Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[Clay Claiborne 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 Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Mark Lause  wrote:

> I honestly don't believe I have to point this out, but Wilson held power,
> and Trump has not.
>

I honestly don't believe I have to point this out, but in the US it is the
billionaire class that holds the real power, not their servants like Obama.

Trump has the power to deny black people housing:

> When Trump was serving as the president of his family’s real estate
company, the Trump Management Corporation, in 1973, the Justice Department
sued the company for alleged racial discrimination against black people
looking to rent apartments in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island.
>
> The lawsuit charged that the company quoted different rental terms and
conditions to black rental candidates than it did with white candidates,
and that the company lied to black applicants about apartments not being
available.

Trump destroyed my home town, not Wilson My brother worked in these casinos
my mother had to live in the cesspool of crime and corruption he created.

> Workers at Trump’s casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, have accused him
of racism over the years. The New Jersey Casino Control Commission fined
the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino $200,000 in 1992 because managers would
remove African-American card dealers at the request of a certain
big-spending gambler. A state appeals court upheld the fine.
>
> The first-person account of at least one black Trump casino employee in
Atlantic City suggests the racist practices were consistent with Trump’s
personal behavior toward black workers.
>
> “When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the
black people off the floor,” Kip Brown, a former employee at Trump’s
Castle, told the New Yorker for a September article. “It was the eighties,
I was a teen-ager, but I remember it: they put us all in the back.”
>
> Trump disparaged his black casino employees as “lazy” in vividly bigoted
terms, according to a 1991 book by John O’Donnell, a former president of
Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino.
>
> “And isn’t it funny. I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump
Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it,” O’Donnell recalled Trump
saying. “The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys
that wear yarmulkes every day.”
>
> “I think the guy is lazy,” Trump said of a black employee, according to
O’Donnell. “And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in
blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”
>
> Trump has also faced charges of reneging on commitments to hire black
people. In 1996, 20 African Americans in Indiana sued Trump for failing to
honor a promise to hire mostly minority workers for a riverboat casino on
Lake Michigan.

The argument that Trump is untested and powerless while Clinton has had
power as Obama's employee and did all these things that had racist effects,
is of great service to Trump.

You cover up this history with your assertion that Trump has no power [just
billions in capital - strange thing to hear of on a Marxist list, of the
powerless billionaire class!!]

Which fits so perfectly with Trump's "What’d you got to lose?" pitch to
black people.

Rather than supporting Trump's claim that he should be given a chance
because he is untested and so far, powerless, I think we need Marxists that
exposes Trump's racist hypocrisy by talking about what he has actually done
to black people and working people in general.

But I don't expect to see that type of exposure from the Green party
because any effective exposure of Trump would drive more people to vote
against him and hurt Stein's chances at the polls. Hurt Trumps chances too.

Great way to build a revolutionary movement, pretty much guarantees the
Green party will remain "educated, urban, nonprofit activists; educated,
university town professionals; and well-to-do hippies in the exurbs" but
that ain't enough to make a revolution.

Regards

Clay


Clay Claiborne, Director
Vietnam: American Holocaust 
Linux Beach Productions
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 581-1536

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Mark Lause 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 honestly don't believe I have to point this out, but Wilson held power,
and Trump has not.  Wilson lied the country into a world war that killed
and mained Americans in the hundreds of thousands.  He presided over a wave
of lynchings as well as the armed, vicious, and lethal assaults on the
black community by both the authorities and by real white nationalist thugs
. . . . .

Not that I'm unhappy to see Clay so in touch with his inner child, but this
is my last comment on this subject line, since it's clear that realities
just don't weigh anything for those who want to ignore them.



On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Clay Claiborne 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.
> *
>
> Wilson was obviously a bigger racist than Trump because he showed Birth of
> a Nation in the WH and had a friend that wanted to "help the weaker races."
>
> You are making this argument to say that Trump's threat to expel 11 million
> workers, ban all Muslims from the US and crack down on crime in the black
> community - not be soft like Obama is no worst than above so there's not
> problem with the white progressive movement to stop Clinton.
>
> Anyone that sees this Stop Hillary movement [which includes Trump and the
> white nationalists BTW] as a backhanded support for Trump will be read the
> riot act.
>
> You'll build a lot of unity with that line.
>
> Clay Claiborne, Director
> Vietnam: American Holocaust 
> Linux Beach Productions
> Venice, CA 90291
> (310) 581-1536
>
> Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 
> 
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/
> options/marxism/markalause%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] Vote for Clinton?

[Clay Claiborne 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.
*

Wilson was obviously a bigger racist than Trump because he showed Birth of
a Nation in the WH and had a friend that wanted to "help the weaker races."

You are making this argument to say that Trump's threat to expel 11 million
workers, ban all Muslims from the US and crack down on crime in the black
community - not be soft like Obama is no worst than above so there's not
problem with the white progressive movement to stop Clinton.

Anyone that sees this Stop Hillary movement [which includes Trump and the
white nationalists BTW] as a backhanded support for Trump will be read the
riot act.

You'll build a lot of unity with that line.

Clay Claiborne, Director
Vietnam: American Holocaust 
Linux Beach Productions
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 581-1536

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 

_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Mark Lause 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.
*

Worth a look for its rather accurate view of Wilson and other "Progressives"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZBRcdy7ndI



On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Jeffrey Masko 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.
> *
>
> This does not address the fact that the film was shown at the WH. And yes,
> we should take the word of the author of The Klansmen, who thought the
> reconstruction Klan was good thing and who wanted to "help the weaker
> races." Do you hear yourself? I'll let your statements stand for themselves
> and will not dignify responding to wikipedia.
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Clay Claiborne  wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Jeffrey Masko 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> ​Are you saying that's the screening of Birth was not the first ever in
> >> the WH? That Wilson was not a close friend of Thomas Dixon? Those facts,
> >> which ever way you want to spin them, are indisputable.
> >>
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Dixon_Jr.
> >
> >> Attitudes toward revived Klan
> >>>
> >>> Dixon was not enthusiastic about the revived second era Ku Klux Klan
> >>>  _1915.E2.80.931944>.
> >>> He felt it was bigoted and in no way resembled the reconstruction
> Klan. He
> >>> called antisemitism 
> >>> "idiocy", noting that the mother of Jesus
> >>>  was Jewish
> >>>  and lauded the loyalty and good
> >>> citizenship of Catholics
> >>> . He also felt it
> >>> was the duty of whites to "lift up and help the weaker races".[26]
> >>> 
> >>>
> >> Please stop trying to teach me history. You are embarrassing yourself.
> >
> > Clay Claiborne, Director
> > Vietnam: American Holocaust 
> > Linux Beach Productions
> > Venice, CA 90291
> > (310) 581-1536
> >
> > Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> J.A. Masko
> College of Communications
> Penn State University
> State College, Pa 16801
>
>   "The challenge of modernity is to live without illusions and without
> becoming disillusioned."
>
>Antonio Gramsci.
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/
> options/marxism/markalause%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] Vote for Clinton?

[Jeffrey Masko 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.
*

This does not address the fact that the film was shown at the WH. And yes,
we should take the word of the author of The Klansmen, who thought the
reconstruction Klan was good thing and who wanted to "help the weaker
races." Do you hear yourself? I'll let your statements stand for themselves
and will not dignify responding to wikipedia.

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Clay Claiborne  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Jeffrey Masko 
> wrote:
>
>> ​Are you saying that's the screening of Birth was not the first ever in
>> the WH? That Wilson was not a close friend of Thomas Dixon? Those facts,
>> which ever way you want to spin them, are indisputable.
>>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Dixon_Jr.
>
>> Attitudes toward revived Klan
>>>
>>> Dixon was not enthusiastic about the revived second era Ku Klux Klan
>>> .
>>> He felt it was bigoted and in no way resembled the reconstruction Klan. He
>>> called antisemitism 
>>> "idiocy", noting that the mother of Jesus
>>>  was Jewish
>>>  and lauded the loyalty and good
>>> citizenship of Catholics
>>> . He also felt it
>>> was the duty of whites to "lift up and help the weaker races".[26]
>>> 
>>>
>> Please stop trying to teach me history. You are embarrassing yourself.
>
> Clay Claiborne, Director
> Vietnam: American Holocaust 
> Linux Beach Productions
> Venice, CA 90291
> (310) 581-1536
>
> Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 
>
>
>



-- 

J.A. Masko
College of Communications
Penn State University
State College, Pa 16801

  "The challenge of modernity is to live without illusions and without
becoming disillusioned."

   Antonio Gramsci.
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Clay Claiborne 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 Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Jeffrey Masko 
wrote:

> ​Are you saying that's the screening of Birth was not the first ever in
> the WH? That Wilson was not a close friend of Thomas Dixon? Those facts,
> which ever way you want to spin them, are indisputable.
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Dixon_Jr.

> Attitudes toward revived Klan
>>
>> Dixon was not enthusiastic about the revived second era Ku Klux Klan
>> .
>> He felt it was bigoted and in no way resembled the reconstruction Klan. He
>> called antisemitism 
>> "idiocy", noting that the mother of Jesus
>>  was Jewish
>>  and lauded the loyalty and good
>> citizenship of Catholics
>> . He also felt it
>> was the duty of whites to "lift up and help the weaker races".[26]
>> 
>>
> Please stop trying to teach me history. You are embarrassing yourself.

Clay Claiborne, Director
Vietnam: American Holocaust 
Linux Beach Productions
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 581-1536

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[DW 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.
*

Hmmm...well...in many ways, Clay is restrained in his lesser-evilism.
Compared to some the crap that was thrown at Sander's during the primary
with typical "you have the privilege of voting for Sanders, I don't" sort
of pure unadulterated BS...Clay is lightweight here.

Also, I just learned Lenin was a neo-liberal economist! Wait...how did
Lenin sneak into the discussion. Deport his ass right now.

I gather this was around the open borders issue that also sort of shuck in
here. We don't have open borders and no candidate that I know of is
advocating it so why is it part of the discussion (no major party is, lot's
of socialist candidates do, however, I assume: PSL, SA, WWP etc).

Whatever...the always desperate ploy of
guilt-by-associating-one's-position-with-the-far-right is at play here.
That is a polemical tool I know so well. Reactionaries mix and match
positions depending on the circumstances. Of course neo-liberals generally
are for open borders (see the EU)...sometimes...and far-right reactionaries
(Le Pen, Trump...and Clinton) are for closing them.

20 years ago I was against NAFTA. Others on the left accused those on the
left who opposed NAFTA of "protectionism". They either refused to take a
position on NAFTA or ignored it. The more desperate argued for a "social
NAFTA" (see "Social Europe" the bankrupt Euro-left supports). Back then the
Mexican left and union movement was also opposed to NAFTA and it took
Zapitista rebellion...their single issue being opposition to the
implementation of NAFTA...to knock the US left upside the head about NAFTA
being THE tool of neoliberalism...that is privatization and austerity, not
to mention loss of sovereignty for Mexico.

But be careful... if you oppose NAFTA today it means...you are in the camp
of Trump...? Or Sanders? Or the Green Party? This is the problem with
defining your *position* based solely what the position of is of the *far
right* or by your political opponents. Fuck that shit! Take positions as it
relates *best* to defending our class against the real enemy...which the
ruling class and their toadies in the Democratic and Republican parties.

Clay complains against the "white nationalism" of the Trump camp. Lets
examine this. The main 'nationalist' position Trump takes is on
immigration. It dovetails with the Tea-Party wing (though of course his
economic policies...being 'nationalist'...are at odds with the Tea Party
historically) and with whose members overlap quite a bit with Trump's
positions. But beyond that...there is virtually no difference between Trump
*and his supporters* and that of the "traditional" Tea Party groupings.
Ergo...though I can't prove this I believe Clay's position would be exactly
the same if it was Cruz as the GOP nominee (a person who scares me a
helluva lot MORE than Trump does at every political level).

Trump getting elected would not mean, despite Clay's protestations to the
contrary "White Nationalism" in the White House. Certainly not via Trump
himself. But if you look at who were the staff members and advisors for
Ronald Reagan, these "alt-rightists" are in fact lightweight compared to
Reagan's advisors (Reagan was on the far-left of his advisory staff, just
so ha' know). Trumps overall positions don't vary that much with Clinton's.
Assuming we even really know his positions. With the exception of the
rhetorical talk about deporting 11 million undocumented workers and their
families...there isn't that much difference for people of color than we are
seeing from...Barrack "Depor 'em" Obama and Clinton. He can increase
funding to a 'special deportation brigade' or whatever he's advocating this
afternoon, but only by getting support in Congress. Secondly, besides a
huge number of unconstitutional Executive Orders there isn't much Trump can
do. Take NAFTA, which he says he opposes. Too late, it was ratified by the
Senate and can only be ratified by it. Trumps positions, to the degree they
are at odds with the GOP, means to get any of them implemented, he needs
support, which he has very little of. I suspect the Wall would get funded
after much rankling.

