[L-I] Communards update
Hallo & Hello, wir möchten Euch auf folgende Artikel hinweisen, die neu auf der Seite sind. (Übrigens kommt da jeden Tag was hinzu, aber wir teilen es natürlich nicht jeden Tag mit. Also selbst nachsehen) we would like to inform you about the following new statements and essays (by the way: We add stories every day without telling you... so you better surf to our side daily) Cuban Doctors remain in Guatemala http://www.communards.de/cgi-bin/groupnews/viewnews.cgi?category=1&id=979803286 Ireland: Teacher need Solidarity http://www.communards.de/cgi-bin/groupnews/viewnews.cgi?category=4&id=979802729 Black Radical Congress on Statement about Israel http://www.communards.de/cgi-bin/groupnews/viewnews.cgi?category=15&id=979804632 Common statement of Communist Youth Organisation on DU http://www.communards.de/cgi-bin/groupnews/viewnews.cgi?category=15&id=979804093 About Colin Powell. An Essay by J. Lacny http://www.communards.de/cgi-bin/groupnews/viewnews.cgi?category=5&id=979802245 Report of Workers Conference of Italiens PRC http://www.communards.de/cgi-bin/groupnews/viewnews.cgi?category=12&id=979803539 +++ Please add you events to our calendar! ~ Visit http://www.communards.de for information of struggles worldwide. Post your events at http://metaevents.com/Communards/calendrome.cgi Send information for mailings to [EMAIL PROTECTED] BOYKOTT GMX: http://www.netz-antifa.org ~ Visit http://www.communards.de for information of struggles worldwide. Post your events at http://metaevents.com/Communards/calendrome.cgi Send information for mailings to [EMAIL PROTECTED] BOYKOTT GMX: http://www.netz-antifa.org ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] Steve's "defense".
Just for the record, I have been pressing for the removal of Steve Myers for a long time. My mail box was locked since Monday due to problems in my mail server.Since then, I could not keep in touch (and will do so because of my *f* but loving proposal) . From what I see, Myers has no positive contribution here except for engaging in sectarian personal affronts and associating socialism with right wingism, worse with fascism and anti-Semitism. I guess the same comrades still don't get that what we are dealing in Russia are bourgeois politics and US imperialism, not mass fascism. We will move faster, I hope, without petty consideration for whether Russia is moving in the direction of fascism or not. I thank you for your patience in advance concerning Myers! co-moderator Mine Macdonald Stainsby wrote: > For the `record', and in the spirit of *Leninist* Glasnost- > > What is actually amusing about all this is that Owen and/or Steve believe I actually > am concerned about the semite issue. I am not the slightest concerned about whether > or not they think the CPRF is home to many anti-Semites, or that this is the worst > thing going. This is entirely about whether or not people on this list can discuss > matters with decorum and attempt to get somewhere. People who are career sectarians > don't know it. I've been in that headspace where all around you are a host of Marxist > "enemies", and not potential comrades. So be it he thinks this political. I forward > this (and this is the last thing I forward from Meyers) so no one worry about what is > being hidden from them. After that, I am asking Yoshie and Mine that we end > discussion of the whole matter. We may not yet, but I hope so. Johannes was right > about one thing in his letter to the list, that being my inexperience. But I learn > very fast. > > Good night, > and to all who are getting as bored with this as I- thank you for your patience. All > storms do indeed subside. > > Macdonald Stainsby, > Co-Moderator, > Leninist International > > And now the rant: > > > Dear Owen and Johannes, > The banning of me and the suspension of Owen from L-I list is > clear political anti-Leninist censorship. This is very obvious to anyone. > Below is a response I just sent to Yoshie, who I do not know enough about, to > write such a mail as this to you two. > > There are many such Marxist lists, and they are, in my opinion, the property > of us all. I am going to use all these lists, and various other forums, to > attack the injustice meted out to me and Owen. I do know how to use the > internet to launch such a campaign - that is how ISWoR was built. But I would > like the support of you both for this - and also I would like your opinions > on the whole thing, before I begin. > > warm regards - Steve. > > XXX > > Subj: Yoshie - you are a moderator. > Date: 17/01/01 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > In a message dated 17/01/01 18:40:35 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > writes: > > > Steve wrote: > > > > >In particular Owen, your description of the KPRF as > > >more of a reactionary danger to the Russian working class than even > Putin's > > >Kremlin, is very factual, considered and well thought out. > > > > The above is a mistaken estimation of the balance of power, > > contradicted by the statement below: > Owen wrote: > > >They do advocate a cleaner, more stable and properly > > >functioning capitalist system; but Putin has stolen their thunder in this > > >respect with a concerted attempt to stabilise Russian capitalism, with > > >certain measures against sections of the oligarchy and a policy of firm > > >centralisation, as well as severe measures against the Russian > proletariat, > > >with a new Labour Code straight out of Tsarist law books. > > > > Yoshie > > Yoshie, > Because I actually do consider the CPRF red-browns, and the RKRP to be > objectively red-brown - and there is much evidence to point so - I cannot > answer you on L-I. I know that Johannes does not agree with a life-ban or any > ban by Macdonald, against me - and you are both moderators. Were you a > participant in all this? > > And this nonsense that Owen should be banned for 2 weeks "until he cools > down" - but he has not even got a little warm?! He put out one good document, > that is all. It is because he politically disagree's with the narrow > political line of one or two moderators. > > Are you going to stand for this? No one can hardly think that referring to an > 'old goat' against someone who patronisingly tries to dismiss Owen as "al > lad, 16", is flaming - Macdonald is clearly censoring serious Marxist > arguments. I am a Leninist and proud of it! I also think Trotsky was the > greatest revolutionary leader after Lenin in the last century. Every day, > through International Solidarity with Workers in Russia, which I co-founded, > I do practical work in support of actually existing workers' struggles. Last >
