imperialism in fact
> also supports Assad. The cries of anti-Semitism also help drown out any
> legitimate criticism of the racist State of Israel. Let's not fall into
> that trap.
>
> It's support for Assad that is the real issue.
>
> John Reimann
>
> --
> *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black
> Jacobins" by C. L. R. James
> Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Labour can be Jo Cox?s party or Chris Williamson?s ? it cannot be both

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

Hi John


"Williamson's support for Beeley and Assad is one thing. It is totally
reprehensible. All these allegations about anti-Semitism in the British
Labour Party are something entirely different."


They are not different. Or rather, there's an overlap. Ba'athism is deeply
anti-Semitic, and Stalinism has more than flirted with anti-Semitism in the
past. There is a long and deeply complex relationship between the Labour
left and Stalinism, which has led many on the Labour left into a pretty
much wholesale adoption of the Stalinist position on anti-imperialism,
which includes uncritical support for regimes that are supposedly opposing
imperialism, such as Assad's Ba'athist regime.


"Isn't it odd that these
allegations never arose until the left Jeremy Corbyn won the leadership?"


Not particularly. The Labour right, the press and the Tories were looking
for something to discredit the left, and found this. They're using it
entirely cynically, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it is an entire
fabrication. We didn't find out about Trump's "pussy grabbing" until he ran
for President. That doesn't mean the whole story is a lie. What we need to
do, like I said, is separate the real instances of anti-Semitism from the
false ones.


"And you think anti-Semitism is real in British politics? You should try the
snobs in the Tory party! But this, of course is, ignored."


You don't know me, but rest assured, I have to deal with Tory (local)
politicians on a daily basis as a part of my work. I know what they are. The
Conservative and Unionist Party are unapologetic racists. Boris Johnson is
flirting with Steve Bannon. Their racism and imperialism is unabashed and
should always be fought. That doesn’t mean racism doesn’t exist in the
labour movement, and shouldn’t be ruthlessly tackled when it arises.
Pointing to the racism of the other side doesn’t negate racism in our
movement.


“I have a good
friend who's very active in the Labour Party and in its left wing -
Momentum. His last name is Roger Silverman. Is that Jewish enough for you?
He says he has not experienced any anti-Semitism in the LP nor in
Momentum.”


I also know Jewish people inside the Labour Party who would say similar
things. While I respect that position, I just think it’s wrong. I’m not
Jewish, but I have witnessed anti-semitism on the British left. It’s not
vitriolic, or even very open. It’s mostly based on ignorance and tropes,
that could be dealt with by education, rather than condemnation. But it’s
there.


I don’t know what the left is like in Oakland, I hope it’s amazing, but in
Britain, due to decades of isolation, we have accumulated our fair share of
conspiracy theorists, cranks and weirdos. Orwell complained about it in the
1930s, and if anything it’s got worse. Such people aren’t *dominant *but
they’re real. Add to that the role of the Stalinists, who purposely play on
conspiracy theories when executing contortions to defend their latest
favourite dictator and you have a toxic mix.


“The claims are largely based on Corbyn's opposition to the racist State of
Israel. Many of those claims originate from the Israeli supporters. And now
socialists are going to join in on that? Here are a couple of articles
dealing with those claims:
https://www.hotpress.com/opinion/eamonn-mccann-jeremy-corbyn
-anti-semitism-row-22752609
Roger, himself, has written something on the issue. It is here:
https://oaklandsocialist.com/2018/04/06/corbyn-an-anti-semit
e-roger-silverman-comments/”


The right do indeed conflate anti-zionism with anti-semitism. We need to
combat that by doing the *opposite. *Namely, correctly identifying actual
anti-semitism, and separating it from legitimate criticisms of the Israeli
state. We can’t combat it by simply assuming *any *accusation of
anti-semitism against the left, wherever it comes from, is because the left
opposes Israel. That’s a dangerous road to go down, as we’re essentially
doing the same as the right – we’re lumping the two together.


“As for Corbyn: Yes, his position on Syria is confused at best. But let's
not overlook is overall role. This has been to bring a whole layer of
idealistic and angry youth into political activism and to oppose austerity.”


He has done exactly that. I’m a member of the Labour Party and will
continue to be, for all its problems. However, we should be very wary of
simply saying stuff like this whenever legitimate criticisms of the
leadership, or the movement as a whole, are raised. Corbyn’s position on
Syria isn’t confused, it’s atrocious, and the position of some people in
his inner circle is worse than that, as far as I’m concerned they’re
complicit in Assad’s 

Re: [Marxism] Labour can be Jo Cox’s party or Chris Williamson’s – it cannot be both

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

What distinguishes the two is basic good sense. You can criticise or
condemn Israel without calling for "Israelis" to be purged from cities. You
can refuse to engage in debate with the Israeli state without saying you
"don't debate Israelis".