This whole debate, quite honestly, is the old Mussolini vs Hitler debate.
As it's gotten to this level, I see the differences between Trump (and what
he acutally do) and Clinton (and what she has actually done) a difference
without much of a distinction. In fact I would go so far and say that the
only thing stopping Trumpism is not Clinton but how we organize people
independent of these two. Because if we don't, it won't matter who is
POTUS.

David Walters
_
Full posting guidelines at: 

Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[Clay Claiborne 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.
*

Nice try at obscuring that white nationalists (not white male status
anxiety) driving the campaign. You had to stick to [illegal] immigration
and not even talk about the people - immigrates. If you strayed a bit - you
would have to incorporate the Trump campaign HATRED for Muslims and blacks
into your its all about neo-liberalism meme.

Obviously I can't speak for others on this list, but as a Marxist, I
support the free flow of labor across borders. There are no real
restrictions on the flow of capital but the capitalist impose it on labor -
in part by declaring a part of their labor "illegal", a label you clearly
endorse. As a Marxist I don't subscribe to Trump's brand of nationalism or
yours.

Excuse me now I have a chassis swap to attend to in DCOPs-DFW.

Best regards,

Clay

Clay Claiborne, Director
Vietnam: American Holocaust 
Linux Beach Productions
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 581-1536

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 


On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Carl G. Estabrook 
wrote:

> [Trump’s attack on illegal immigration is an attack on neoliberalism - and
> the misery neoliberal policies have produced for much of the US population
> over the last 40 years - while enriching the 1%. The following is from <
> https://www.jacobinmag.com/2011/01/let-them-eat-diversity/>.]
>
> ...who’s for illegal immigration? As far as I know ... the only people who
> are openly for illegal immigration are neoliberal economists.
>
> First of all, neoliberal economists are completely for open borders, in
> so far as that’s possible. Friedman said years ago that, “You can’t have a
> welfare state and open borders,” but of course the point of that was “open
> the borders, because that’ll kill the welfare state.” There’s a good paper
> you can get off the web by Gordon Hanson, commissioned by whoever runs
> Foreign Affairs, and the argument is that illegal immigration is better
> than legal immigration, because illegal immigration is extremely responsive
> to market conditions.
>
> So it’s quite striking that you have all this protesting against illegal
> immigration, and especially at a time when it’s down. So why are people so
> upset about it? They are upset about it not because it has gotten worse, it
> hasn’t, but because they somehow recognize that one of the primary sort of
> marks of the triumph of neoliberalism in the US is a very high tolerance of
> illegal immigration, and that illegal immigration is the kind of ne plus
> ultra of the labor mobility that neoliberalism requires. I mean that’s why
> for years — even though it’s a kind of contradiction in terms — as a policy
> it’s worked well. The Bush administration did everything it could to talk
> against illegal immigration but leave it alone and I’m sure the Obama
> administration would do the same thing except its hand’s being forced by
> the Tea Party.
>
> ...The Tea Party thinks that immigrants are taking away their money. It’s
> not immigrants who are taking away their money; it’s neoliberalism that’s
> taking away their money. And this is true even though the Tea Party is a
> disproportionately upper middle class movement. There is some debate about
> that, but what theTimes survey shows, at least in part, is that Tea
> Partiers in general are richer than most Americans, closer to the top 20
> percent than they are to the middle. But if you look at the distribution of
> income in the last 10 years what you’re struck by is that the top 20
> percent looks like it’s done very well in relation to everyone else and the
> top 10 percent looks like it’s done very very well in relation to everyone
> else but it’s the top 1 percent who have really made out like bandits. And
> if you separate out the top 1 percent from the rest of the 19 that makes up
> the top 20, the 19 have more or less stayed still, they have not increased
> their proportion of the share of the US income very much over the past
> 10–15 years. Almost all the increase has gone to the top 1 percent. So you
> now have a threat even to the upper middle class, which for the first 15–20
> years of neoliberalism benefited from it tremendously, but which is now not
> exactly losing ground in relation to the country as a whole, but is losing
> ground in relation to this new phenomenon, this extraordinary success of
> the top 1, or to some extent, the top 5 percent. And you begin to see those
> people actually feeling a certain sense of anxiety...
>
> People always bridle when I say this, but I really doubt that the main
> issue here is white male status anxiety. 

Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[Carl G. Estabrook 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.
*

[Trump’s attack on illegal immigration is an attack on neoliberalism - and the 
misery neoliberal policies have produced for much of the US population over the 
last 40 years - while enriching the 1%. The following is from 
>.]

...who’s for illegal immigration? As far as I know ... the only people who are 
openly for illegal immigration are neoliberal economists.

First of all, neoliberal economists are completely for open borders, in so far 
as that’s possible. Friedman said years ago that, “You can’t have a welfare 
state and open borders,” but of course the point of that was “open the borders, 
because that’ll kill the welfare state.” There’s a good paper you can get off 
the web by Gordon Hanson, commissioned by whoever runs Foreign Affairs, and the 
argument is that illegal immigration is better than legal immigration, because 
illegal immigration is extremely responsive to market conditions.

So it’s quite striking that you have all this protesting against illegal 
immigration, and especially at a time when it’s down. So why are people so 
upset about it? They are upset about it not because it has gotten worse, it 
hasn’t, but because they somehow recognize that one of the primary sort of 
marks of the triumph of neoliberalism in the US is a very high tolerance of 
illegal immigration, and that illegal immigration is the kind of ne plus ultra 
of the labor mobility that neoliberalism requires. I mean that’s why for years 
— even though it’s a kind of contradiction in terms — as a policy it’s worked 
well. The Bush administration did everything it could to talk against illegal 
immigration but leave it alone and I’m sure the Obama administration would do 
the same thing except its hand’s being forced by the Tea Party. 

...The Tea Party thinks that immigrants are taking away their money. It’s not 
immigrants who are taking away their money; it’s neoliberalism that’s taking 
away their money. And this is true even though the Tea Party is a 
disproportionately upper middle class movement. There is some debate about 
that, but what theTimes survey shows, at least in part, is that Tea Partiers in 
general are richer than most Americans, closer to the top 20 percent than they 
are to the middle. But if you look at the distribution of income in the last 10 
years what you’re struck by is that the top 20 percent looks like it’s done 
very well in relation to everyone else and the top 10 percent looks like it’s 
done very very well in relation to everyone else but it’s the top 1 percent who 
have really made out like bandits. And if you separate out the top 1 percent 
from the rest of the 19 that makes up the top 20, the 19 have more or less 
stayed still, they have not increased their proportion of the share of the US 
income very much over the past 10–15 years. Almost all the increase has gone to 
the top 1 percent. So you now have a threat even to the upper middle class, 
which for the first 15–20 years of neoliberalism benefited from it 
tremendously, but which is now not exactly losing ground in relation to the 
country as a whole, but is losing ground in relation to this new phenomenon, 
this extraordinary success of the top 1, or to some extent, the top 5 percent. 
And you begin to see those people actually feeling a certain sense of anxiety...

People always bridle when I say this, but I really doubt that the main issue 
here is white male status anxiety. Obviously I’m not in a position to say there 
aren’t people who are experiencing it. What I’m saying is that people in the 
Tea Party movement have a problem that is realer than “white male status 
anxiety,” that the economic shifts that are taking place, the more and more 
extreme inequality, the more and more going to the top, no doubt some people 
may be unhappy because of loss of status, but many millions more are going to 
be unhappy because of the loss of actual money. So my point isn’t really to 
deny the phenomenon of status anxiety, it’s just to point out the 
extraordinaire eagerness of American liberals to identify racism as the 
problem, so that anti-racism (rather than anti-capitalism) can be the 
solution...

—CGE

> On Sep 2, 2016, at 10:15 AM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism 
>  wrote:
> 
> I am so amazed that people on this list aren't more troubled by Trump's
> racism. Did you hear his speech on immigration?
> 
> Nobody here comments.Nobody here cares. Where are the exposures of Trump's
> white nationalist connections.
> 
> I feel like the treachery of the 

Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[Manuel Barrera 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.
*

Clay--and everyone--it is difficult not to get incensed when such issues as 
giving critical support to an imperialist warmonger (because you fear a 
potential fascist imperialist warmonger) on one hand and the fear that the 
bourgeois elections may actually initiate a new wave of repression and 
state-sanctioned racist slaughter at the hands of police at the behest of 
capitalist government on the other. 

Let me assure you, Clay. It is likely that this wave of racist mayhem will 
continue--regardless who is elected--because it is in the interests of the 
capitalist class to foment ever more strident divisions and perpetuate the 
facade of both White and U.S. working class privilege (among all "colors").  
If you truly consider yourself a Marxist, you would understand that very 
warranted fear of yours has a material basis and not one based on the person in 
power. You should easily see that if you've even casually observed the last 8 
years through the leadership of capitalism from a Black president. 
The only reason that this racism and slaughter will abate is if the masses 
finally step into the picture saying we have had Enough! It is not the small 
population of true racists in the U.S. that is likely to hold sway, but the 
will--hampered by state-developed confusion, miseducation, and media 
manipulation--of the vast majority of working people--ESPECIALLY the Oppressed 
who need to come to the fore. That is why the focus on Clinton and not on 
Trump. There is no blind spot here; Only fear. 
The historical crisis of leadership of the working masses is not just an 
observation but a firm reality. Ask yourself how supporting Clinton will remove 
the blinders from this fact? Ask yourself how you can so clearly see the 
relevance and bravery of the Syrian masses to the actual anti-imperialist 
struggle and not see the blunder in supporting the imperialist demagogue 
Clinton because you fear she will be less a threat than the racist demagogue 
Trump? Neither of these individuals matters because what they both stand to 
support is the same class rule, the same need to divide the masses, the same 
need to intensify the militarization and occupation of the oppressed in this 
country, and the continued need to produce new opportunities for profitability 
at the expense of the people of the world and of our planet. 

Unfortunately, I don't expect you to change your mind; you seem too bent on 
your fears and blindness. I just hope you will still end up on the side of the 
working class when this reality sets in. It is likely that Clinton will win and 
apparently you--and your fear and blindness--will have contributed. It is 
likely to happen because the masses, right now, will believe you when you say 
that there truly is a "lesser evil" when there is actually not. 

Just remember to return to the side of the oppressed when you are done. You're 
no more of a "diva" than most of the other folk here (including our moderator), 
 but please remember that treachery is also a material, class-based phenomenon. 
It is NEVER about what you say, but about what you do--or did. The road to 
betrayal is paved by a single word. Or vote. Redemption requires a history of 
effort. Just remember.
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Mark Lause 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 call you neither, Clay.  And I don't see name-calling as worthwhile.

I just don't think that the only way to not politically jump into bed with
the KKK is to politically jump into bed with a Grand Dragon of the KKK and
support Clinton.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-14/ku-klux-klan-grand-dragon-will-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
.

ML
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Louis Proyect 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 9/2/16 4:00 PM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism wrote:


Is calling someone a diva okay on this list? Apparently you can call
someone a traitor just no too often.


Exactly. I keep count. For example, Joaquin wrote a terribly provocative 
attack on the list a couple of weeks ago. I let it slip but wasn't happy 
about it. If he kept at it for 3 or 4 days, I would have taken some 
action. I understand that people have strong feelings but I have to 
serve as a moderator to make sure flame wars don't erupt because in the 
past they have tended to make good people unsub.

_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Clay Claiborne 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.
*

Don't worry about me. As to the race-baiting charge - when that is used
against black people it is in support of the notion that racism is about
name calling and so equally you have white racists and black racists. It is
designed to obscure the fact that racism is white supremacy and is a
social, political and economic system with a 500 year history.

That is why I tend to use the terms white nationalism and white supremacy
instead.

Clay Claiborne, Director
Vietnam: American Holocaust 
Linux Beach Productions
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 581-1536

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 


On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Dennis Brasky 
wrote:

> In light of Clay's excellent work in defending the Syrian Revolution, it
> is especially sad, but not surprising given his commentary this past week,
> that he would descend to the level of race-baiting to justify his
> capitulation to bourgeois lesser evilism. Hopefully I'm wrong, but it looks
> like another revolutionary de-fanged by the Democratic Party.
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism <
> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
>
>> Thanks, I didn't know that. Obviously, I like other black people that have
>> live all our lives in the US need to learn a bit more about the history of
>> racism in the US from people like you.
>>
>> But you are the one inviting the KKK into the WH by pretending that its
>> been there all along.
>>
>> Somehow I expect I will be affected by the changes more than you, in fact,
>> I think I'm already being effected by the changes.
>>
>> I don't know. Maybe you've been subjected to an up tick in racist slights
>> as a result of the hate filled rhetoric of the Clinton campaign. Is that
>> it?
>>
>>
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Clay Claiborne 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 lived in the the police-prison-industrial complex, Trump is more
awful.