Re: [L-I] My resignation as moderator from L-I
Actually, it's people talking *about* Malecki (and one person in the recent archives begging to get away). Macdonald - Original Message - From: Mark Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It would be invidious to make examples, but I suppose that if Bob Malecki really has > 312 people listening to him on his egroups list, perhaps we should call that a > success, hey? > > Mark > ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Re: Zyuganov Interview 11 September 2000: Russian CP LeaderSupports Kremlin, Drops Old Allies
Nestor wrote: >In the end, when Hugo Moyano, the union leader in Argentina, claims that his >CGT is not against De la Rúa, but against the IMF, and that they are ready to >support the former against the latter, is doing more or less what Zyuganov >proposes here. One one hand: * Financial Times (London) January 5, 2001, Friday London Edition 1 SECTION: WORLD NEWS - EUROPE; Pg. 6 HEADLINE: WORLD NEWS - EUROPE: Russia turns its back on western aid: As its economy starts to come right, Moscow can afford to ignore international donors, even to the extent of declining to make repayments. Andrew Jack reports BYLINE: By ANDREW JACK Just as international organisations are seeing Russia achieve the kind of economic performance they long hoped for, their prospects of influencing the country's future policy are declining fast. With growth of 7 per cent last year, a strong trade balance, a projected budget surplus for this year, the rouble stable and foreign currency reserves building up, Russia's economy looks stronger than it has for years. A compliant parliament, an energetic president and a team of liberal economic reformers in key government positions ought to be well placed to implement structural reform - notably in banking and of natural monopolies - that has long been demanded by bodies such as the International Monetary Fund. Yet an IMF mission hoping to agree a new programme left Moscow empty-handed in late November after unexpected and fundamental disagreements over issues including the levels of government expenditure. Since then, there has been little sign of reconciliation. Indeed, the supposedly private meeting in Moscow this weekend between Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroder and President Vladimir Putin has taken on a new public importance following hints yesterday that Russia would not honour repayments this month to the Paris Club of sovereign creditors. One reason for Russia's apparent lack of concern over making repayments is that it does not now need money from foreign donors and is more confident in dictating its own terms as a result. "We have far less leverage than in the past because of the strong financial situation," says a senior official at one international organisation. Another factor is that Mr Putin, concerned about Russia's dependence on the outside world, has sent signals to his administration in recent months that foreign aid should be reduced in an effort to establish greater autonomy. Just as important, however, is that the main foreign lenders are rethinking their strategies towards Russia and taking a tougher stance. Organisations as diverse as the World Bank and the Soros Foundation have reduced their commitments. "There was a tremendous urge in the early 1990s to pump a lot of money into Russia, but the actual results were less than the expectations," says Tom Graham, a political analyst at the Carnegie Foundation and former US diplomat. "Everybody is reassessing what happened." Janine Wedel, a US academic, argued in her book Collision and collusion that western assistance to Russia focused on supporting a small circle of individuals - the young liberal reformers - rather than on specific policies. When these individuals fell out of favour, so did the foreign sponsors and their programmes. US Republican congressman Christopher Cox, who last September produced a scathing report on President Bill Clinton's policy towards the country during the 1990s, concluded: "Russia today is more corrupt, more lawless, less democratic, poorer and more unstable than it was in 1992." An analysis published this month by the US General Accounting Office (GAO) examined the Dollars 38bn provided to Russia in the 1990s by five leading international institutions: the IMF, the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the European Union's Tacis and the US Aid programme. Albeit couched in more diplomatic language, the report is also critical, citing studies by the organisations themselves. It says that approaches were unco-ordinated, expectations too high, and both corruption and a lack of Russian political consensus in favour of reform substantially limited progress. Mr Graham says that much aid was directed at supporting companies in the donor countries and "trying to persuade Russians to do things they didn't want" with little thought to local social and economic conditions. The result only helped boost corruption. Meanwhile the IMF, the largest individual lender, came under political pressure to offer repeatedly credits in exchange for promises that never materialised, while apparently turning a blind eye to less attractive aspects of policy. If international organisations are reconsidering their approach to Russia in the wake of the difficulties of the past, the political environment in which they are operating is also changing. The fading memory of the collapse of communism, disillusionment over the slow pace of progress, and re
[L-I] Steve's "defense".