Understand this about Galloway- he makes inflammatory statements while
always framing them in terms that give him and his supporters an "out". You
can technically defend them on paper, but in practice they're poison.

This is the MO of the Stalinist left in Britain. They're unconditional
supporters of Ba'athism, and are deploying anti-Semitism and Islamophobia
to do it.

Tim  N

On Tue, 21 Aug 2018, 19:19 A.R. G,  wrote:

> So what distinguishes a "dog whistle" about Jews from a legitimate
> criticism of Israel or Zionism? What would Galloway have had to say
> instead, in order for it to not be anti-Semitic?
>
> Amith R. Gupta
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Tim Nelson  wrote:
>
>> That's why it's dog whistle racism. He purposely codes his language. He
>> didn't call for an end to Israeli products being sold in Bradford, he
>> called for the city to be an "Israeli free zone " . He didn't walk out of
>> the debate saying he doesn't debate with Israeli government
>> representatives. He said "I don't debate Israelis" . You can formally
>> interpret those statements as just anti-Zionist, but the dog whistle is
>> deafening.
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2018, 19:11 A.R. G,  wrote:
>>
>>> "The difficulty is that many anti-Semites use the word "Zionist" or
>>> "Israeli " when they mean Jew. Look at Galloway for example. He refused to
>>> debate an Israeli, and another time he called for Bradford to be an
>>> "Israeli free zone". "
>>>
>>> I'm confused. Both of those examples *did* deal with Israelis, not
>>> "Jews". One of his comments was about making Bradford free of Israeli
>>> products, which is entirely consistent with boycotts of Israel. His
>>> decision to walk out on the Israeli student, while not smart, was again
>>> aimed at someone who was Israeli. Moveover, the student insisted on
>>> identifying himself as a representative of the Israeli government (e.g. "We
>>> believe that..." where "we" meant both him and the Israeli state, prompting
>>> Galloway to ask what he meant by "we"). Again, not smart, but hardly an
>>> attack on his Jewishness.
>>>
>>> Amith R. Gupta
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:02 PM, Tim Nelson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Amith

 I'm on my bus on my phone, so citing sources isn't easy.

 Yes, Facebook comments are hardly a clear guide. But I guarantee you
 that anything but a cursory glance at the left in Britain will show you
 that anti-Semitism is real and is a problem. It's far from dominant, but
 there is a minority that either consciously or unconsciously subscribe to
 anti-Semitic ideas. Unfortunately that minority have latched onto the
 pro-Palestine movement.

 The problem you highlight is valid. Yes, Zionists conflate support for
 the Palestinian people with anti-Semitism. The difficulty is that many
 anti-Semites use the word "Zionist" or "Israeli " when they mean Jew. Look
 at Galloway for example. He refused to debate an Israeli, and another time
 he called for Bradford to be an "Israeli free zone". These things weren't
 anything to do with BDS or support for the Palestinian people. They were
 dog wistle anti-Semitism under the guise of anti-Zionism.

 Some of the accusations of anti-Semitism inside the party are
 frivolous. Some aren't. We need to distinguish between them rather than
 dismiss them all.

 I would add that the root of this problem comes down to the influence
 of Stalinism over the Labour left, particularly on anti-imperialist. The
 rot really is apparent now.

 Tim N

 On Tue, 21 Aug 2018, 18:43 A.R. G,  wrote:

> Tim Nelson says, "The Labour right and conservatives are weaponising
> the issue of anti-Semitism, of course. But that doesn't mean it's not an
> issue in the movement. Look at what Beeley said. Or look at George
> Galloways statements for that matter. Or check out any number of left wing
> Facebook pages on Palestine. Read the comments."
>
> I want to make clear that in the comments that follow, I am responding
> *only* to the anti-Semitism issue, as opposed to all the other things
> that Tim describes, which I think are basically reasonable criticisms of
> some corners of the Stalinist left.
>
> Tim didn't cite any specifics about Galloway or Facebook pages. I
> think comments on a Facebook page are an incredibly poor 

Re: [Marxism] Labour can be Jo Cox’s party or Chris Williamson’s – it cannot be both

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

That's why it's dog whistle racism. He purposely codes his language. He
didn't call for an end to Israeli products being sold in Bradford, he
called for the city to be an "Israeli free zone " . He didn't walk out of
the debate saying he doesn't debate with Israeli government
representatives. He said "I don't debate Israelis" . You can formally
interpret those statements as just anti-Zionist, but the dog whistle is
deafening.