Is calling someone a diva okay on this list? Apparently you can call
someone a traitor just no too often.

Clay Claiborne, Director
Vietnam: American Holocaust 
Linux Beach Productions
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 581-1536

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 


On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Andrew Stewart  wrote:

> I'm so amazed you are advocating for voting for someone who arms fascists
> at home and abroad in the name of your la-la land fantasies about Trump
> being more awful than the police-prison-industrial complex. Quite being
> such a diva.
>
>
> ---
> I am so amazed that people on this list aren't more troubled by Trump's
> racism. Did you hear his speech on immigration?
>
> Nobody here comments.Nobody here cares. Where are the exposures of Trump's
> white nationalist connections.
>
> I feel like the treachery of the "anti-imperialist" Left,which is no
> stranger to white chauvinism, has come home/
>
> Clay Claiborne, Director
> Vietnam: American Holocaust 
> Linux Beach Productions
> Venice, CA 90291
> (310) 581-1536
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Andrew Stewart
>
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Clay Claiborne 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.
*

You have to go back over a hundred years for a comparable?

And even then it rings false.

Trump has brought the leadership [Breitbart] of the white nationalist
movement to top of his campaign -meaning they will be in the WH. You can't
say that about Wilson. In terms of what you did say:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/opinion/woodrow-wilson-and-the-klan.html?_r=0

This far-fetched statement seems to be based on a claim, first made in
> 1937, 13 years after Wilson’s death, that he said of the 1915 movie “Birth
> of a Nation”: “It’s like writing history with lightning. And my only regret
> is that it is all so terribly true.”
>
> Both of Wilson’s most recent biographers conclude that the quotation is
> almost certainly apocryphal. What Wilson did unquestionably write about the
> film, in 1918, was that “I have always felt that this was a very
> unfortunate production, and I wish most sincerely that its production might
> be avoided, particularly in communities where there are so many colored
> people.”
>
> At any rate, praising the film — which was, despite its odious content, an
> extraordinary technical achievement in cinema — hardly implies admiration
> for the Klan.
>
Like Vijay P with his "we came, we saw, we killed" misquote, You are
distorting history to promote a Trump presidency so please don't try to
teach history to me.

Best regards,

Clay

Clay Claiborne, Director
Vietnam: American Holocaust 
Linux Beach Productions
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 581-1536

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 


On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Jeffrey Masko 
wrote:

> "But you are the one inviting the KKK into the WH by pretending that its
> been there all along."
>
> It has been in the WH for over a hundred years. I'm sure you merely forgot
> this historical moment, so let me remind you. From the radicals over at PBS:
>
> "On the evening of March 21, 1915, President *Woodrow Wilson* attended a
> special screening at the White House of THE *BIRTH OF A NATION*, a film
> directed by D.W. Griffith and based on THE CLANSMAN, a novel written by
> *Wilson's* good friend Thomas Dixon.
> The Birth of a Nation - PBS
> 
>
>
>
>
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Mark Lause 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.
*

Decent people can sometimes develop wilful blind spots about the past,
Clay, particularly if you become obsessed with an essentially intramural
bourgeois political contest.

You are arguing for one of the authors of phony War on Drugs and the mass
incarceration of young African-Americans.  I don't agree with that, but I
can certainly accept it, given that we live in a batcrap crazy political
system.

What I take direct issue with you is your statement that people who favor
other candidates who don't buy into the War on Drugs and oppose those mass
incarcerations are shilling for the KKK.  There are any number of
explanations over why someone would write something like that.

The kindest interpretation is that you've developed an unfortunate blind
spot about the record ,. . . .

ML
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Dennis Brasky 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 light of Clay's excellent work in defending the Syrian Revolution, it is
especially sad, but not surprising given his commentary this past week,
that he would descend to the level of race-baiting to justify his
capitulation to bourgeois lesser evilism. Hopefully I'm wrong, but it looks
like another revolutionary de-fanged by the Democratic Party.

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:


> Thanks, I didn't know that. Obviously, I like other black people that have
> live all our lives in the US need to learn a bit more about the history of
> racism in the US from people like you.
>
> But you are the one inviting the KKK into the WH by pretending that its
> been there all along.
>
> Somehow I expect I will be affected by the changes more than you, in fact,
> I think I'm already being effected by the changes.
>
> I don't know. Maybe you've been subjected to an up tick in racist slights
> as a result of the hate filled rhetoric of the Clinton campaign. Is that
> it?
>
>
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Andrew Stewart 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'm so amazed you are advocating for voting for someone who arms fascists
at home and abroad in the name of your la-la land fantasies about Trump
being more awful than the police-prison-industrial complex. Quite being
such a diva.


---
I am so amazed that people on this list aren't more troubled by Trump's
racism. Did you hear his speech on immigration?

Nobody here comments.Nobody here cares. Where are the exposures of Trump's
white nationalist connections.

I feel like the treachery of the "anti-imperialist" Left,which is no
stranger to white chauvinism, has come home/

Clay Claiborne, Director
Vietnam: American Holocaust 
Linux Beach Productions
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 581-1536

-- 
Best regards,

Andrew Stewart
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Jeffrey Masko 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.
*

"But you are the one inviting the KKK into the WH by pretending that its
been there all along."

It has been in the WH for over a hundred years. I'm sure you merely forgot
this historical moment, so let me remind you. From the radicals over at PBS:

"On the evening of March 21, 1915, President *Woodrow Wilson* attended a
special screening at the White House of THE *BIRTH OF A NATION*, a film
directed by D.W. Griffith and based on THE CLANSMAN, a novel written by
*Wilson's* good friend Thomas Dixon.
The Birth of a Nation - PBS

_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Clay Claiborne 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 didn't know that. Obviously, I like other black people that have
live all our lives in the US need to learn a bit more about the history of
racism in the US from people like you.

But you are the one inviting the KKK into the WH by pretending that its
been there all along.

Somehow I expect I will be affected by the changes more than you, in fact,
I think I'm already being effected by the changes.

I don't know. Maybe you've been subjected to an up tick in racist slights
as a result of the hate filled rhetoric of the Clinton campaign. Is that it?

Clay

Clay Claiborne, Director
Vietnam: American Holocaust 
Linux Beach Productions
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 581-1536

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 


On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Mark Lause  wrote:

> I am so much more amazed that people on this list--"Marxists" and
> grown-ups no less--who claim that's it's something remarkable and new to
> find racism at the heart of power politics in the U.S.
>
> People need to learn a bit more about the history of all this, I think.
>
>
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Mark Lause 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 am so much more amazed that people on this list--"Marxists" and grown-ups
no less--who claim that's it's something remarkable and new to find racism
at the heart of power politics in the U.S.

People need to learn a bit more about the history of all this, I think.
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Clay Claiborne 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 am so amazed that people on this list aren't more troubled by Trump's
racism. Did you hear his speech on immigration?

Nobody here comments.Nobody here cares. Where are the exposures of Trump's
white nationalist connections.

I feel like the treachery of the "anti-imperialist" Left,which is no
stranger to white chauvinism, has come home/

Clay Claiborne, Director
Vietnam: American Holocaust 
Linux Beach Productions
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 581-1536

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 


On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Mark Lause  wrote:

> On the polls . . . .the predisposition of the media is to keep as many
> people watching the horse race as possible.  This plays out as a
> predisposition to cover the lesser of the two candidates acceptable to
> them.   This also increases the tendency of voters to think that they have
> to vote for one or the other of them to keep the one that scares them most
> from winning.
>
> We've seen this happen with Trump repeatedly since he declared his
> candidacy.  He talks his campaign into the ground, so the media responds by
> giving him more air time.  Even if it's more air time to imply that he's a
> trainwreck, it's more air time.  Then his polls numbers nudge up.
>
> This is an old game.
>
> ML
>
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Mark Lause 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 the polls . . . .the predisposition of the media is to keep as many
people watching the horse race as possible.  This plays out as a
predisposition to cover the lesser of the two candidates acceptable to
them.   This also increases the tendency of voters to think that they have
to vote for one or the other of them to keep the one that scares them most
from winning.

We've seen this happen with Trump repeatedly since he declared his
candidacy.  He talks his campaign into the ground, so the media responds by
giving him more air time.  Even if it's more air time to imply that he's a
trainwreck, it's more air time.  Then his polls numbers nudge up.

This is an old game.

ML
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Clay Claiborne 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.
*

Your question is not based on reality. 1) Syria is not a binary choice, 8
Nov is.
2.) ISIS is not an opposition force, they work in conclusion with Assad.

The relationship of ISIS to the Assad regime is actually must closer to the
relationship of the Green Party to the Trump campaign - namely appearing to
oppose in rhetoric while objectively supporting.

The question for the Green Party, Democracy Now, and the rest of the
anti-imperialist Left that have joined the "anyone but Clinton camp" when
all the non-white Americans have clearly joined joined the "anybody but the
white nationalist Trump camp" is how this white Left will explain its
backhanded support for Trump if he wins and starts brutal deportations and
stepping up the murder of blacks.

Maybe Louis can explain how Goldwater tricked him in '64.

Clay Claiborne, Director
Vietnam: American Holocaust 
Linux Beach Productions
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 581-1536

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 


On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 5:33 AM, 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.
> *
>
> A question for Clay - by all indications, thanks to Russian bombing and the
> continued intervention of Iran and its Shia proxies from Iraq and
> Afghanistan, the fascist Assad regime, responsible for about 500,000 dead
> and millions of refugees, remains in power. The rebels are without anti
> aircraft weaponry and are clearly on the defensive. In this situation, only
> ISIS has a "realistic" chance of defeating Assad. Should we support them or
> divert energy to a hopeless cause?
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/clayclai%
> 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] Vote for Clinton?

[Dennis Brasky 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.
*

A question for Clay - by all indications, thanks to Russian bombing and the
continued intervention of Iran and its Shia proxies from Iraq and
Afghanistan, the fascist Assad regime, responsible for about 500,000 dead
and millions of refugees, remains in power. The rebels are without anti
aircraft weaponry and are clearly on the defensive. In this situation, only
ISIS has a "realistic" chance of defeating Assad. Should we support them or
divert energy to a hopeless cause?
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Clay Claiborne 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 Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Louis Proyect via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>
> Not exactly. SDS had become fairly massive by that point and raised the
> slogan "Part of the Way with LBJ". The CPUSA, which was still the largest
> "Leninist" group on the left, would have upped the ante and called for "All
> the Way with LBJ". In fact the dynamics of the 1964 election were JUST like
> those today. Voting for anybody but LBJ was considered the same thing as
> voting for Goldwater


Did you capitalize "JUST" to say that you completely discount the role of
white nationalism in this election as being different from other elections.
Is that why it remains absent from your discussion of this election?

A vote for a 3rd party certainly was considered the next best thing by the
RNC. That's why my father, a RNC official, organized a write-in campaign
for MLK Jr in key districts. He sold it as a way to show black unity. I'm
sure he recruited many useful idiots that strongly believed that purpose,
and were kept clueless as to the RNC funding behind the project. They knew
blacks would vote for LBJ as the lesser of 2 evils so they gave them a way
to vote for the greater good because they KNEW it would help Goldwater.
When the RNC sponsors or supports a 3rd party candidate likely to draw
votes away their opposition, they call it a "dirty trick" and have to
budget for it. When a group like the Green Party does it gratis, they call
it a gift.

Running someone just to draw votes away from your opponent has to be one of
the oldest tricks in politics. Around 1972 I was working as a punch & shear
operator at AMCAR - building box cars. Union was Brotherhood of Railroad
Carmen, so long ago I forget the local. Anyway, I lead a pretty strong
revolutionary workers group there "Labor Power" lead a lot of good
struggles on the shop floor. And now that I am remember those days, I can't
refrain from recounting this story. I call it

"Friends in high places" -- and I don't mean the kind my father had.

1st a little background -  everything associated with building box cars is
heavy. Everything is moved by 15T overhead cranes. The crane operators were
so skill-full that their idea of a prank was to sneak up behind you with
the hook, which weight 100s of lbs on its own, and placing the very tip
under the back of you hard hat and, without touching your head, give it a
gentle lift as a way of saying hello from 80 ft above.

I must have been fired a dozen times from AMCAR because of various actions
and always managed to fight my way back in, until the last time. Anyway,
this one time. After I got back, the guys told me what went on in my
absence. The best story was how James, a crane operator pinned the foreman
who had fired me between a piece of heavy equipment and a bin of parts
about the size of a desk but considerable heavier. He had the foremen
pinned with such delicacy that not a bone was broken, yet try as he might,
the foremen couldn't free himself, and with everyone seeing his predicament
but not rushing to his aid, James leaned out of the cab and yelled down
"Just stop fucking with Claiborne" and then let him go.