For the `record', and in the spirit of *Leninist* Glasnost- What is actually amusing about all this is that Owen and/or Steve believe I actually am concerned about the semite issue. I am not the slightest concerned about whether or not they think the CPRF is home to many anti-Semites, or that this is the worst thing going. This is entirely about whether or not people on this list can discuss matters with decorum and attempt to get somewhere. People who are career sectarians don't know it. I've been in that headspace where all around you are a host of Marxist "enemies", and not potential comrades. So be it he thinks this political. I forward this (and this is the last thing I forward from Meyers) so no one worry about what is being hidden from them. After that, I am asking Yoshie and Mine that we end discussion of the whole matter. We may not yet, but I hope so. Johannes was right about one thing in his letter to the list, that being my inexperience. But I learn very fast. Good night, and to all who are getting as bored with this as I- thank you for your patience. All storms do indeed subside. Macdonald Stainsby, Co-Moderator, Leninist International And now the rant: Dear Owen and Johannes, The banning of me and the suspension of Owen from L-I list is clear political anti-Leninist censorship. This is very obvious to anyone. Below is a response I just sent to Yoshie, who I do not know enough about, to write such a mail as this to you two. There are many such Marxist lists, and they are, in my opinion, the property of us all. I am going to use all these lists, and various other forums, to attack the injustice meted out to me and Owen. I do know how to use the internet to launch such a campaign - that is how ISWoR was built. But I would like the support of you both for this - and also I would like your opinions on the whole thing, before I begin. warm regards - Steve. XXX Subj: Yoshie - you are a moderator. Date: 17/01/01 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 17/01/01 18:40:35 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Steve wrote: > > >In particular Owen, your description of the KPRF as > >more of a reactionary danger to the Russian working class than even Putin's > >Kremlin, is very factual, considered and well thought out. > > The above is a mistaken estimation of the balance of power, > contradicted by the statement below: Owen wrote: > >They do advocate a cleaner, more stable and properly > >functioning capitalist system; but Putin has stolen their thunder in this > >respect with a concerted attempt to stabilise Russian capitalism, with > >certain measures against sections of the oligarchy and a policy of firm > >centralisation, as well as severe measures against the Russian proletariat, > >with a new Labour Code straight out of Tsarist law books. > > Yoshie Yoshie, Because I actually do consider the CPRF red-browns, and the RKRP to be objectively red-brown - and there is much evidence to point so - I cannot answer you on L-I. I know that Johannes does not agree with a life-ban or any ban by Macdonald, against me - and you are both moderators. Were you a participant in all this? And this nonsense that Owen should be banned for 2 weeks "until he cools down" - but he has not even got a little warm?! He put out one good document, that is all. It is because he politically disagree's with the narrow political line of one or two moderators. Are you going to stand for this? No one can hardly think that referring to an 'old goat' against someone who patronisingly tries to dismiss Owen as "al lad, 16", is flaming - Macdonald is clearly censoring serious Marxist arguments. I am a Leninist and proud of it! I also think Trotsky was the greatest revolutionary leader after Lenin in the last century. Every day, through International Solidarity with Workers in Russia, which I co-founded, I do practical work in support of actually existing workers' struggles. Last summer I organised and drove the only Russian Marxist Duma Deputy around Britian and Europe - a deputy who is a leader of workers' struggles and of the Zaschita union. This will not stop here - in a few days a campaign will be launched. L-I list moderators are going to have to answer for this - and I think you and Johannes should get it reversed asap - because your names are being dragged through the mud here, not mine at all. regards - Steve ps - you say of my praise of Owen's piece that >> > The above is a mistaken estimation of the balance of power, > contradicted by the statement below: << No mistake - the KPRF is the biggest political and social organisation in Russia. It will long outlive Putin, even though it is in decay. If the material base of the existence of classic Stalinism is the bureaucracy, ie a caste ruling over and eating away the workers' state (which they destroyed in the end) - and now that this material base is gone, they are objectively playing
Re: [L-I] Re: Whither the List?