On Tue, 21 Aug 2018, 19:11 A.R. G,  wrote:

> "The difficulty is that many anti-Semites use the word "Zionist" or
> "Israeli " when they mean Jew. Look at Galloway for example. He refused to
> debate an Israeli, and another time he called for Bradford to be an
> "Israeli free zone". "
>
> I'm confused. Both of those examples *did* deal with Israelis, not
> "Jews". One of his comments was about making Bradford free of Israeli
> products, which is entirely consistent with boycotts of Israel. His
> decision to walk out on the Israeli student, while not smart, was again
> aimed at someone who was Israeli. Moveover, the student insisted on
> identifying himself as a representative of the Israeli government (e.g. "We
> believe that..." where "we" meant both him and the Israeli state, prompting
> Galloway to ask what he meant by "we"). Again, not smart, but hardly an
> attack on his Jewishness.
>
> Amith R. Gupta
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:02 PM, Tim Nelson  wrote:
>
>> Hi Amith
>>
>> I'm on my bus on my phone, so citing sources isn't easy.
>>
>> Yes, Facebook comments are hardly a clear guide. But I guarantee you that
>> anything but a cursory glance at the left in Britain will show you that
>> anti-Semitism is real and is a problem. It's far from dominant, but there
>> is a minority that either consciously or unconsciously subscribe to
>> anti-Semitic ideas. Unfortunately that minority have latched onto the
>> pro-Palestine movement.
>>
>> The problem you highlight is valid. Yes, Zionists conflate support for
>> the Palestinian people with anti-Semitism. The difficulty is that many
>> anti-Semites use the word "Zionist" or "Israeli " when they mean Jew. Look
>> at Galloway for example. He refused to debate an Israeli, and another time
>> he called for Bradford to be an "Israeli free zone". These things weren't
>> anything to do with BDS or support for the Palestinian people. They were
>> dog wistle anti-Semitism under the guise of anti-Zionism.
>>
>> Some of the accusations of anti-Semitism inside the party are frivolous.
>> Some aren't. We need to distinguish between them rather than dismiss them
>> all.
>>
>> I would add that the root of this problem comes down to the influence of
>> Stalinism over the Labour left, particularly on anti-imperialist. The rot
>> really is apparent now.
>>
>> Tim N
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2018, 18:43 A.R. G,  wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Nelson says, "The Labour right and conservatives are weaponising
>>> the issue of anti-Semitism, of course. But that doesn't mean it's not an
>>> issue in the movement. Look at what Beeley said. Or look at George
>>> Galloways statements for that matter. Or check out any number of left wing
>>> Facebook pages on Palestine. Read the comments."
>>>
>>> I want to make clear that in the comments that follow, I am responding
>>> *only* to the anti-Semitism issue, as opposed to all the other things
>>> that Tim describes, which I think are basically reasonable criticisms of
>>> some corners of the Stalinist left.
>>>
>>> Tim didn't cite any specifics about Galloway or Facebook pages. I think
>>> comments on a Facebook page are an incredibly poor measure of anything.
>>> Putting aside obvious trolls and bot accounts, it's never clear if those
>>> people are actually Labour Party members or what. Moreover, the risk of
>>> banning people on a Palestine page for "anti-Semitism" usually turns the
>>> medicine into something worse than the poison. We've seen here on this
>>> forum how leftists and liberals have followed the Labour Right in basically
>>> repeating the smears of Palestine advocacy by labeling broad swaths of it
>>> as anti-Semitic when it is genuinely aimed at Zionism (i.e. smearing the
>>> use of the abbreviation "Zio" as anti-Semitic by linking it to David Duke,
>>> when it is, in fact, just an abbreviation for "Zionist"). In fact, I would
>>> argue that that is the *dominant* trend among the Left -- not
>>> anti-Semitism, but a feverish reaction to anything even vaguely perceived
>>> to be anti-Semitic. Plus, we should factor in both the sheer exaggeration
>>> of the actual problem and the extent to which it receives disproportionate
>>> focus given the other kinds of discrimination that exist, including in the

Re: [Marxism] Labour can be Jo Cox’s party or Chris Williamson’s – it cannot be both

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

Hi Amith

I'm on my bus on my phone, so citing sources isn't easy.

Yes, Facebook comments are hardly a clear guide. But I guarantee you that
anything but a cursory glance at the left in Britain will show you that
anti-Semitism is real and is a problem. It's far from dominant, but there
is a minority that either consciously or unconsciously subscribe to
anti-Semitic ideas. Unfortunately that minority have latched onto the
pro-Palestine movement.

The problem you highlight is valid. Yes, Zionists conflate support for the
Palestinian people with anti-Semitism. The difficulty is that many
anti-Semites use the word "Zionist" or "Israeli " when they mean Jew. Look
at Galloway for example. He refused to debate an Israeli, and another time
he called for Bradford to be an "Israeli free zone". These things weren't
anything to do with BDS or support for the Palestinian people. They were
dog wistle anti-Semitism under the guise of anti-Zionism.