So, after hearing this, when people asked me how I got back this time, I
would tell them "I have friends in high places."

But I divert. I wanted to tell you the lesson Iearnt about dirty tricks and
3rd parties. At one point I ran for shop steward as a Labor Power candidate
and an open communist. Needless to say union leadership was not happy. I
lost by 8 votes which just about the number of votes drawn by a guy in my
own department that had no real chance of winning but had been talked into
throwing his hat into the ring by the union leadership to sabotage my bid.

This is how politics is played by those who are in it to win it. What they
care about is wining the election. Getting their people in power. In 1964
only two candidates had a viable path to the WH, so the RNC was quite right
in seeing a vote that didn't go to LBJ as the next best thing as a vote for
Goldwater.


> who everybody thought was ready to blow up the world with hydrogen bombs.
> He said "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no
> vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice
> is no virtue!" That was widely interpreted as a threat to impose a fascist
> dictatorship on the USA.
>

I am so surprised that you picked Goldwater as your example and that quote,
because I love that quote!

1964 was my coming of age year politically. I didn't know the dirty tricks
my father was up to at the time. I knew he was working for Goldwater and
despised him. He told me stories 

Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[Louis Proyect 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 9/1/16 10:38 PM, Clay Claiborne wrote:


Again, this is treacherous talk designed to deceive people so that they
are more likely to do what you want.

The problem for Leftists who peddle this line is if Trump wins and their
treachery is exposed - and hated - as with the Brexit regrets.


I haven't been called treacherous since the days of the Marxism list 
that preceded Marxmail that had Shining Path subscribers. It almost 
makes me feel nostalgic.

_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Clay Claiborne 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.
*

Louis,

Remember a couple of weeks ago when you said:

Finally, isn't it time to recognize that the Trump campaign is toast? The
> numbers are devastating:


The Brexit vote was toast too, down 34% in the polls.

Again, this is treacherous talk designed to deceive people so that they are
more likely to do what you want.

The problem for Leftists who peddle this line is if Trump wins and their
treachery is exposed - and hated - as with the Brexit regrets.

Clay


Clay Claiborne, Director
Vietnam: American Holocaust 
Linux Beach Productions
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 581-1536

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 

_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Andrew Stewart 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'd like to interject here something Mumia himself said in a recent column:

If Trump is the price we have to pay to defeat Clintonian neoliberalism –
so be it.

*
(http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/19/the-time-is-now-to-defeat-both-trump-and-clintonian-neoliberalism/
<http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/19/the-time-is-now-to-defeat-both-trump-and-clintonian-neoliberalism/>)
  *
In other words, Clay, get over yourself. Mumia has been what I view as the
greatest revolutionary thinker in America for decades. If he says it, I'm
more inclined to take his judgments more seriously than this Chicken Little
act. All Trump has done is show the world how awful white Americans
actually are and always were. It is painful and awful to see the violence
he inspires. But that white trash was going to do that anyways without
Trump, all he did was give them a new Tea Partier figurehead, before him it
was Sarah Palin and Glen Beck. Further, I would argue that a) denying that
the fascists in this country are police is itself racist and b) pissing off
his followers by giving Clinton a victory is a very bad idea.

https://rimediacoop.org/2016/07/27/andrew-stewart-if-trump-loses/



Message: 11
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 19:54:24 -0400
From: Louis Proyect <l...@panix.com>
To: Clay Claiborne <clayc...@gmail.com>,Activists and scholars in
Marxist tradition <marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu>
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?
Message-ID: <9406f1fc-8b80-a64f-d596-59423c977...@panix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

On 9/1/16 7:44 PM, Clay Claiborne wrote:
>
> Are you now ready to revise your estimate of Trump's chances?

Clay, let me repeat what I have already said. My political orientation
was based on what I learned from Peter Camejo in the early 80s. I took
an interest in the Greens after attending a standing room only for Ralph
Nader in 2000 and it deepened after Peter became his running mate in
2004. Nader was not running as a Green that year because "Demogreens"
were afraid that he would steal votes from John Kerry.

In other words, I am a strong supporter of the Green Party (even though
I am not a member). I always vote Green, including for Howie Hawkins who
is on Marxmail. Half the editorial board of the North Star website are
involved with the Greens either as candidates (Brandy Baker and Jim
Brash) or as frustrated members (Mark Lause).

I have political principles that I am strongly committed to. One of them
is total opposition to both the Democrats and Republicans. In the best
of all possible worlds, the Labor Party that some leftish AFL-CIO
bureaucrats formed back in the 1980s would have taken off but they
lacked the nerve, just like the Demogreens.

I don't think that the Greens will lead a revolution in the USA that is
so desperately needed but it is a way-station on that path. If something
better came along, I'd hook up with that in a heartbeat. But surely you
must understand by now that I would rather be waterboarded than vote for
Hillary Clinton.
-- 
Best regards,

Andrew Stewart
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Thomas 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.
*


For a different opinion, see:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/its-time-for-black-people-to-break-the-two-party-system/

T


-Original Message-
>From: Clay Claiborne via Marxism <marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu>
>Sent: Sep 1, 2016 1:20 AM
>To: Thomas F Barton <thomasfbar...@earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?
>
>
>
>Clay Claiborne, Director
>Vietnam: American Holocaust <http://VietnamAmericanHolocaust.com>
>Linux Beach Productions
>Venice, CA 90291
>(310) 581-1536
>
>On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Marxism <
>marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
>Clinton is both a neoliberal (more inequality) and a neocon (more war);
>> Trump isn’t:
>>
>> Trump is a fascist and a white supremacists. He just finished the most
>racist speech I've ever heard from a major candidate, His campaign manager
>is tied to what has been called an evangelistic coup in the military and
>breaks bread with elements that think pogroms will be necessary to create
>the [white] America they want, and you want to argue Clinton is worst?
>
>You want to try putting that in terms that will win colored people to your
>position or don't you care?
>
>
>Jill Stein got ZERO bounce from her CNN appearance. How come? She appeals
>to no one outside of a self-isolated Left.
>
>Here's the latest Fox News Poll 2-way Clinton beats Trump by 6% down from
>10% earlier. 4-way Trump 39% Clinton 41% Johnson 12% Stein 4%
>
>Clearly she is within closing distance, not of winning - her scheme to turn
>out 43 million new college votes before 11/8 is truly delusional, but of
>negating enough progressive votes, to hand the white house to the white
>nationalists that she is so fucking quiet about.
>
>Yes , emotions are involved. I just watched a hate filled speech from Trump
>and then a fb post of Jill Stein's LA talk [had to work - boss would let me
>off] SHE SAY NOTHING ABOUT TRUMP'S RACISM. Her fire is directed at Clinton.
>So excuse me if I don't suddenly get stupid and forget why I've been saying
>that "Leftists" who only criticize Assad's opposition while being silent on
>his crimes are objectively pro-Assad, and apply the same logic come away
>from Stein's talk concluding that she is objectively pro-Trump.
>
>Because - NEWS FLASH (break it to her gently) Jill Stein has NO CHANCE of
>being our next president. Trump or Clinton will be.
>
>Why would you expect or want working people to follow someone so
>delusional? [no wonder she got no CNN bounce]
>
>Basically, It doesn't seem like you don't feel the same hate coming from
>the Trump campaign that I do.  You say Trump is not a neoliberal or a
>neocon, but what is he. Why exactly do you not feel as threatened by him as
>most black, Muslim and Latin people do?
>
>Clay
>_
>Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
>Set your options at: 
>http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/thomasfbarton%40earthlink.net

_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Carl G. Estabrook 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.
*

Eminent sense.

> On Sep 1, 2016, at 7:38 PM, Dennis Brasky via Marxism 
>  wrote:
> 
>   ...let's 
> say [Trump] makes
> it close by November. If the Left follows the path of capitulation to
> hysteria and supports Clinton and she wins and gives us four more years of
> Bill and Barack's neoliberal economic policies and neoconservative foreign
> policies, then what? Another Trump runs against her in 2020 and what does
> the Left have to offer - four more years of arsenic instead of cyanide?
> Millions of people, angry with the way things are will have no Left to turn
> to since we were so busy stifling our views in favor of protection from the
> lesser evil that we neglected to set up our own independent presence with
> our own voice. Those millions - not just diehard racists and xenophobes -
> will have nowhere else to turn to but the far right. What will we have
> accomplished except to further put off the task of building a Left that has
> some resonance with our natural constituency?


_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Dennis Brasky 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 Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:44 PM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>
> Louis,
>
> Remember a couple of weeks ago when you said:
>
> Finally, isn't it time to recognize that the Trump campaign is toast? The
> > numbers are devastating:
>
> Well, now most polls  show Clinton's lead cut in half. Reuters has them
> neck-in-neck. Any honest stock broker would be issuing a revised estimate
> by now. Will you?
>
>
Unless some major scandal breaks out a few weeks before the election
concerning the sleazy Clinton Foundation or her emails as Secretary of
State, I can't believe that Trump, with so many Republicans bailing out on
him and the Big $ not going his way, can win. But let's say that he makes
it close by November. If the Left follows the path of capitulation to
hysteria and supports Clinton and she wins and gives us four more years of
Bill and Barack's neoliberal economic policies and neoconservative foreign
policies, then what? Another Trump runs against her in 2020 and what does
the Left have to offer - four more years of arsenic instead of cyanide?
Millions of people, angry with the way things are will have no Left to turn
to since we were so busy stifling our views in favor of protection from the
lesser evil that we neglected to set up our own independent presence with
our own voice. Those millions - not just diehard racists and xenophobes -
will have nowhere else to turn to but the far right. What will we have
accomplished except to further put off the task of building a Left that has
some resonance with our natural constituency?
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Sheldon Ranz 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.
*

Amith: “Is there any serious case that can be made that that resistance --
and our connection
with those communities that will lead it -- would be stronger under
Donald Trump than under Hillary Clinton?”


Yes.  Hillary would get the benefit of the doubt from many progressives
because she would be the first woman President, and many male progressives
in particular would be inhibited from criticizing her for fear of being
labeled sexist.  This will dampen resistance to her Kissinger-style foreign
policies, for example.  On the other hand, what progressives would be
intimidated going after Trump?  As a white male heterosexual Christian
Republican, he’s the perfect storm for the oppressed.


Economist Michael Hudson wrote on Counterpunch recently that Hillary is the
greater evil precisely because she is more organized, intellectually
capable and has better connections to the Establishment.



On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Carl G. Estabrook 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.
> *
>
> Well said.
>
> > On Sep 1, 2016, at 6:54 PM, Louis Proyect via Marxism <
> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
> >
> > ...let me repeat what I have already said. My political orientation was
> based on what I learned from Peter Camejo in the early 80s. I took an
> interest in the Greens after attending a standing room only for Ralph Nader
> in 2000 and it deepened after Peter became his running mate in 2004. Nader
> was not running as a Green that year because "Demogreens" were afraid that
> he would steal votes from John Kerry.
> >
> > In other words, I am a strong supporter of the Green Party (even though
> I am not a member). I always vote Green, including for Howie Hawkins who is
> on Marxmail. Half the editorial board of the North Star website are
> involved with the Greens either as candidates (Brandy Baker and Jim Brash)
> or as frustrated members (Mark Lause).
> >
> > I have political principles that I am strongly committed to. One of them
> is total opposition to both the Democrats and Republicans. In the best of
> all possible worlds, the Labor Party that some leftish AFL-CIO bureaucrats
> formed back in the 1980s would have taken off but they lacked the nerve,
> just like the Demogreens.
> >
> > I don't think that the Greens will lead a revolution in the USA that is
> so desperately needed but it is a way-station on that path. If something
> better came along, I'd hook up with that in a heartbeat. But surely you
> must understand by now that I would rather be waterboarded than vote for
> Hillary Clinton.
>
>
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/sranz18%
> 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] Vote for Clinton?

[Carl G. Estabrook 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.
*

Well said.

> On Sep 1, 2016, at 6:54 PM, Louis Proyect via Marxism 
>  wrote:
> 
> ...let me repeat what I have already said. My political orientation was based 
> on what I learned from Peter Camejo in the early 80s. I took an interest in 
> the Greens after attending a standing room only for Ralph Nader in 2000 and 
> it deepened after Peter became his running mate in 2004. Nader was not 
> running as a Green that year because "Demogreens" were afraid that he would 
> steal votes from John Kerry.
> 
> In other words, I am a strong supporter of the Green Party (even though I am 
> not a member). I always vote Green, including for Howie Hawkins who is on 
> Marxmail. Half the editorial board of the North Star website are involved 
> with the Greens either as candidates (Brandy Baker and Jim Brash) or as 
> frustrated members (Mark Lause).
> 
> I have political principles that I am strongly committed to. One of them is 
> total opposition to both the Democrats and Republicans. In the best of all 
> possible worlds, the Labor Party that some leftish AFL-CIO bureaucrats formed 
> back in the 1980s would have taken off but they lacked the nerve, just like 
> the Demogreens.
> 
> I don't think that the Greens will lead a revolution in the USA that is so 
> desperately needed but it is a way-station on that path. If something better 
> came along, I'd hook up with that in a heartbeat. But surely you must 
> understand by now that I would rather be waterboarded than vote for Hillary 
> Clinton.