I am going to post this conversation to the list so no one can be confused as to the basic dynamic of what we are doing here. If the list management is boring to you, delete now. To Mark, Yoshie writes: > I agree, except that a bit of occasional trench warfare is most > likely unavoidable (if it's not Steve & Owen, it will be someone else > in the future). It's a nature of the beast (political e-lists). Absolutely. Particularly on these types of matters. There is a difference between rigourous total debates and looking to pick fights. I would ask people to please do I suggested earlier and view the posts on Iskra and/or Proletarism on Egroups. Ask yourself if a word can be brought in edgewise. It reads almost like scripture in passion. This list must be different than that. If it can't be, we can give the list over to the moderators of Iskra and/or Proletarism to run, so people don't have to surf through adverts. I want no part of that. It isn't a Marxism designed for mass consumption or synthesis at all. It's designed for chatter boxes to make pronouncements. If the pronouncement is "wrong", well... > I > hope we will increase stellar contributions from thoughtful posters > -- the only way to minimize a possibility of trench warfare. Exactly. This reminds me of Phil Ferguson from Marxmail and his extremely valid point (for those who don't know, Phil is a man who writes for Revolution mag from NZ) that many of today's advocates of PR use it as a *substitute* rather than compliment to many arguments about many other left tendencies. The KPRF being only the current example. PR is, in many cases, right on the money. But it isn't an answer to what is wrong with the left. > I'd > like you (& of course everyone else here, too) to help the current > moderation team in our task. > > Yoshie > And I'd like to thank you for not being given to "siding" on this debate with threats or a belief that this was a coup or something. We have a job to do, and should get on it as soon as possible. I think that begins with try to lay out the new message we were working on before all this began. Macdonald and his 2 cents... ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] Zyuganov Interview 11 September 2000: Russian CP Leader Supports Kremlin, Drops Old Allies
En relación a [L-I] Zyuganov Interview 11 September 2000: Russi, el 17 Jan 01, a las 15:22, Yoshie Furuhashi dijo: > Zyuganov Interview 11 September 2000 > > > Russia today is at a crossroads. Either we following the new state > line which takes the national interest as its guide or continue with > the old policy of [acting prime minister in the early nineties Yegor] > Gaydar or rather [Economic Development and Trade Minister German] > Gref. If the choice is in favour of the latter, of liberal reforms > when the land is sold off and they try to finish off the nuclear > missile shield, when the railways are sold off and the last natural > monopolies are eliminated and when even our forests are sold into > private hands then there will be nothing left of Russia. Not too communist, isn't it? Plain bourgeois nationalism, isn't it? But in fact this is most probably the only way ANY revolutionary should express her or himself in Russia. I live in Argentina, a country where it would have been good to have a strong "PCRA" (that is, a Communist Party of the Argentinean Republic) offering support to, say, Raúl Alfonsín in 1983 in exchange of, er, let me read again, yes: struggle against the liberal reformers such as Martínez de Hoz (our Gaidar), Cavallo, and so on. It is very hard to understand, even for the most honest of comrades living in a core country in the West, what does it mean when a country begins to suffer from "the nostalgies of having been and the pain of not being any more", as a tango says. When you are under constant harassment, and you see everything crumbling around you, when you begin to sense that there is almost no power left in your country but the power of the state, when you discover the frenzy of destructive folly that recolonization means (particularly in a country such as Russia, or in a sense Argentina, where people had become convinced that whatever could happen there would be no relapse into the worst times of our past), when you begin to take your bearings in such a particular kind of landscape, then you discover that a policy such as the one advanced by Zyuganov may be quite interesting. In the end, when Hugo Moyano, the union leader in Argentina, claims that his CGT is not against De la Rúa, but against the IMF, and that they are ready to support the former against the latter, is doing more or less what Zyuganov proposes here. [...] It seems to me that he is playing judo, trying to use the enemy's power to his own benefit, seeking to enlarge splits in the ruling coalition (1) and offering popular support to the most progressive forces within it. Please read the following with the above in mind: > The government is > currently developing one policy to revive the homeland and another > which is promoted by the same group which has tortured the country > for ten years and which seeks to sell off all the natural monopolies, > including our forests. We will work with those who support our > national interests. [...] It looks like Zyuganov shares my general description of the situation. I don't know if this is good for me or not, but he can't be accused of inconsequence, he acts according to what he perceives to be true: > There are two groups: one is the continuation of the family [Yeltsin > clan], Berezovskiy, [energy chief Anatoliy] Chubays and Gref. This > group is now doing everything it can to divide the railways into 17 > sectors and privatize them. That would spell the end of Russia as a > single unit. Let's say [Deputy Prime Minister Viktor] Khristenko and > his team have prepared a programme for selling off our forests into > private hands. Sixty-nine per cent of the territory of Russia is > forest. It is our national wealth... Putin instructs him to stop > destroying the industry. But they have already sold the pulp and > paper industry and stopped timber processing. Later on, he explains that the financial clique rules in spite of popular vote: > The whole of our finances and the > budget is in the hands of Chubays's mob. The whole lot. They have > brought forward the new budget in the Duma. There's a bit more. But > what is the overall policy in this new budget? There is nothing for > science and the training of scientists. There is virtually nothing > for investment... Then, crassly IMHO, he attempts to provide Putin with a programme of his own, as if his ministers were not his programme. But this is non consequential. The important fact is that Zyuganov is trying to lead resistence during a protracted retreat that is costing blood and pain for every Russian still alive. But he certainly is NOT a Fascist. It would probably not be out of reason to remember everybody here that true Fascism is the undisguised rule of great capital, and that Russia is under attack from the great capital, not a member of such a select club. NOTES (1) if I am not wrong, it is a coalition between the military -who strive for "revival of the homeland" and the lower ranks of the bure
[L-I] Re: Whither the List?