Some of the accusations of anti-Semitism inside the party are frivolous.
Some aren't. We need to distinguish between them rather than dismiss them
all.

I would add that the root of this problem comes down to the influence of
Stalinism over the Labour left, particularly on anti-imperialist. The rot
really is apparent now.

Tim N

On Tue, 21 Aug 2018, 18:43 A.R. G,  wrote:

> Tim Nelson says, "The Labour right and conservatives are weaponising the
> issue of anti-Semitism, of course. But that doesn't mean it's not an issue
> in the movement. Look at what Beeley said. Or look at George Galloways
> statements for that matter. Or check out any number of left wing Facebook
> pages on Palestine. Read the comments."
>
> I want to make clear that in the comments that follow, I am responding
> *only* to the anti-Semitism issue, as opposed to all the other things
> that Tim describes, which I think are basically reasonable criticisms of
> some corners of the Stalinist left.
>
> Tim didn't cite any specifics about Galloway or Facebook pages. I think
> comments on a Facebook page are an incredibly poor measure of anything.
> Putting aside obvious trolls and bot accounts, it's never clear if those
> people are actually Labour Party members or what. Moreover, the risk of
> banning people on a Palestine page for "anti-Semitism" usually turns the
> medicine into something worse than the poison. We've seen here on this
> forum how leftists and liberals have followed the Labour Right in basically
> repeating the smears of Palestine advocacy by labeling broad swaths of it
> as anti-Semitic when it is genuinely aimed at Zionism (i.e. smearing the
> use of the abbreviation "Zio" as anti-Semitic by linking it to David Duke,
> when it is, in fact, just an abbreviation for "Zionist"). In fact, I would
> argue that that is the *dominant* trend among the Left -- not
> anti-Semitism, but a feverish reaction to anything even vaguely perceived
> to be anti-Semitic. Plus, we should factor in both the sheer exaggeration
> of the actual problem and the extent to which it receives disproportionate
> focus given the other kinds of discrimination that exist, including in the
> British Left. Finkelstein did a good, though somewhat verbose, job of
> discussing it recently:
> https://mondoweiss.net/2018/08/chimera-british-semitism/
>
> The Oz Katerji article, not to mention some of Oz' statements about
> Corbyn, are emblematic. For example, OK recently argued on Twitter,
> re-blogging a right-wing smear campaign, that Corbyn's 2012 comments about
> an alleged Israeli role in a terrorist attack in Egypt during the Arab
> Spring was a sign of anti-Semitism. For OK, the mere suggestion that Israel
> might have had a role in events that were happening in a neighboring
> nation-state, let alone one in which Israel's long-standing "security
> partner" was threatened with instability, was unacceptable conspiracism and
> amounted to some kind of attack on the Israeli settler-colony's Jewish
> identity. It is also shamefully ignorant given that the alleged conspiracy
> theory has actually taken place
> , though not in 2012.
>
> As for Galloway, I don't agree. Galloway often takes purposely extremist
> stances. But they are always aimed at Israel and Zionism -- not the Jewish
> community. Some of the accusations are wild. But a wild accusation against
> a government doesn't somehow translate into an attack on its ethnic or
> racial identity. The argument that his critics make are that it is somehow
> reminiscent of anti-Semitism because anti-Semites exaggerate and fantasize
> about Jews being disproportionately powerful, but of course, *any* criticism
> of *any* 

Re: [Marxism] Labour can be Jo Cox’s party or Chris Williamson’s – it cannot be both

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

He doesn't have to explicitly endorse her views in their entirety. He just
uncritically praised her. If he was unaware of her Assadism or her
anti-Semitism then I look forward to his statement clarifying his
opposition to those things. I won't hold my breath though.

There's a problem here. The Stalinist influenced left in Britain has gone
full-tin foil over Syria. Their worst tendencies - authoritarianism,
Islamophobia and Anti-Semitism are bubbling up. Unfortunately, such people
are in very influential roles in the Labour movement. This whole thing is
becoming quite upsetting.

The Labour right and conservatives are weaponising the issue of
anti-Semitism, of course. But that doesn't mean it's not an issue in the
movement. Look at what Beeley said. Or look at George Galloways statements
for that matter. Or check out any number of left wing Facebook pages on
Palestine. Read the comments.

Finally. I consider myself quite a tolerant chap, but seeing a supposed
member of the British working class movement slandering a Labour MP who was
stabbed to death by a fascist makes me apoplectic. There's no place in our
movement for people like that, and anyone who publicly endorses her either
needs to instantly retract, or be lumped in with her.