_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Carl G. Estabrook 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.
*

Why Trump will probably be elected:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/09/01/retirement/sIRT23m4MHGkEwXaP8YB9H/story.html
 


—CGE


> On Sep 1, 2016, at 6:44 PM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism 
>  wrote:
> 
> Louis,
> 
> Remember a couple of weeks ago when you said:
> 
> Finally, isn't it time to recognize that the Trump campaign is toast? The
>> numbers are devastating:
> 
> 
> Well, now most polls  show Clinton's lead cut in half. Reuters has them
> neck-in-neck. Any honest stock broker would be issuing a revised estimate
> by now. Will you?
> 
> As I said, I think talk like that is treacherous and I don't say that light
> because I have a great deal of respect for you, but I have to call them
> like I see them.
> 
> It is only being put forward that Trump will surely lose to calm the fears
> of voters who are convinced he is a much greater evil, so that they won't
> worry so much and won't feel the need to vote for Clinton who they rightly
> detest.
> 
> The question of whether he may win or not is something quite separate an
> evaluation of his politics, which I want to get into with your Goldwater
> quote but I see my lunch hr is drawing to a close so that will have tu wait.
> 
> So just on this question: I thought your estimate that the Trump campaign
> was toast when you said it. I've laid out all the things that could happen
> before 8 Nov. other places, there are many.
> 
> Are you now ready to revise your estimate of Trump's chances?
> 
> More, later
> 
> Clay

_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Louis Proyect 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 9/1/16 7:44 PM, Clay Claiborne wrote:


Are you now ready to revise your estimate of Trump's chances?


Clay, let me repeat what I have already said. My political orientation 
was based on what I learned from Peter Camejo in the early 80s. I took 
an interest in the Greens after attending a standing room only for Ralph 
Nader in 2000 and it deepened after Peter became his running mate in 
2004. Nader was not running as a Green that year because "Demogreens" 
were afraid that he would steal votes from John Kerry.


In other words, I am a strong supporter of the Green Party (even though 
I am not a member). I always vote Green, including for Howie Hawkins who 
is on Marxmail. Half the editorial board of the North Star website are 
involved with the Greens either as candidates (Brandy Baker and Jim 
Brash) or as frustrated members (Mark Lause).


I have political principles that I am strongly committed to. One of them 
is total opposition to both the Democrats and Republicans. In the best 
of all possible worlds, the Labor Party that some leftish AFL-CIO 
bureaucrats formed back in the 1980s would have taken off but they 
lacked the nerve, just like the Demogreens.


I don't think that the Greens will lead a revolution in the USA that is 
so desperately needed but it is a way-station on that path. If something 
better came along, I'd hook up with that in a heartbeat. But surely you 
must understand by now that I would rather be waterboarded than vote for 
Hillary Clinton.

_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Clay Claiborne 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.
*

Louis,

Remember a couple of weeks ago when you said:

Finally, isn't it time to recognize that the Trump campaign is toast? The
> numbers are devastating:


Well, now most polls  show Clinton's lead cut in half. Reuters has them
neck-in-neck. Any honest stock broker would be issuing a revised estimate
by now. Will you?

As I said, I think talk like that is treacherous and I don't say that light
because I have a great deal of respect for you, but I have to call them
like I see them.

It is only being put forward that Trump will surely lose to calm the fears
of voters who are convinced he is a much greater evil, so that they won't
worry so much and won't feel the need to vote for Clinton who they rightly
detest.

The question of whether he may win or not is something quite separate an
evaluation of his politics, which I want to get into with your Goldwater
quote but I see my lunch hr is drawing to a close so that will have tu wait.

So just on this question: I thought your estimate that the Trump campaign
was toast when you said it. I've laid out all the things that could happen
before 8 Nov. other places, there are many.

Are you now ready to revise your estimate of Trump's chances?

More, later

Clay

Clay Claiborne, Director
Vietnam: American Holocaust 
Linux Beach Productions
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 581-1536

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 


On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:18 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 9/1/16 4:46 PM, A.R. G via Marxism wrote:
>
>> As for what we should have supported, there were multiple, functioning
>> mass
>> movements in the country in 1964, and you'll note that most of them did
>> not
>> play electoral politics at all.
>>
>
> Not exactly. SDS had become fairly massive by that point and raised the
> slogan "Part of the Way with LBJ". The CPUSA, which was still the largest
> "Leninist" group on the left, would have upped the ante and called for "All
> the Way with LBJ". In fact the dynamics of the 1964 election were JUST like
> those today. Voting for anybody but LBJ was considered the same thing as
> voting for Goldwater who everybody thought was ready to blow up the world
> with hydrogen bombs. He said "I would remind you that extremism in the
> defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation
> in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" That was widely interpreted as a
> threat to impose a fascist dictatorship on the USA.
>
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/opt
> ions/marxism/clayclai%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] Vote for Clinton?

[Dennis Brasky 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 Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Ken Hiebert via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>
> The Greens
> I am open to the view that the Greens are not a good alternative.  But
> they are not the only alternative.  If I lived in the US, I could use my
> vote to support a small socialist group.  That would be my way of calling
> for the building of a real socialist alternative.
>
> 


One small problem - there is NO political motion towards any socialist
grouping in the US today. There is, like it or not, an attraction of many
pro-socialist Sanders supporters towards the Green Party. As long as the
Greens remain firm on building a left alternative to the Democrats and
resist the hysteria of the Defeat Trump (elect Clinton) liberals and
frightened radicals, they are worth supporting, while always keeping the
goal of left regroupment in mind which would be much bigger than the
Greens. As Marx said, "give me real movement of masses over 100 perfect
programs!"
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Louis Proyect 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 9/1/16 4:46 PM, A.R. G via Marxism wrote:

As for what we should have supported, there were multiple, functioning mass
movements in the country in 1964, and you'll note that most of them did not
play electoral politics at all.


Not exactly. SDS had become fairly massive by that point and raised the 
slogan "Part of the Way with LBJ". The CPUSA, which was still the 
largest "Leninist" group on the left, would have upped the ante and 
called for "All the Way with LBJ". In fact the dynamics of the 1964 
election were JUST like those today. Voting for anybody but LBJ was 
considered the same thing as voting for Goldwater who everybody thought 
was ready to blow up the world with hydrogen bombs. He said "I would 
remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let 
me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no 
virtue!" That was widely interpreted as a threat to impose a fascist 
dictatorship on the USA.

_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[A.R. G 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: "Consider this scenario.  Clinton is elected this time round, but
becomes very unpopular.  In 2020 the Republicans nominate Trump or someone
of his ilk.  Then what?"

Amith: I don't disagree with you about this problem. The issue is whether
or not building a socialist alternative requires promoting the Green
Party *within
swing states* and *within the next two months*. That is literally all I am
disputing. As a matter of strategy, I do not see how the benefits in the
long term outweigh the costs. It could risk a Trump victory in 2016 and the
benefits would be slightly increasing the power and influence of a marginal
party with no mass organizing base. The better strategy is to recognize
that we have already lost 2016 and begin trying to foment a mass movement
(or, better yet, ensure the trajectory of the ones that are already being
built) independent of the electoral calendar. This can be done on the local
level and can be done in every single state independently of who wins in
2016. If and when Clinton wins, continuing to build that party will be much
easier than under Trump. In prior contests the difference as far as this
particular calculation goes was probably negligible. But socialists,
Greens, and other assorted lefties did not build the alternative in 2008 or
2012 when many of the people who are now conceding to Clinton were not
willing to support Obama and voted for Stein.

Dennis: The issue is NOT the many political weaknesses of the Green Party -
it is one of holding up a standard of class politics - ABC for Marxists.

Amith: This is vague, I'm not sure how to respond or what the point you're
making is. That you are a Marxist? Great.

Dennis:  This is - sorry for being too blunt - tailism.

Amith: I would argue it is not tailism because we are talking specifically
about a realm in which we have already lost. As I mentioned, I have no
problem with people voting Green in Dark Blue states and more importantly,
I would never take this line of reasoning in actual social movements
(grassroots organizing, labor building, anti-war activism, etc). But more
importantly, that's fine. You can call it tailism, I'm not sure what to do
with that, it sounds more like a classification than an argument.

Dennis:  Should we have supported Johnson in 1964 because the American
people were overwhelminly in favor of military retaliation against North
Vietnam for the alleged attack at the Gulf of Tonkin that August?

You'll have to forgive me, I do not have as much knowledge about the
Goldwater campaign as others do. I was given different points of view
growing up, with some arguing that Goldwater was some sort of isolationist
and others telling me he wanted to nuke everything.

As for what we should have supported, there were multiple, functioning mass
movements in the country in 1964, and you'll note that most of them did not
play electoral politics at all. So the question is not whether they should
support Johnson over a Socialist candidate, it was the same question then
as now: how do we build a mass movement and among the obstacles that are
thrown in our way, which obstacles are the obstacles we want rather than
the ones we don't want? How do we divest ourselves from a two-party system
in which both parties are our enemies and we are consistently slated to
lose despite actually speaking to the needs of the electorate? The simple
fact is that the 1964 election was not between us and our enemies. It was
between our enemies and themselves. It is a ritual to legitimate the
existing government, and in order to successfully challenge that system, we
need to ensure the proper conditions for our organizing outside the system.
So the question is not which of these pieces of shit smells less, it is
which one will more likely allow the conditions for the growth of our
movement given that the delegate math does not favor us?

Dennis: BTW - did he call for support to Kerensky in August 1917 for
"protection" against the Kornilov coup attempt, or did he call for
organizing the people to fight back??

I don't know, but the fact that you are referring to 1917 -- a time in
which there had been tremendously greater organization by the Left in a
country that was in the middle of crisis, than in the two months before the
2016 election -- a very different context -- means that this is an
inapposite analogy.

- Amith

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Ken Hiebert  wrote:

> To A. R. G.
> You are quite correct to point out something missing in my message.  Who
> was it sent to?  I cc'ed it to Clay, but that did not show up on the list.
>
> The Greens
> I am open to the view that the Greens are not a 

Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[Ken Hiebert 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.
*

To A. R. G.
You are quite correct to point out something missing in my message.  Who was it 
sent to?  I cc'ed it to Clay, but that did not show up on the list.

The Greens
I am open to the view that the Greens are not a good alternative.  But they are 
not the only alternative.  If I lived in the US, I could use my vote to support 
a small socialist group.  That would be my way of calling for the building of a 
real socialist alternative.

You say, "There is a fundamental importance to building a separate party with 
separate politics. But that cannot be done in 2 months."
I agree.  It will take much longer than 2 months.  But each time we postpone 
it, it will take that much longer.