Mark: > > we don't want to lose someone like Johannes >> from the list, do we? He's on the side of anti-imperialism. >> >> >ONE part is revolutionary and >> >wishes to overthrow capitalism; the other is accommodationist and >>has no such >> >intention. >> >> The problem is that the CPRF has & will accommodate itself to >> Yeltsin, Putin, etc., remaining a "responsible" opposition, to borrow >> Zyuganov's own words. > >Yoshie, I didn't expel Johannes or ask him to leave, so you're >talking to the wrong >person. I actually have only myself to blame, for being absent at the crucial moment. I was busy with work & the need to prepare & give a talk on East Timor at a local political gathering. I'd like this list to be a place where different Leninist tendencies can co-exist & debate questions of importance, free from personal attacks. The objective as you spelled out at the inception of the list. That means that those like Steve & Owen refrain from becoming obsessed with unsavory political aspects on the periphery (they should see the beam in their own eyes -- the sorry state of the Western Left!) and at the same time those like you & Lou try not to react to the former too predictably. After all, our main job is to make Marxism grow where we're at. As it happens, the tendencies represented by Steve & Owen recently are _real problems_ in the Western Left, but we can't overcome them if our rhetoric has an effect of losing those like Johannes to the other side, so to speak. >As for the cprf, why is it any more a problem that it is a reformist not a >revolutionary party than is the case with any mass electoral party anywhere on >earth? It is not more of a problem than other outfits of the same character, though due to the strategic weight of Russia, I do feel the need to pay closer attention to it than similar entities in smaller nations. It is, however, much less of a problem than the state of the Left in the West >Russia is a normal capitalist country at least in the sense that there is >simply no social space nor historical opportunity for a mass >revolutionary party >there. It is simply fantasy to suppose that the kprf could be other >than it is, and >still be permitted to exist. *THAT* is the problem. We do not live >in an era of >revolution. It is useless to waste time excoriating Zyuganov for being what he >cannot help being. The idea that if Zyuganov was a little more >honest, bolshevik, >revolutionary etc, there would be the insurrectionary overtrhow of >capitalism in >Russia is, I repeat, simply fantasy. The fact that people like >Kagarlitsky, who >should know better, also seem to share this fantasy, changes >nothing. But in fact, K >does know better. He is chasing the kprf for the same reason >ultra-left sectarians >always do this: in order to appear to be on the side of the angels >while actually >NOT doing anything politically, ie, not actually attacking >capitalist state, society >etc etc. I agree with you on Kagarlitsky, though that doesn't make everything he writes irrelevant. The point is that we are biding time in the un-revolutionary times, so we want to clarify our thoughts (both at the level of theory and at that of conjunctural analysis) while doing so. This, I believe, is what e-lists like this should focus on. A ruthless criticism of everything existing, an analysis that is as objective as possible. >Now I'm not so ill and I'm in a mood to try to help the >list get back on track. What I mean by this is that we should not indulge >sectarianism here. But trench warfare is what we don't >want. By all means, let us talk about substantive issues. I agree, except that a bit of occasional trench warfare is most likely unavoidable (if it's not Steve & Owen, it will be someone else in the future). It's a nature of the beast (political e-lists). I hope we will increase stellar contributions from thoughtful posters -- the only way to minimize a possibility of trench warfare. I'd like you (& of course everyone else here, too) to help the current moderation team in our task. Yoshie ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] Re: Whither the List?