Tim N

On Tue, 21 Aug 2018, 16:48 A.R. G via Marxism, 
wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> Obviously Beeley is not right in the head. Her statements about Assad are
> vile and her statements about "Zionists" are conspiratorial and sound like
> they are worded purposely to inflame.
>
> All that being said, it is very disturbing to see Oz Katerji jumping on the
> Labour "Anti-Semitism" scandal. Chris Williamson never endorsed Beeley's
> views in their entirety, although he has endorsed some of the ones that
> are, well, bad, namely about Syria. There's no reason to think he endorsed
> any of her rhetoric about Jews/Israel. I'd also note that OK cites an
> article in a right-wing Israeli paper that appears to think virtually any
> condemnation of Israel is anti-Jewish, putting aside the fact that some of
> it -- though not all -- sounds inflammatory.
>
> Amith R. Gupta
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 8:34 AM, Louis Proyect via Marxism <
> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
> >   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.
> > *
> >
> > https://www.newstatesman.com/world/middle-east/2018/08/labou
> > r-can-be-jo-cox-s-party-or-chris-williamson-s-it-cannot-be-both
> > _
> > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> > Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/opt
> > ions/marxism/amithrgupta%40gmail.com
> >
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] The Coming Worm Apocalypse Should Terrify You

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

...and don't get me started on the misuse of "literally "...

I heard someone say the other day, "my boss walked in, and I literally shat
myself"

I'm pretty certain he meant figuratively, or my guess is we wouldn't be
colleagues any more.

On Mon, 6 Aug 2018, 17:04 David McDonald via Marxism, <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> Ken Hiebert, unfortunately, you are hopelessly out of date despite being
> correct historically and etomologically. The most recent actual decimation
> I'm aware of followed the unsuccessful May Uprising of 1919 in which a
> barracks of Red solders was decimated by Freikorp goons. Nowadays it is
> synonymous with massacre.
>
> I also lament the loss of the real meaning of unique in the morass of
> impossible qualifiers: really unique, highly unique, most unique, more
> unique. But then we have all kinds of words for things that cannot be, for
> instance the sentence "It is inconceivable that...", a sentence that
> contradicts itself when uttered.
>
> I am not happy with "I will try and explain this to you" as a meaningless
> substitute for "I will try TO explain this to you."
>
> You got me started!
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Young Marxist intellectuals and the Democratic Party | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

Sorry, that should read "can't be gestated "

On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, 19:06 Tim Nelson,  wrote:

> Hi Louis
>
> This is very good. As an outsider, I can't really challenge your knowledge
> of the US Democrats. However, I do have questions with regards to the last
> few lines of your article.
>
> You maintain, correctly, that a truly socialist organisation can be
> "gestated" inside the democratic party, but could not some of the elements
> needed for such a movement exist within it?
>
> If that were not the case, it wouldn't be necessary to argue with people
> not to join/support /vote democrat. It's not like we ever need to have this
> debate about Repubicans.
>
> The debate is, surely, about whether you join the Democrats with an eye to
> splitting off the social democratic elements, or plant a flag outside in
> hopes of attracting them (it's a debate we've had in Britain about Labour
> for years, complicated obviously by Labour's organic link to trade unions,
> etc)
>
> I suppose my question is, are there existing progressive, pro-working
> class elements within the democratic party, which are easier to access by
> working with/in the party? If so, the capitalist nature of the party is, in
> my opinion, of secondary importance compared to the advantages of reaching
> a wider audience with socialist ideas.
>
> All genuine questions and unformed thoughts.
>
> Tim N
>
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, 18:30 Louis Proyect via Marxism, <
> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
>>   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.
>> *
>>
>> The “democratic socialist” movement spawned by Bernie Sanders’s 2016
>> campaign has led to an interesting development. Highly educated and
>> self-described socialists in the academy have written erudite articles
>> making the Marxist case for voting Democratic. Even if they are wrong, I
>> am impressed with the scholarly prowess deployed on behalf of obvious
>> casuistry.
>>
>> These articles often appear in Jacobin, which has managed to repackage
>> arguments made by Irving Howe a half-century ago in the snazziest of
>> graphics. In 2016, for example, Seth Ackerman, a Jacobin editor and
>> dissertation student at the highly prestigious Cornell University, wrote
>> “A Blueprint for a New Party” that advanced “new electoral strategies
>> for an independent left-wing party rooted in the working class” but in
>> fine print recommended running in Democratic Party primaries. Jacobin
>> followed up with another such article by Eric Blanc but couched in terms
>> of a “dirty break” from the Democratic Party as opposed to the “clean
>> break” advocated by Marxist dinosaurs like me. Such a “dirty break” was
>> adopted by the Nonpartisan League in the early 20th century, when it ran
>> candidates in both the Democratic and Republican parties (a case can be
>> made that the Republicans were the lesser evil at the time). Blanc, who
>> is a dissertation student at NYU, is even more steeped in Marxist lore
>> than Ackerman. One supposes that this is a prerequisite for convincing
>> congenitally radical young people to work for Democratic Party
>> candidates when disgust with the party is at an all-time high.
>>
>> full:
>>
>> https://louisproyect.org/2018/08/03/young-marxist-intellectuals-and-the-democratic-party/
>> _
>> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
>> Set your options at:
>> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
>
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Young Marxist intellectuals and the Democratic Party | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

Hi Louis

This is very good. As an outsider, I can't really challenge your knowledge
of the US Democrats. However, I do have questions with regards to the last
few lines of your article.