Consider this scenario.  Clinton is elected this time round, but becomes very 
unpopular.  In 2020 the Republicans nominate Trump or someone of his ilk.  Then 
what?
Against that possibility we need to build the strongest socialist movement we 
can.  Organized socialists will play an important role in any resistance to 
Trump or to Clinton.
Now is the right time to be building the socialist alternative.

ken h


On 2016-09-01, at 10:12 AM, A.R. G wrote:

> Ken,
> 
> I don't know who you were asking specifically but I voted for Stein in 2012. 
> There were crucial differences between Obama and Romney, but I felt their 
> similarities outweighed those differences such that it was worth voting for 
> the Greens. I plan to vote for her again. The difference is that in 2012, I 
> also advocated that those in swing states vote for the Green Party. 
> 
> In this election, I am much less sure. There is a chance that Trump could win 
> the election, and if so, the differences between his policies and Clinton's 
> vastly outweigh their similarities. 
> 
> I understand and sympathize with the positions some of you have articulated 
> (although I do not agree at all with Carl's). There is a fundamental 
> importance to building a separate party with separate politics. But that 
> cannot be done in 2 months. If the Greens want to be the voice of those who 
> are disaffected they must start on a much more grassroots level and build up. 
> From what I have seen, they have only done so in a few locales and their 
> primary appeal seems to be slagging off the Democrats. As Clay has pointed 
> out, this is a strategy that does not appear to have many contemporary 
> benefits and could give rise to considerable costs if it ends up being one of 
> any number of factors that contributes to a potential Trump victory -- 
> something that was unthinkable less than a year ago. 
> 
> I'd also encourage those of you who are downplaying the difference to look at 
> some of Trump's most recent policy proposals. Trump is talking about using 
> Executive Power grabs to re-implement already discarded policy proposals like 
> S-Comm to start rounding up millions of people. He is serious about the wall. 
> He is talking about religious and political vetting for refugees from Iraq 
> and Afghanistan and other (Muslim) countries. He is no longer speaking in 
> populistic vagueries. He is actually spouting policy rhetoric about deporting 
> millions of people with almost no process and turning the United States into 
> an "American" (read: white, Christian) bastion with Zionist-style racial 
> preservation policies.
> 
> The other policies he has proposed are returns to the Bush administration, 
> including the implementation of torture. It is true that Obama holds 
> considerable blame for refusing to prosecute the torturers. But so what? 
> Between Trump and Shillary, only one is floating the notion of returning to 
> those policies, and he isn't even cloaking it with euphemisms. Rather than 
> trying to hide from the law, he is openly flouting it. 
> 
> Hillary Clinton is a horrible person. I have no doubt that her victory will 
> bring about untold oppression. The difference is that she has a Trump card on 
> us. The other option is considerably worse, so much so that the difference 
> cannot be thrown aside under the "all of them are horrible" premise. I feel 
> that some of you on this list are acting as though one can play in a lion's 
> den and not run into a lion. We are talking about corrupt elections in an 
> empire in decline during a massive slide to the right, wherein a combination 
> of NGOs and liberal redbaiters have effectively compromised any serious sort 
> of mass movement. 
> 
> There is a simple truth that we are deluding ourselves into forgetting: we 
> have already lost the 2016 election. We will not win this round. The focus 
> needs to be on building a resistance to whoever wins in 2016. 

Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[A.R. G 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 Dennis,

First and foremost, I do not consider Marxism to be a cult. I consider it
to be a modality of analysis. So frankly, I do not give 2 shits whether or
not something "counts" as Marxist -- and judging by the kind of garbage
pail "Marxism" that floats around on leftist websites it looks like I'm not
the only one who isn't very strict about that.

My approach does not betray a lack of confidence in the working class or
the oppressed minorities. My approach lacks confidence in the electoral
designs of the founding fathers and the ability of the Green Party to
overcome them within a very short period of time. I think what Clay wrote
earlier was a reasonable point: why aren't we listening to exactly those
communities you mention, who are right now flocking to Hillary? Is it lost
on everyone that the working class and the oppressed minorities -- even
those who originally had faith in Bernie Sanders -- are now resigned to
Hillary Clinton, assuming they weren't already fawning over her bullshit?
We need a strategy to ensure that those people's most immediate needs --
and one very looming, incredibly grave, and urgent threat to those needs,
embodied in Trump's detailed plans to deport 11 million people and issue
immediate reversals of several limited reforms -- are spoken to.

Right now, the way we can do that is by organizing those movements on the
grassroots level *outside of the elections. *That is what most of us do as
activists. We attend socialist forums, sure. But we also do community
organizing. We work with working class organizations and try to build their
membership. We find people within the working class that do not have the
baggage that bourgeois activists do and see what we can do to assist their
efforts to affect policy. That is what trusting in the power of the masses
looks like. Indeed, you'll notice that the most effective grassroots
movement thus far -- with all its contradictions -- has not endorsed Jill
Stein *or* Hillary Clinton (and certainly not Trump). Black Lives Matter
has recognized that there are no reasonable choices and is attempting to
build a bulwark against racist policies by any of these people through
close connections with the working class (albeit their louder members
appear to be NGO-backed morons from the touchy-feely department). *That* is
what we must do and where we should be looking for leadership.

Somehow, you have managed to extend that faith in the power of the working
class, and particularly marginalized groups within it, to the people who
run in controlled elections. That is, simply put, not our territory. We can
build a party that can meaningfully challenge the dominant parties. But how
can we do it in 2 months? How could we even do it in 2 years? I'd like to
hear a concrete proposal.


- Amith

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Dennis Brasky  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:12 PM, A.R. G via Marxism <
> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> There is a simple truth that we are deluding ourselves into forgetting: we
>> have already lost the 2016 election. We will not win this round. The focus
>> needs to be on building a resistance to whoever wins in 2016. Is there any
>> serious case that can be made that that resistance -- and our connection
>> with those communities that will lead it -- would be stronger under Donald
>> Trump than under Hillary Clinton? I doubt it. I think we must swallow our
>> pride and admit that if we live in swing states, we are in a bind and will
>> need to vote for the most right-wing president in modern history: Hillary
>> Clinton.
>>
>> I know this will lose me cred on this list but from a tactical standpoint
>> as a socialist I don't see the way around this; I'm of course, welcome to
>> alternative visions provided they pay heed to the position we are in.
>>
>
>  ...
>
>>
>> reply - You think so?? Labeling oneself a Marxist, one who bases own's
>> political approach on class strugle politics, and employing Marxist
>> phraseology, while looking to "the most right-wing president in modern
>> history" to "save" us from another right-winger -- if it wasn't so damn
>> nauseating, it would be laughable. How did things work out for your
>> political ancestors when they supported Hindenburg in 1932 to "protect" the
>> German Left from the Nazis??
>>
>
> Your approach betrays a total lack of confidence in the working class
> and oppressed minorities to fight back against the reactionary and racist
> policies that have been and will continue to be served up by a ruling class
> that finds itself in increasingly dire straits. You look everywhere for a
> 

Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[Dennis Brasky 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 Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:12 PM, A.R. G via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>
> There is a simple truth that we are deluding ourselves into forgetting: we
> have already lost the 2016 election. We will not win this round. The focus
> needs to be on building a resistance to whoever wins in 2016. Is there any
> serious case that can be made that that resistance -- and our connection
> with those communities that will lead it -- would be stronger under Donald
> Trump than under Hillary Clinton? I doubt it. I think we must swallow our
> pride and admit that if we live in swing states, we are in a bind and will
> need to vote for the most right-wing president in modern history: Hillary
> Clinton.
>
> I know this will lose me cred on this list but from a tactical standpoint
> as a socialist I don't see the way around this; I'm of course, welcome to
> alternative visions provided they pay heed to the position we are in.
>

 ...

>
> reply - You think so?? Labeling oneself a Marxist, one who bases own's
> political approach on class strugle politics, and employing Marxist
> phraseology, while looking to "the most right-wing president in modern
> history" to "save" us from another right-winger -- if it wasn't so damn
> nauseating, it would be laughable. How did things work out for your
> political ancestors when they supported Hindenburg in 1932 to "protect" the
> German Left from the Nazis??
>

Your approach betrays a total lack of confidence in the working class
and oppressed minorities to fight back against the reactionary and racist
policies that have been and will continue to be served up by a ruling class
that finds itself in increasingly dire straits. You look everywhere for a
"protector" except where Marxists should be looking - to the oppressed
victims of those policies. If you're right, then we can forget socialism
and the struggle against all the rottenness in the world - destruction of
the planet, war, sexism, racism, greed, homophobia - and just turn inwards
to our own personal lives. I say that you're wrong!
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Carl G. Estabrook 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.
*

Is the presidential election about personalities or policies?

For more than a generation neoliberal policies - in both Republican and 
Democrat administrations - have produced increasing inequality (and at an 
accelerating rate). At the same time neoconservative policies - again in 
administrations of both parties - produced the crime of the century (so far), 
the invasion of Iraq, and also the first US president to be at war throughout 
two presidential terms. (Obama has attacked eight countries; Bush only attacked 
six.)

Trump is the first candidate of either major party in more than a generation to 
pay homage neither to neoliberalism nor to neoconservatism. He has rejected 
neoliberal policies (trade pacts, from NAFTA to TTIP) and neoconservative ones 
(Nato; provocation of Russia) as well. For that reason he is hated and feared 
by the political establishment (in both parties).

“The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he 
is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its 
relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is 
up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the 
multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its 
dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China's 
Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world's great power talking 
peace - however unlikely - would be the blackest farce were the issues not so 
dire.” [John Pilger]

Clinton champions neoconservatism and neoliberalism but can say so only 
indirectly because those policies - more war and more inequality - are not 
popular. Therefore she must try to distract the public from the policies that 
she would follow in office by directing attention to Trump's less than 
attractive personality. But there are indications that it's not working, as her 
lead in the polls shrinks, in spite of her overwhelming support from the media.

As William Blum (author of “Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. 
Interventions Since World War II") says, “Yes, Trump’s personally obnoxious. 
I’d have a very hard time being his friend. Who cares?” 

—CGE

> On Sep 1, 2016, at 12:36 AM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism 
>  wrote:
> 
> You don't have to buy Clinton's reasons for voting for her to vote for her.
> That's very simplistic thinking, not strategic. You can and should vote for
> her as the only practical way to deny Trump the WH.
> 
> I guarantee you non-white Americans will get that because that is exactly
> what they will be doing, and not because they believe the horsecrap. They
> do believe the hatred coming from only one campaign for the WH even if it
> doesn't get much mention here.
> 
> I have say that Jill Stein's LA rally was objectively pro-Trump - see
> another reply for details.
> 
> If the Green Party targets its campaign more to win votes away from Clinton
> than from Trump, as an engineer I have to recognize that represents a bias
> towards Trump.
> 
> I've covered how her tweet are objectively pro-Trump,
> http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2016/08/how-jillstein-tweets-for-trump.html
> 
> but i think the same can be said about her whole campaign - BTW Putin
> doesn't have any problem with that - why else 105 articles in RT -
> certainly not because he wants RT to do good work.
> 


_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Carl G. Estabrook 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.
*

Your argument is unassailable…

I’m "pro-Stein,” not "pro-Trump"; but I am "anti-war" and "anti-Clinton."

And I’m Marxist the way Chomsky is (although I think he’s wrong about Clinton): 

"I think that the libertarian socialist concepts - and by that I mean a range 
of thinking that extends from left-wing Marxism through anarchism - are 
fundamentally correct and that they are the proper and natural extension of 
classical liberalism into the era of advanced industrial society.” ['Government 
in the Future,' 1970]

—CGE


> On Aug 31, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Mark Lause  wrote:
> 
> You don't buy the standard repackaged Democratic horsecrap and you are 
> "pro-Trump."
> 
> What utter stupidity passes for Marxism
> 
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Marxism 
> > wrote:

> I assume you mean Glen Ford’s piece on Black Agenda Report, which I suggest 
> people read for themselves:
> 
>  
>   >>.
> 
> An appropriate companion piece is 
>  
>  
>  >>.
> 
> —CGE
> 
> 
> > On Aug 31, 2016, at 9:11 PM, A.R. G  > > wrote:
> >
> > Carl,
> >
> > The piece you cited does not make a whole lot of sense. The first argument 
> > is his position on military bases. Outside of this being an incomparably 
> > small token of "isolationism" alongside threats to nuke people, send in 
> > ground troops, drones, and his use of torture, all he said was that he 
> > would reverse the arrangement such that those countries would be expected 
> > to pay the United States, rather than vice versa. He has taken a similar 
> > line with NATO. The second argument is that he does not accept the 
> > "rhetoric" of nation-building and so on; but even president-elect George W. 
> > Bush rejected such rationales during the 2000 election. This only means he 
> > is not as interested in sugar-coating such policies with the rhetoric of 
> > democracy and universalism. The last line was his "neutrality" rhetoric 
> > about Palestine. Even assuming we give that any credibility (one might note 
> > that even at the time, Trump combined his statements about "neutrality" 
> > with his affirmation that he was pro-Israel, meaning that he simply 
> > re-defined "neutral" to mean support for Israel), it has long since been 
> > surpassed by his adamant and aggressive support for Israel.
> >
> > It is an incredibly weak piece. The only part of it that even remotely 
> > speaks to what is "anti-empire" about Trump's policies is the isolationist 
> > rhetoric about US bases in Asia. Given the totality of the policies Trump 
> > has elaborated on, from nukes to torture to drones to ground troops, I'm 
> > not sure how anyone can see this as proof of any sort of "anti-imperialist" 
> > leanings.
> >
> > The Davis piece that I sent out goes into much greater depth about the 
> > policies that Trump has actually advocated for. He is as violent as they 
> > come.
> >
> > - Amith
> >
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Mark Lause 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.
*

You don't buy the standard repackaged Democratic horsecrap and you are
"pro-Trump."