I am going to show how ignorant I am. I know that red means communist, pink means left, green means environmental, black anarchist, an Orangeman means pro-British, ,etc. What is a red/brown alliance? In the Southwest US it means Native Americans and Chicanos but I don't think that is what you mean? ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
Mark: >Yoshie wrote: >> Putin, by co-opting anti-Semitic & anti-liberal rhetoric widespread >> in Russia, can coopt the themes of "socialism = the modern form of >> Russian patriotism" as well. The CPRF has only itself to blame, >> since it's happy with the role of the loyal opposition. > >On the contrary, Putin has been at pains to publicly oppose anti-semitism. For >example: > >BBC MONITORING >PUTIN CRACKS JEWISH JOKE AT THE OPENING OF COMMUNITY CENTRE >Source: NTV International, Moscow in Russian 1800 gmt 18 Sep 00 The man's craftier than Zyuganov, I gather. He has his supporters use the anti-Semitic rhetoric, avoiding it himself. Yoshie ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
The joke was disgusting, by the way. AD At 10:23 PM 1/17/2001 -, you wrote: >Yoshie wrote: >> Putin, by co-opting anti-Semitic & anti-liberal rhetoric widespread >> in Russia, can coopt the themes of "socialism = the modern form of >> Russian patriotism" as well. The CPRF has only itself to blame, >> since it's happy with the role of the loyal opposition. > >On the contrary, Putin has been at pains to publicly oppose anti-semitism. For >example: > >BBC MONITORING >PUTIN CRACKS JEWISH JOKE AT THE OPENING OF COMMUNITY CENTRE >Source: NTV International, Moscow in Russian 1800 gmt 18 Sep 00 > >[Correspondent] Vladimir Putin is the second Russian president who have >opened a synagogue. The first was Boris Yeltsin, who was present at the >consecration of a chapel on Poklonnaya Gora [Great Patriotic War memorial >in Moscow]. Today Putin took part in the opening of a Jewish community >centre - the largest in Eastern Europe. First, the president was invited to >have a look inside - the community had a lot to be proud about. Apart from >a synagogue, the seven-storey building will house a library, a gym, a >cinema, an Internet-cafe, a huge kosher restaurant and offices... > >[Correspondent] Putin spoke briefly, but passionately, saying that the >times of state anti-Semitism in Russia are gone forever. He ended on a more >personal note. > >[Putin] I met Gennadiy Khazanov [popular Jewish stand-up comedian] today >and we had lunch together. He told me a good joke. It goes like this: a >Jewish family man walks about his home stark naked, save for his tie. His >wife asks him indignantly what does he think he is doing walking around >like this. To this, the man says can't he just take it easy in is his own >home? OK says the wife, I suppose you can. But must you wear a tie? Well, >the man says, what if we get visitors? [laughter] And I think now that we >have this community centre opened, we can all take it easy, take our ties >off and enjoy ourselves because this will be a meeting place for everybody... >> > > >___ >Leninist-International mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international > ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
It's not a matter of "political analysis". It has nothing to do with "rank-and-file members". It's a question if Myers lies or tells the truth that Makashov's position in the KPRF is higher than a CC member. He lies. Very simple. Best, AD At 03:27 PM 1/17/2001 -0500, you wrote: >> >Makahov is very famous for these quotes all the time as not just a CC member >>>of the KPRF, but higher than this - >> >>Higher than a Member of the Central Committee? >>What do you mean? >> >>There are millions of Communists in Russia. So what? > >It is essential to separate rank-and-file members from officials in >political analysis of the CPRF. > >Yoshie > >___ >Leninist-International mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international > ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: Zyuganov Interview 11 September 2000: Russian CP Leader Supports Kremlin, Drops Old Allies
Yoshie: > First of all, Russian leftists need to expand the base for support of > Communism beyond "platoons of pensioners"! I don't think they can > expand it while accommodating themselves to Putin, though. It seems > to me that Zyuganov ain't smart or ambitious enough to use Putin for > his social-democratic purpose. What's happening is the other way > around, most likely. actually you raise important and central issues, I think. You also spoke about rising tides of dissent and protest which is not yet politically focussed or canalised. The problem is that is is simply and literally impossible to create mass revolutionary parties under today's conditions when the overpowering, stifling and suffocating weight of US imperialism, ideological hegemony etc, simply strangles almost every form of protest, even the most seemingly innocuous and vapid. We live in a world where US finance and monopoly capitalism is strong enough not merely to snuff out the socialist ideals or national pretensions of ex-Soviet people, but even to trample on US democracy itself. At the same time as there exists a monstrous apparatus of mass surveillance, of mind-policing, and of thousands of insidious forms of mass coercion and persuasion, there also exists the seemingly unanswerable logic of mass consumerism with its intense, hypnotic influence over mass consciousness. However, despite the seemingly overwhelming pressure of imperialism and of ideological hegemony and political control, the world system is so inherently unstable and riven with contradictions that crises and upheavals of variopus kinds are surely simply inevitable. Perhaps it is true, as Clinton says, that 'the state of the Union has never been stronger' but it is also true that world capitalism faces certain fundamental problems which it cannot yet overcome and which collectively constitute a serious historical impasse. These objective contradictions are why it is important that we also discuss the subjective questions of working class political organisation, of our programmatic and ideological goals. Your own contribution to this is really very important, of course, and we all of us accept this. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Re: Zyuganov Interview 11 September 2000: Russian CP LeaderSupports Kremlin, Drops Old Allies