You maintain, correctly, that a truly socialist organisation can be
"gestated" inside the democratic party, but could not some of the elements
needed for such a movement exist within it?

If that were not the case, it wouldn't be necessary to argue with people
not to join/support /vote democrat. It's not like we ever need to have this
debate about Repubicans.

The debate is, surely, about whether you join the Democrats with an eye to
splitting off the social democratic elements, or plant a flag outside in
hopes of attracting them (it's a debate we've had in Britain about Labour
for years, complicated obviously by Labour's organic link to trade unions,
etc)

I suppose my question is, are there existing progressive, pro-working class
elements within the democratic party, which are easier to access by working
with/in the party? If so, the capitalist nature of the party is, in my
opinion, of secondary importance compared to the advantages of reaching a
wider audience with socialist ideas.

All genuine questions and unformed thoughts.

Tim N

On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, 18:30 Louis Proyect via Marxism, <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> The “democratic socialist” movement spawned by Bernie Sanders’s 2016
> campaign has led to an interesting development. Highly educated and
> self-described socialists in the academy have written erudite articles
> making the Marxist case for voting Democratic. Even if they are wrong, I
> am impressed with the scholarly prowess deployed on behalf of obvious
> casuistry.
>
> These articles often appear in Jacobin, which has managed to repackage
> arguments made by Irving Howe a half-century ago in the snazziest of
> graphics. In 2016, for example, Seth Ackerman, a Jacobin editor and
> dissertation student at the highly prestigious Cornell University, wrote
> “A Blueprint for a New Party” that advanced “new electoral strategies
> for an independent left-wing party rooted in the working class” but in
> fine print recommended running in Democratic Party primaries. Jacobin
> followed up with another such article by Eric Blanc but couched in terms
> of a “dirty break” from the Democratic Party as opposed to the “clean
> break” advocated by Marxist dinosaurs like me. Such a “dirty break” was
> adopted by the Nonpartisan League in the early 20th century, when it ran
> candidates in both the Democratic and Republican parties (a case can be
> made that the Republicans were the lesser evil at the time). Blanc, who
> is a dissertation student at NYU, is even more steeped in Marxist lore
> than Ackerman. One supposes that this is a prerequisite for convincing
> congenitally radical young people to work for Democratic Party
> candidates when disgust with the party is at an all-time high.
>
> full:
>
> https://louisproyect.org/2018/08/03/young-marxist-intellectuals-and-the-democratic-party/
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Building for a Socialist Brexit

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

The frustrating thing about this debate is how polarised the left in
Britain has become. Of course the left is going to be split on this issue.
The working class is split on this issue. You know why? Because the
referendum gave them a choice between two different versions of capitalism.
Only a mad or bad capitalist government would call a referendum asking you
if you wanted a) Capitalism, or b) Socialism. If they call a referendum,
you can be damn sure neither result will bring about the collapse of the
capitalist world order.

I voted Remain, but I accept that there are many good reasons for a
socialist to oppose the E.U. The least intelligent argument is that the
E.U., as a capitalist neoliberal bloc, would somehow impede the development
of socialism in the U.K. That’s not exactly on the cards at this moment,
but even if it were, it’s essentially a socialism in one country
perspective, and really just a hangover from the 1970s, where democratic
socialists and Stalinists feared that inclusion in the EEC would stop them
from being able to nationalise things.

A more interesting anti-E.U. argument actually came from the third
worldists – that the E.U. was essentially an imperialist bloc, that
“freedom of movement” only applied to Europeans, and the E.U. was set up to
ensure that European countries could continue to exploit the third world
after the collapse of Empire. That’s entirely accurate.

However, none of the above arguments were driving Brexit. The Brexit
faction of the ruling class (the right wing of the Conservatives), were
motivated by Atlantacism. They saw the E.U. as a block to trade with the
United States. Their ideology is anti-regulation “free market” capitalism,
which appeals to what remains of small capitalists here (who resent having
to do things like pay minimum wage and not being able to victimise their
staff staff). The E.U serves the interests of big capital, not small
capital (generally speaking), and therefore small capitalists tend to
resent it, feeling trampled.