What utter stupidity passes for Marxism

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Carl G. Estabrook 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 assume you mean Glen Ford’s piece on Black Agenda Report, which I
> suggest people read for themselves:
>
>  http://www.blackagendareport.com/trump_anti-empire>>.
>
> An appropriate companion piece is  2016/06/20/trump-as-the-relative-peace-candidate/ <
> https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/20/trump-as-the-
> relative-peace-candidate/>>.
>
> —CGE
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 2016, at 9:11 PM, A.R. G  wrote:
> >
> > Carl,
> >
> > The piece you cited does not make a whole lot of sense. The first
> argument is his position on military bases. Outside of this being an
> incomparably small token of "isolationism" alongside threats to nuke
> people, send in ground troops, drones, and his use of torture, all he said
> was that he would reverse the arrangement such that those countries would
> be expected to pay the United States, rather than vice versa. He has taken
> a similar line with NATO. The second argument is that he does not accept
> the "rhetoric" of nation-building and so on; but even president-elect
> George W. Bush rejected such rationales during the 2000 election. This only
> means he is not as interested in sugar-coating such policies with the
> rhetoric of democracy and universalism. The last line was his "neutrality"
> rhetoric about Palestine. Even assuming we give that any credibility (one
> might note that even at the time, Trump combined his statements about
> "neutrality" with his affirmation that he was pro-Israel, meaning that he
> simply re-defined "neutral" to mean support for Israel), it has long since
> been surpassed by his adamant and aggressive support for Israel.
> >
> > It is an incredibly weak piece. The only part of it that even remotely
> speaks to what is "anti-empire" about Trump's policies is the isolationist
> rhetoric about US bases in Asia. Given the totality of the policies Trump
> has elaborated on, from nukes to torture to drones to ground troops, I'm
> not sure how anyone can see this as proof of any sort of "anti-imperialist"
> leanings.
> >
> > The Davis piece that I sent out goes into much greater depth about the
> policies that Trump has actually advocated for. He is as violent as they
> come.
> >
> > - Amith
> >
>
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/
> options/marxism/markalause%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] Vote for Clinton?

[Carl G. Estabrook 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 assume you mean Glen Ford’s piece on Black Agenda Report, which I suggest 
people read for themselves: 

>.

An appropriate companion piece is 
>.

—CGE


> On Aug 31, 2016, at 9:11 PM, A.R. G  wrote:
> 
> Carl,
> 
> The piece you cited does not make a whole lot of sense. The first argument is 
> his position on military bases. Outside of this being an incomparably small 
> token of "isolationism" alongside threats to nuke people, send in ground 
> troops, drones, and his use of torture, all he said was that he would reverse 
> the arrangement such that those countries would be expected to pay the United 
> States, rather than vice versa. He has taken a similar line with NATO. The 
> second argument is that he does not accept the "rhetoric" of nation-building 
> and so on; but even president-elect George W. Bush rejected such rationales 
> during the 2000 election. This only means he is not as interested in 
> sugar-coating such policies with the rhetoric of democracy and universalism. 
> The last line was his "neutrality" rhetoric about Palestine. Even assuming we 
> give that any credibility (one might note that even at the time, Trump 
> combined his statements about "neutrality" with his affirmation that he was 
> pro-Israel, meaning that he simply re-defined "neutral" to mean support for 
> Israel), it has long since been surpassed by his adamant and aggressive 
> support for Israel. 
> 
> It is an incredibly weak piece. The only part of it that even remotely speaks 
> to what is "anti-empire" about Trump's policies is the isolationist rhetoric 
> about US bases in Asia. Given the totality of the policies Trump has 
> elaborated on, from nukes to torture to drones to ground troops, I'm not sure 
> how anyone can see this as proof of any sort of "anti-imperialist" leanings. 
> 
> The Davis piece that I sent out goes into much greater depth about the 
> policies that Trump has actually advocated for. He is as violent as they 
> come. 
> 
> - Amith
> 

_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Carl G. Estabrook 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.
*

Here’s someone who recognizes that Clinton is wrapping herself in duplicitous 
identity politics, in order to avoid the issues of class politics raised by the 
Trump campaign (and he isn’t white):

>.


> On Aug 31, 2016, at 8:37 PM, Clay Claiborne  wrote:
> 
> Like I said, we can expect to hear more pro-Trump voices on the white Left. 
> Even on Marxist lists. How sad.
> 
> I'm listening to another one of his racist titrates now as I write this now. 
> But , hey, if I was white maybe it wouldn't bother me either.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Marxism 
> > wrote:
> 
> Clinton is both a neoliberal (more inequality) and a neocon (more war); Trump 
> isn’t:
> 
>  
>  
>  >>.
> 
> 

_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Carl G. Estabrook 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 Debs' advice, I’ll vote for the Green party candidate, Jill Stein, whose 
positions on foreign and domestic policy - to say nothing of climate 
catastrophe - are better than those of the major party candidates, but I won't 
be dissuaded by the argument that voting for a third party helps Trump: his 
positions on war and the economy are substantially better than Clinton’s.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/hillary_crusade_against_bigotry_trump 


—CGE

> On Aug 31, 2016, at 8:49 PM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism 
>  wrote:
> 
> Please listen to what Trump is demagoguing about as I speak. I hope you
> will understand why minorities will be voting against him, and not castings
> a "feel good" vote for Jill.
> 

_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[mkaradjis . 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 to say that as much as I don't agree with everything Clay has
written, I share his frustration with this line of reasoning"

So do I. From far away, I have no intention in getting involved in the
who to vote for discussion in the US. But regarding war and global
politics, the idea that the world should feel safer and less in danger
of American warmongering under Trump is extraordinary self-delusion.
Read Charles Davis' article and then come back. And Davis doesn't even
go into the fact that Trump is way to the right of Clinton on
Palestine.


On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:43 AM, 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.
> *
>
> You're right, Donald Trump isn't a neoliberal or a neocon like Hillary --
> he holds beliefs that are *even worse* than those two ideologies, and in
> any case, that hardly means he's not a warmonger (let alone a white
> nationalist).
>
> https://newrepublic.com/article/135775/liberals-keep-calling-donald-trump-dove
>
> I have to say that as much as I don't agree with everything Clay has
> written, I share his frustration with this line of reasoning.
>
> - Amith
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/mkaradjis%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] Vote for Clinton?

[Carl G. Estabrook 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.
*

http://www.blackagendareport.com/trump_anti-empire 



> On Aug 31, 2016, at 8:43 PM, A.R. G via Marxism  
> wrote:
> 
> You're right, Donald Trump isn't a neoliberal or a neocon like Hillary --
> he holds beliefs that are *even worse* than those two ideologies, and in
> any case, that hardly means he's not a warmonger (let alone a white
> nationalist).
> 
> https://newrepublic.com/article/135775/liberals-keep-calling-donald-trump-dove
> 

_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Clay Claiborne 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.
*

Please listen to what Trump is demagoguing about as I speak. I hope you
will understand why minorities will be voting against him, and not castings
a "feel good" vote for Jill.

Clay Claiborne, Director
Vietnam: American Holocaust 
Linux Beach Productions
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 581-1536

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 


On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:43 PM, 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.
> *
>
> You're right, Donald Trump isn't a neoliberal or a neocon like Hillary --
> he holds beliefs that are *even worse* than those two ideologies, and in
> any case, that hardly means he's not a warmonger (let alone a white
> nationalist).
>
> https://newrepublic.com/article/135775/liberals-keep-
> calling-donald-trump-dove
>
> I have to say that as much as I don't agree with everything Clay has
> written, I share his frustration with this line of reasoning.
>
> - Amith
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/clayclai%
> 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] Vote for Clinton?

[A.R. G 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.
*

You're right, Donald Trump isn't a neoliberal or a neocon like Hillary --
he holds beliefs that are *even worse* than those two ideologies, and in
any case, that hardly means he's not a warmonger (let alone a white
nationalist).

https://newrepublic.com/article/135775/liberals-keep-calling-donald-trump-dove

I have to say that as much as I don't agree with everything Clay has
written, I share his frustration with this line of reasoning.

- Amith
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Clay Claiborne 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.
*

Like I said, we can expect to hear more pro-Trump voices on the white Left.
Even on Marxist lists. How sad.

I'm listening to another one of his racist titrates now as I write this
now. But , hey, if I was white maybe it wouldn't bother me either.


Clay

Clay Claiborne, Director
Vietnam: American Holocaust 
Linux Beach Productions
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 581-1536

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 


On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Carl G. Estabrook 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.
> *
>
> Clinton is both a neoliberal (more inequality) and a neocon (more war);
> Trump isn’t:
>
>  relative-peace-candidate/  2016/06/20/trump-as-the-relative-peace-candidate/>>.
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 2016, at 7:58 PM, A.R. G  wrote:
> >
> > How are we less likely to get war from Trump? Trump has discussed
> actually using nuclear weapons. He wants to bring back torture -- and he
> doesn't even have any qualms about calling it torture, unlike his
> Republican colleagues who purposely used euphemisms like "enhanced
> interrogation techniques" to avoid incriminating themselves. He floated
> sending tens of thousands of troops to fight in Syria, albeit on the side
> of the regime. He has threatened to tear up the diplomatic agreement
> between the US and Iran, and he wants to all abut reward the entirety of
> the West Bank to the Israeli occupiers. He's also pledged more drones.
> >
> > The CIA and the Pentagon oppose him for obvious reasons: he is a
> lunatic. There is a difference between not being pro-war and being so
> pro-war that the other pro-war institutions are afraid you will do it
> without any strategy.
> >
> > - Amith
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Carl G. Estabrook 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.
> > *
> >
> > With Clinton as president, we're certain to get more war, in the
> tradition of the last 25 years. With Trump as president, we might not. How
> can that be a difficult choice?
> >
> > “The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have
> demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather
> from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected.
> Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the
> multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains
> its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with
> China's Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world's great
> power talking peace - however unlikely - would be the blackest farce were
> the issues not so dire.” [John Pilger]
> >
> > —CGE
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 31, 2016, at 6:29 PM, Mark Lause via Marxism <
> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu > wrote:
> > >
> > > Trump is farther right than the usual Republican.  Clinton is way
> further
> > > right than the usual Democrat.  But why waste time dickering over the
> > > calipers.
> > >
> > > If Jill Stein wasn't there, I would still vote against both of them.
> Maybe
> > > I'd even vote for for the Skippy McTrotly on the Vegetarian Bolshevik
> > > Alliance.
> > >
> > > But not voting at all is better than using your ballot to sanction the
> next
> > > temporary monarch of the U.S.
> > >
> >
> >
> > _
> > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
> 3A__www.marxmail.org_sub.htm=CwMFaQ=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ=
> tfHzwZBcTLEveiewRiq0OdhFmfRmlvZjpIBS0AUJ2v0=9Jqms3ylu4sCImjNAi5oJbwicRJ-
> 4A4_CmmWC-fYsSw=bG5LZVPGx25qOEhKzVPwaF8ibcOGAXSyaVVEemHd1eE=>
> > Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/
> options/marxism/amithrgupta%40gmail.com  

Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[Carl G. Estabrook 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.
*

Clinton is both a neoliberal (more inequality) and a neocon (more war); Trump 
isn’t:

>.
 


> On Aug 31, 2016, at 7:58 PM, A.R. G  wrote:
> 
> How are we less likely to get war from Trump? Trump has discussed actually 
> using nuclear weapons. He wants to bring back torture -- and he doesn't even 
> have any qualms about calling it torture, unlike his Republican colleagues 
> who purposely used euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" to 
> avoid incriminating themselves. He floated sending tens of thousands of 
> troops to fight in Syria, albeit on the side of the regime. He has threatened 
> to tear up the diplomatic agreement between the US and Iran, and he wants to 
> all abut reward the entirety of the West Bank to the Israeli occupiers. He's 
> also pledged more drones. 
> 
> The CIA and the Pentagon oppose him for obvious reasons: he is a lunatic. 
> There is a difference between not being pro-war and being so pro-war that the 
> other pro-war institutions are afraid you will do it without any strategy. 
> 
> - Amith
> 
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Carl G. Estabrook 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.
> *
> 
> With Clinton as president, we're certain to get more war, in the tradition of 
> the last 25 years. With Trump as president, we might not. How can that be a 
> difficult choice?
> 
> “The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded 
> he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its 
> relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something 
> is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the 
> multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its 
> dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with 
> China's Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world's great power 
> talking peace - however unlikely - would be the blackest farce were the 
> issues not so dire.” [John Pilger]
> 
> —CGE
> 
> 
> > On Aug 31, 2016, at 6:29 PM, Mark Lause via Marxism 
> > > wrote:
> >
> > Trump is farther right than the usual Republican.  Clinton is way further
> > right than the usual Democrat.  But why waste time dickering over the
> > calipers.
> >
> > If Jill Stein wasn't there, I would still vote against both of them.  Maybe
> > I'd even vote for for the Skippy McTrotly on the Vegetarian Bolshevik
> > Alliance.
> >
> > But not voting at all is better than using your ballot to sanction the next
> > temporary monarch of the U.S.
> >
> 
> 
> _
> 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/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[A.R. G 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.
*

How are we less likely to get war from Trump? Trump has discussed actually
using nuclear weapons. He wants to bring back torture -- and he doesn't
even have any qualms about calling it torture, unlike his Republican
colleagues who purposely used euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation
techniques" to avoid incriminating themselves. He floated sending tens of
thousands of troops to fight in Syria, albeit on the side of the regime. He
has threatened to tear up the diplomatic agreement between the US and Iran,
and he wants to all abut reward the entirety of the West Bank to the
Israeli occupiers. He's also pledged more drones.