Mark: > > Zyuganov Interview 11 September 2000 >> >> BBC MONITORING >> ZYUGANOV INTERVIEW: RUSSIAN COMMUNIST LEADER EXPANDS ON MOVE TO >> SUPPORT KREMLIN, DROP OLD ALLIES > >but if you read what the man says, is it so unreasonable? It's a reasonable remark from a reasonable parliamentarian, no? > > Russia today is at a crossroads. Either we following the new state >> line which takes the national interest as its guide or continue with >> the old policy of [acting prime minister in the early nineties Yegor] >> Gaydar or rather [Economic Development and Trade Minister German] >> Gref. If the choice is in favour of the latter, of liberal reforms >> when the land is sold off and they try to finish off the nuclear >> missile shield, when the railways are sold off and the last natural >> monopolies are eliminated and when even our forests are sold into >> private hands then there will be nothing left of Russia. >> >> So we shall do everything we can to ensure that people who understand >> how far things have gone and recognize that very little time indeed >> is left in which to take decisions gain the upper hand in the >> executive structure. > >What do you expect him today, lead platoons of pensioners in an assault on the >Telegraph Office, Kremlin etc? First of all, Russian leftists need to expand the base for support of Communism beyond "platoons of pensioners"! I don't think they can expand it while accommodating themselves to Putin, though. It seems to me that Zyuganov ain't smart or ambitious enough to use Putin for his social-democratic purpose. What's happening is the other way around, most likely. Yoshie ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
Mark: >>you don't think that the CPRF = Marxism-Leninism, do you? >No, no and again no, as Vladimir Ilyich might say. I know where you stand. The rhetorical question was for the benefit of L-I listers whose acquaintance with you doesn't go back very far. >But so what? Is it the use of the >name 'communist' which winds people up into such hysterical >frenzies? But we have >had non-communist communist parties for years and decades and people >have fogiven >them their tactless misappropriation of the name (eg, CPUSA, PCF, >PCI, Chinese CP >etc etc). So why single out poor Zyuganov? I don't mean to single out the poor fellow. I simply mentioned the CPRF since the recent threads had revolved around it. > > Russia today, it seems to me, is virtually free from Marxism-Leninism. >By what test? According to a recent poll, Russians voted Lenin as >'man of the 20th >century' (followed by Stalin) by handsome majorities. There is a well-attested >yearning for the good old soviet days, which all polls confirm. Even >if Kagarlitsky >is right in rubbishing the kprf, there is no getting away from the >fact that the >Kremlin and its western minders acknowledge *the need* for the kprf, >because of the >huge residual popularity of Communist ideas, values etc. > >And I know it's true, because I've spent time there. I believe you, and I myself have read many reports attesting to the existence of the powerful yearning for the good & even bad old Soviet days. The problem for Russian leftists is that there is no Leninist party that can catalyze the powerful yearning & channel it into the revolutionary direction. That is probably because the yearning has yet to transform itself into a militant mass movement. I think that such transformation will occur one day, but when it happens, I expect that Zyuganov & the like will be sidelined. Yoshie ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: Whither the List?
Yoshie: > we don't want to lose someone like Johannes > from the list, do we? He's on the side of anti-imperialism. > > >ONE part is revolutionary and > >wishes to overthrow capitalism; the other is accommodationist and has no such > >intention. > > The problem is that the CPRF has & will accommodate itself to > Yeltsin, Putin, etc., remaining a "responsible" opposition, to borrow > Zyuganov's own words. Yoshie, I didn't expel Johannes or ask him to leave, so you're talking to the wrong person. As for the cprf, why is it any more a problem that it is a reformist not a revolutionary party than is the case with any mass electoral party anywhere on earth? Russia is a normal capitalist country at least in the sense that there is simply no social space nor historical opportunity for a mass revolutionary party there. It is simply fantasy to suppose that the kprf could be other than it is, and still be permitted to exist. *THAT* is the problem. We do not live in an era of revolution. It is useless to waste time excoriating Zyuganov for being what he cannot help being. The idea that if Zyuganov was a little more honest, bolshevik, revolutionary etc, there would be the insurrectionary overtrhow of capitalism in Russia is, I repeat, simply fantasy. The fact that people like Kagarlitsky, who should know better, also seem to share this fantasy, changes nothing. But in fact, K does know better. He is chasing the kprf for the same reason ultra-left sectarians always do this: in order to appear to be on the side of the angels while actually NOT doing anything politically, ie, not actually attacking capitalist state, society etc etc. > > I don't, however, question any L-I poster's _desire_ to overthrow > capitalism, least of all yours. That posters are filled with > revolutionary desire doesn't mean, though, that some of us may not > commit some errors trying achieve our objective. If this list is to > amount to anything, it should become a place where comrades can > correct comrades, without needless outbursts deflecting attention > from substantial issues. That's what you wanted yourself, no? I'd rather you said what's on your mind than resort to innuendo. I am not a moderator here but you are. My position is clear: I gave up moderating l-i when I was too ill to continue. Now I'm not so ill and I'm in a mood to try to help the list get back on track. What I mean by this is that we should not indulge sectarianism here. Have you forgotten the prehistory of lists like this? The *whole point* about l-i was that it should be a non-sectarian and leninist platform. I have always encouraged debate and it was I who first invited Johannes to particpate, altho I obviously do not share his politics. But trench warfare is what we don't want. I am very glad you are participating + moderating and I hope you will use your undoubted skills as scholar, theorist, feminist and revolutionary to make the list a better and more useful political tool. By all means, let us talk about substantive issues. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