The alliance between a handful of Atlantacist big capitalists in the
Conservative Party, and what remains of the British petty bourgeoisie could
not, of course, have delivered the Leave vote. So naturally, they fell back
on nationalism. There are in Britain, just like in America and throughout
Europe, many, many working class people who have been dispossessed by
neoliberalism. They are people who used to constitute the “working class
aristocracy” – meaning they (or their parents or grandparents) had safe
jobs, a strong union, better than average pay, etc. That’s now gone. It had
been eroding for years, but the 2008 crash demonstrated that starkly.
They’re angry, they’re very angry, and they’re being told that the reason
for the collapse of their living standards is immigration, the E.U. (and
blacks, gays, women, Muslims).

The E.U. is essentially a liberal capitalist project. The post-1945 liberal
theory of international relations is one of multilateralism and
globalisation. They believe that the WTO, IMF NATO, the E.U., the G7, etc.
are essential to their vision of world order and stability. In their
version of history, it was the failure to create such international NGOs
that led to the two world wars. Therefore, the liberal bourgeoisie is in
full panic at Brexit, and Trump’s attacks on these institutions.

The so-called “right wing populists” who drove Brexit and drive Trumpism,
are basically nationalist free marketeers, who are working for the roll
back of the liberal agenda both internationally and internally, and use
cheap racism and general reactionary ideas to drive it.

Both the liberal capitalists and the reactionary right are of course
damaging to the working class. The difference is that the reactionary right
are aiming to roll back even the limited gains that have been achieved
under liberal democracy. Basic things such as abortion rights, gay rights,
trade union rights and intolerance of overt racism.

In my opinion, Brexit should be viewed in the light of this growing (and
powerful) international trend towards extreme reaction. Not everybody who
voted Brexit is a member of this movement, or would agree with every one of
its aims; but it was most definitely used as a vehicle by the reactionary
right to launch themselves into a stronger position in the British state.
The hard right of the Conservative Party used to be considered the lunatic
fringe – they’re very close to capturing the leadership of that party
(which is for all intents and purposes the ruling party of the British
state).

The solution? The British left needs to stop arguing about how they
did/should have voted in the referendum. 

Re: [Marxism] Query

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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 fairness, I just thought- the pamphlet was written before the October
Insurrection, not after. It was in response to the derision V.I.L was met
with after he announced the Bolsheviks were ready to seize and hold power.

It's still a great instructional pamphlet on how to have fun shoving the
rich around post-insurrection though. A must read for vindictive types like
me.

Comrade Pollack is absolutely right about Lenin circa 1917. The emphasis on
workers' democracy is central to his thinki.

On 23 May 2018 18:21, "Andrew Pollack via Marxism" <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
>  Great stuff!
>
> Notice the emphasis on the composition of the workers' militia selected to
> implement the decree, including women/domestic workers. (In this period
> Lenin wrote over and over again of the need for rank-and-file committees in
> all spheres to implement the new laws, and the essential participation of
> women in such committees.)
>
> See also:
> https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/reviprog/ch04.htm
> " ... 11) Housing laws to be enacted and a housing inspectorate elected by
> the workers’ organisations to be instituted for the purpose of sanitary
> inspection of dwelling houses. However, only by abolishing private property
> in land and building cheap and hygienic dwellings can the housing problem
> be solved."
>
> In a few years however Lenin and allies were already having to handle
> complaints of abuse of workers by housing officials (for which he said such
> "communist criminals" should be hanged):
>
> https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/18a.htm
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/
> options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Query

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

I think he talks about it in the pamphlet How the Bolsheviks Will Maintain
Power

On 23 May 2018 17:29, "Louis Proyect via Marxism" <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> I asked this about 10 years ago and wish I had made a note of the answer.
> Sometime after the Bolsheviks took power, Lenin wrote an article calling
> for one or two rich people living in spacious apartments to exchange them
> with a working class family with numerous children living in crowded
> conditions. Where is this?
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/opt
> ions/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Putin takes aim at West with new array of Russian nuclear weapons that can't be intercepted

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

 ""At some point, it seemed to me that a compromise [on missile defense
with the U.S.] could be found. But no," Putin said."

The chickens of Republican unilateralism come home to roost?

"Striking a lighter tone, Putin announced a name-that-weapon contest for
Russia's new cruise missile and an unmanned underwater drone. Participants
can log onto Russia's Ministry of Defense website to enter their ideas."

When our government did something like this, we managed to get a submarine
called Boaty McBoat-Face.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Louis Proyect via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> We are fucked.
>
> http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-russia-nuclear-weapons-20
> 180301-story.html
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/opt
> ions/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Gun control and assault weapons

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

Interesting John, thanks.

A couple of points you made perked my interest.