The CIA and the Pentagon oppose him for obvious reasons: he is a lunatic.
There is a difference between not being pro-war and being so pro-war that
the other pro-war institutions are afraid you will do it without any
strategy.

- Amith

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Carl G. Estabrook 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.
> *
>
> With Clinton as president, we're certain to get more war, in the tradition
> of the last 25 years. With Trump as president, we might not. How can that
> be a difficult choice?
>
> “The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have
> demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather
> from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected.
> Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the
> multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains
> its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with
> China's Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world's great
> power talking peace - however unlikely - would be the blackest farce were
> the issues not so dire.” [John Pilger]
>
> —CGE
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 2016, at 6:29 PM, Mark Lause via Marxism <
> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Trump is farther right than the usual Republican.  Clinton is way further
> > right than the usual Democrat.  But why waste time dickering over the
> > calipers.
> >
> > If Jill Stein wasn't there, I would still vote against both of them.
> Maybe
> > I'd even vote for for the Skippy McTrotly on the Vegetarian Bolshevik
> > Alliance.
> >
> > But not voting at all is better than using your ballot to sanction the
> next
> > temporary monarch of the U.S.
> >
>
>
> _
> 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/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[Carl G. Estabrook 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.
*

With Clinton as president, we're certain to get more war, in the tradition of 
the last 25 years. With Trump as president, we might not. How can that be a 
difficult choice?

“The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he 
is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its 
relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is 
up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the 
multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its 
dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China's 
Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world's great power talking 
peace - however unlikely - would be the blackest farce were the issues not so 
dire.” [John Pilger]

—CGE


> On Aug 31, 2016, at 6:29 PM, Mark Lause via Marxism 
>  wrote:
> 
> Trump is farther right than the usual Republican.  Clinton is way further
> right than the usual Democrat.  But why waste time dickering over the
> calipers.
> 
> If Jill Stein wasn't there, I would still vote against both of them.  Maybe
> I'd even vote for for the Skippy McTrotly on the Vegetarian Bolshevik
> Alliance.
> 
> But not voting at all is better than using your ballot to sanction the next
> temporary monarch of the U.S.
> 


_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Clay Claiborne 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'm just amazed how the people on this thread can discussion Donald and
Hillary and say nothing about the white nationalism the distinguishes one
of them.

 Am I delusional or are you blind?

http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2016/08/why-jill-stein-should-drop-her.html

Clay Claiborne, Director
Vietnam: American Holocaust 
Linux Beach Productions
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 581-1536

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 


On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Ralph Johansen 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.R. G wrote
>
>
>Without weighing in on the merits of voting for neocon Clinton, I don't
>think that is the gist of the argument. The argument is not that she
>is the
>lesser evil. It is that she is *considerably less evil* than her
>opponent.
>The argument is that Donald Trump is far, far worse than Clinton, as
>opposed to say, Romney and Obama or McCain and Obama. In those
>years, many
>on the left foolishly backed Obama at the expense of building any
>kind of
>counterhegemonic pole by exaggerating the differences between Obama
>and his
>opponent.
> 
> Let's say we pretend for a moment. Let's say we're the egregiously
> over-paid freaks in the capital grounds who for years have honed their wits
> doing the deep thinking about these things. They might say, well, we think
> they're getting on to us. It's all becoming so transparent that even kids
> in the playground are on to it. We need a REAL obfuscation this time. We
> once had the Hollywood second-rate movie actor who though past it and well
> on the way to terminal Alzheimers could still peddle crap like he did for
> General Electric tv ads and on the silver screen for eight years, about
> welfare queens, the war on drugs and supply side economics; we have had aw
> shucks drawling Bill and welfare as we know it, NAFTA, the ending of
> fig-leaf banking regulation and the blue dress for eight years; we've had
> the snuggle bunny, befuddled George W. Bush, 'Homeland Security,' gutting
> the Bill of Rights, 'mission accomplished', failed states and concealed
> body counts for another eight years; we've had a black dude who was the
> perfect foil for another eight years, the first 'person of color' and
> Harvard Law Review editor and social worker with the comely family and no
> political tracks behind him who from the time he came out of the band box
> has been entirely in our side pocket, could be counted on to continue where
> Bush and Cheny left off, and left the voters misty-eyed - -  so that we
> could lie and cheat and steal the be jabbers out of the big fat sovereign
> entity enchilada US treasury from one friggin eight year stint to the next
> - and counting? NOW what do we do? Why, of course, the 'You're fired' guy
> on tv, he has said for years that he wanted to be president. Let's put him
> up against the Hill, fill his tender ego so full it spews from his mouth
> like three-day old vomit, Hillary, the first woman president, although
> there have been 58 female leaders of their nations elsewhere and no big
> deal by now, will surely beat the side-show joker and give us as her track
> record incontrovertibly demonstrates everything we want and more, all the
> way back to the White House laughing off the 'but-wait-a-minute,'
> incredulous, gulled voter. And we'll leave all those poor, deluded slobs
> wringing their hands, as they do every four years, over this yet even more
> impossible contest between the two most despised of two 'lesser evils', and
> pondering with great heaves and hos of thought over how they will use their
> vote, which is virtually the only remaining, pitifully small vestige of
> what may have once been slightly more credibly called a 'democracy,' and
> which in better times to come if we squint enough at the distant
> imponderables might be defined at a minimum as controlling one's own
> destiny, more accurately as moving ever closer to substantive equality And
> so we'll 9the WE that counts, that is, continue our journey with our
> paymasters and if we hedge our bets right, us, with still impossibly more
> of the swag. Of course.
>
>
> ---
> This 

Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[Ralph Johansen 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.
*

A.R. G wrote


   Without weighing in on the merits of voting for neocon Clinton, I don't
   think that is the gist of the argument. The argument is not that she
   is the
   lesser evil. It is that she is *considerably less evil* than her
   opponent.
   The argument is that Donald Trump is far, far worse than Clinton, as
   opposed to say, Romney and Obama or McCain and Obama. In those
   years, many
   on the left foolishly backed Obama at the expense of building any
   kind of
   counterhegemonic pole by exaggerating the differences between Obama
   and his
   opponent. 



Let's say we pretend for a moment. Let's say we're the egregiously 
over-paid freaks in the capital grounds who for years have honed their 
wits doing the deep thinking about these things. They might say, well, 
we think they're getting on to us. It's all becoming so transparent that 
even kids in the playground are on to it. We need a REAL obfuscation 
this time. We once had the Hollywood second-rate movie actor who though 
past it and well on the way to terminal Alzheimers could still peddle 
crap like he did for General Electric tv ads and on the silver screen 
for eight years, about welfare queens, the war on drugs and supply side 
economics; we have had aw shucks drawling Bill and welfare as we know 
it, NAFTA, the ending of fig-leaf banking regulation and the blue dress 
for eight years; we've had the snuggle bunny, befuddled George W. Bush, 
'Homeland Security,' gutting the Bill of Rights, 'mission accomplished', 
failed states and concealed body counts for another eight years; we've 
had a black dude who was the perfect foil for another eight years, the 
first 'person of color' and Harvard Law Review editor and social worker 
with the comely family and no political tracks behind him who from the 
time he came out of the band box has been entirely in our side pocket, 
could be counted on to continue where Bush and Cheny left off, and left 
the voters misty-eyed - -  so that we could lie and cheat and steal the 
be jabbers out of the big fat sovereign entity enchilada US treasury 
from one friggin eight year stint to the next - and counting? NOW what 
do we do? Why, of course, the 'You're fired' guy on tv, he has said for 
years that he wanted to be president. Let's put him up against the Hill, 
fill his tender ego so full it spews from his mouth like three-day old 
vomit, Hillary, the first woman president, although there have been 58 
female leaders of their nations elsewhere and no big deal by now, will 
surely beat the side-show joker and give us as her track record 
incontrovertibly demonstrates everything we want and more, all the way 
back to the White House laughing off the 'but-wait-a-minute,' 
incredulous, gulled voter. And we'll leave all those poor, deluded slobs 
wringing their hands, as they do every four years, over this yet even 
more impossible contest between the two most despised of two 'lesser 
evils', and pondering with great heaves and hos of thought over how they 
will use their vote, which is virtually the only remaining, pitifully 
small vestige of what may have once been slightly more credibly called a 
'democracy,' and which in better times to come if we squint enough at 
the distant imponderables might be defined at a minimum as controlling 
one's own destiny, more accurately as moving ever closer to substantive 
equality And so we'll 9the WE that counts, that is, continue our journey 
with our paymasters and if we hedge our bets right, us, with still 
impossibly more of the swag. Of course.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
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/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[Mark Lause 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.
*

Trump is farther right than the usual Republican.  Clinton is way further
right than the usual Democrat.  But why waste time dickering over the
calipers.

If Jill Stein wasn't there, I would still vote against both of them.  Maybe
I'd even vote for for the Skippy McTrotly on the Vegetarian Bolshevik
Alliance.

But not voting at all is better than using your ballot to sanction the next
temporary monarch of the U.S.

ML
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[A.R. G 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.
*

Without weighing in on the merits of voting for neocon Clinton, I don't
think that is the gist of the argument. The argument is not that she is the
lesser evil. It is that she is *considerably less evil* than her opponent.
The argument is that Donald Trump is far, far worse than Clinton, as
opposed to say, Romney and Obama or McCain and Obama. In those years, many
on the left foolishly backed Obama at the expense of building any kind of
counterhegemonic pole by exaggerating the differences between Obama and his
opponent.

But in this election, little exaggeration is needed by Clinton's
supporters. The other guy is so insane that his own Party leadership is
crumbling under the weight of being unable to endorse their nominee because
he's such a loony toon. In other elections, one could identify one of the
candidates or the other as a "lesser evil," but they would be hard-pressed
to establish that the differences between the two outweigh their enormous
similarities. That is not the case with this election. Trump has gone above
and beyond simply being "worse" than Clinton. He is *so much worse* that
his own Party's leadership is looking at Hillary!!!

The other difference is that, as I understand it, the Canadian system is
more friendly to smaller parties. Americans do not have that advantage.
Personally, I have always voted Green and intend to do so again during the
upcoming election. But I also live in a solidly Blue state, so I don't
think my vote has ever counted (not that it would count otherwise). If I
lived in a "swing" state I might feel forced to rethink my loyalty to the
Greens even if I would not have done so in other years.

I also think that the task of building the kind of party that you are
talking about cannot operate on the same clock as the presidential
elections. Setting up a party (even a bourgeois one, to say nothing of a
revolutionary party) takes decades, and it is a full-time project, not
something that can be done by trying to grab votes on election years.
Perhaps the Greens should consider building up their base outside of the
elections and not just during election years? They could do so by building
a grassroots base and then using it to propel candidates into local
government. From there they might have a stronger means of connecting with
the voter base during general elections in order to challenge the
Democrats.



- Amith

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Ken Hiebert 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 think I understand the argument for voting for Clinton.  In a nutshell,
> she is the lesser evil.
>
> I want to point out what I think are the shortcomings of voting for the
> lesser evil.
> Of course, you can always use your vote to choose between the two most
> likely contenders for an office.  Some people regard that as a "useful"
> vote.
> In my opinion it is much more useful to use your vote to build a left
> alternative.
> As a thought experiment, think back to the Johnson-Goldwater election of
> 1964.  Which was the more useful vote, a vote for Johnson?  Or a vote for
> the SWP or another small left party?
> I would argue that the most useful vote was for the SWP or another small
> left party.
>
> Each time you vote for the lesser evil you postpone the building of a left
> alternative.  And you arrive at the next election with the same
> alternatives, a weak left and a choice between the candidates of the
> Republican Party and the Democratic Party.
>
> The Green Party of Canada probably does not qualify as a left
> alternative.  But I think the growth of the party illustrates the point I
> am making.
> The party was launched in 1983.  They didn't get more than 1% of the vote
> until 2004.  And they didn't elect an MP until 2011.  The people who voted
> for the Greens up till that time, were they wasting their vote?  Not in my
> opinion.  The handful of people who voted for them at the beginning
> encouraged others to vote for them in subsequent elections.  And they grew
> to be a political force.
>
> If you limit yourself to the lesser evil, you will be helpless when the
> lesser evil becomes so unpopular that the greater evil wins.  What will you
> have to show for your efforts?
>
> If you want to build a left alternative, the best time to start is now.
>
> ken h
>