Firstly, it must be genuinely worrying that the ultra-reactionary wing of
the Right in the USA is armed to the teeth. I can't imagine how I would
feel if the Tory right/UKIP had assault weapons in their homes, but I would
hazard a guess that it would be distressing.

This point got me thinking though:

" Such a political movement will only develop seriously if it is outside of
and opposed to the Democratic Party, which would welcome it in in order to
smother it. So, that means taking the first steps towards building a mass
working class party to oppose both the parties of big business."

Do comrades on here think there is a link between the lack of a social
democratic movement in America and the lack of gun control?

I'm sure it's not the whole story, but given that social democracy's MO is
essentially that the state is neutral and the vehicle for social change, it
might go some way to explain why in many Western European capitalist
democracies there is an acceptance that weapons should be controlled for
public safety reasons, while in America there is not.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:43 PM, John Reimann via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> We had a discussion the other evening among a small group about gun control
> and the growing youth movement in favor of it. The issue got more
> complicated by the minute. But in the end, I think the question boils down
> to: “How should socialists relate to what seems to be a growing movement
> among some high school students in favor of some sort of increased gun
> regulation – in particular banning assault weapons?”
>
> There was some disagreement, but in general we agreed that our society
> would be better off if civilians did not possess assault weapons. We also
> agreed that the police shouldn’t have them either.
>
> Then matters get more complicated: How are you going to go about
> confiscating them in the present political climate, where the NRA gun
> fanatics/the racists are feeling so powerful and on the offensive? You are
> going to end up with one shoot out after another, and with a rebellion from
> among the police themselves, many of whom are also members of these racist
> groups. Today, being armed to the teeth is normalized among many millions.
> So, you have to reverse the entire political direction, the entire
> political climate here in the US. That means developing a political
> movement that takes up all the basic things that are bothering working
> class people here – economics, racism, sexism, the environment, jobs... the
> whole nine yards.
> Such a political movement will only develop seriously if it is outside of
> and opposed to the Democratic Party, which would welcome it in in order to
> smother it. So, that means taking the first steps towards building a mass
> working class party to oppose both the parties of big business.
> Read entire article here:
> https://oaklandsocialist.com/2018/03/01/some-thoughts-on-gun-control/
>
>
> --
> *“How can we expect righteousness to prevail when there is hardly anyone
> willing to give himself up individually to a righteous cause? Such a fine
> sunny day, and I have to go, but what does my death matter, if through us
> thousands of people are awakened and stirred to action?” *Sophie Scholl,
> executed by the Nazis 2/22/1943. She was 21 years old.
> Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/
> options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Gun regulation?

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

Hi comrades

I come at this issue as a complete outsider, being British and not
American, so please let me know if I'm missing any cultural nuances.

However, the idea that the freedom to purchase fire arms somehow breaks the
state's monopoly on force rings false to me. The state may allow an
individual the immediate power of using lethal force, but it still reserves
the right to adjudicate afterwards. Therefore, a black person who uses
their "right" to use said force ends up in prison/executed, George
Zimmerman goes free, etc.

Am I correct in saying that the root of the "right to bear arms" is
essentially rooted in a petty bourgeois concern in preserving property
rights? It strikes me that even if this wasn't the original intention of
the Second Amendment, it certainly seems to be how that "right" is used.

I'm entirely in favour of the working class having recourse to force, but
that doesn't mean I am in favour of an individual, even a working class
individual, having the right to use force whenever it suits them. For "the
class" to have recourse to force requires them to have said recourse
COLLECTIVELY. Any decision to use force should be subject to democratic
procedures decided on by the class, which means it should be the
prerogative of working class organisations.

Any other approach, which centres the rights of the "individual" strikes me
as a little Proudhonist.

Tim N

On 28 Feb 2018 15:12, "Mark Lause via Marxism" 
wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
>  You can't parcel realities like this inside your head and not realize that
> they have a very material meaning.
>
> Does anyone seriously suggest that we need to defend the profitability of
> the gun manufacturers in the sale of military-grade 21st century weapons to
> anyone with the $$$ in order to protect the rights of the workers to take
> their muzzle loaders to the defense of the barricades?
>
> And this does not really exaggerate the issue at all, because the working
> class will never win (or match) an arms race with the capitalist state.
> Not this side of Fantasyland.
>
> We are going to have to win with numbers and politics.
>
> In the interim, students (and faculty and staff) have the right to have a
> safe place in which to learn and work.  Any attempt to let the capitalist
> class off the hook over its responsibility to meet certain minimal
> standards of safety in any workplace is incomprehensible.
>
> ML
>
> PS: If they force teachers to have arms--and I work where such silliness is
> not out of the question--I already have put in my request in for a
> bazooka.
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/
> options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com