Social Democratic 'Movement' vs SD 'results'??? If you read Kagarlitshy's article, you can see that he does not do nothing but smear these two concepts together. According to him, if an SD Movement can't get SD results (as defined only by what the SDs were ceded in the imperialist bloc countries post World War Two), then it ceases to truly be an SD Movement! This is in keeping with the sectarian concept of supporting so-called 'labor parties' within the imperial bloc countries, yet rejecting those Leftists that try to do the same in countries in the Third World Bloc, as being reformists. This is an ideology that has a long sorry tradition in parties and tendencies coming out of the SWP-US tradition and disintegration. It has long been a factor in separating the Latin American Left from their disapproving (and sectarian) co-thinkers in the US Trotskyist Movement. An example is the support for critical endorsement of Blair, yet rejecting the same critical support for Cardenas of the PRD in Mexico. Instead of a 'two stage theory' of revolution, we have something of a 'two sets of political conduct' theory. Comrades in the imperialist bloc get the 'luxury' of giving a supposed critical support to SD currents in their own countries. At the same time, they get to constanly bait their co-thinkers in Third World countries as having 'crossed the class line', when all they are trying to do is to give the very same critical support to SD currents within their own countries. According to this 'Kagarlitsky' school of thought, SD currents never truly form unless they are in imperialist countries where the captalist class can give out niblets of 'social progress. Giving critical support then becomes a reactionary betrayal by the Third World Leftists that try to approach these SD currents, not recognized as such, by the supposedly more advanced 'socialists' in the imperial countries. It is kind of an immigration/ Berlin wall of The International Left. Third World comrades get kept in their place theoretically, while merely orientating to the SD in the same reasonable manner that their imperial cousins are doing in their own Left parties in the imperial core. Tony Abdo ___ ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Re: Whither the List?
Mark: > > The clarity of revolutionary Leninist politics can't be achieved if >> one part of the Left remains trapped in the overblown fear of >> Red-Brown alliances on the periphery and the other part falls for the >> overestimation of political capacity of whatever party or movement >> that claims to be patriotic, socialist, etc. (e.g. the CPRF). >> >> Indeed, we need to raise the level of the debate here! I ask sober >> heads who are still here to post their thoughts. > >begs a question. Firstly and IN PRINCIPLE I do not think it is >Leninist to accord equal merit to 'one part of the left or another'. I don't either. However, we don't want to lose someone like Johannes from the list, do we? He's on the side of anti-imperialism. >ONE part is revolutionary and >wishes to overthrow capitalism; the other is accommodationist and has no such >intention. The problem is that the CPRF has & will accommodate itself to Yeltsin, Putin, etc., remaining a "responsible" opposition, to borrow Zyuganov's own words. I don't, however, question any L-I poster's _desire_ to overthrow capitalism, least of all yours. That posters are filled with revolutionary desire doesn't mean, though, that some of us may not commit some errors trying achieve our objective. If this list is to amount to anything, it should become a place where comrades can correct comrades, without needless outbursts deflecting attention from substantial issues. That's what you wanted yourself, no? >Second, as Tony properly says, outfits like ISWOR are not part of >the left at all, >they are stooges of imperialism. It's no secret that I feel very close to Tony's position on Yugoslavia, etc. I admire him for trying to intervene in the debate within Solidarity. I couldn't muster my will to do the same, though he invited me to. Yoshie ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Re: Program, Organization, Conjuncture
> > Last year I had my e-mail program crash, so I lost the Crashlist URL, >> among other things. Can you mail the URL to me or post it here? >> >> Yoshie > >I'll sub you if you like. > >Mark Thank you. Go ahead and sub me. Yoshie ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
>Yoshie, what is it about this analysis by Kagarlitsky that you find to >be of merit? I find the idea that countries of the capitalist >''periphery" cannot have Social Democratic movements ludicrous. They >do all the time. Colombia and Mexico have both recently had Social >Democratic formations playing a prominant role in their political life, >just to pose two examples. Kagarlitsky says that Russia can't??? > >Tony Abdo > >Kagarlitsky. >capitalist "centre", where the ruling class is able to make concessions >to the workers because it controls additional resources on the >"periphery". Russia is now part of the periphery of world capitalism, >and for this very reason, efforts to construct western-style social >democracy here have been doomed to failure. >So if the KPRF is not being social-democratised, what is happening to >it?> On the periphery, you can still have social democratic "movements," but you can't have social democratic results on a par with social democracy in rich nations. Yoshie ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
Yoshie wrote: > Putin, by co-opting anti-Semitic & anti-liberal rhetoric widespread > in Russia, can coopt the themes of "socialism = the modern form of > Russian patriotism" as well. The CPRF has only itself to blame, > since it's happy with the role of the loyal opposition. On the contrary, Putin has been at pains to publicly oppose anti-semitism. For example: BBC MONITORING PUTIN CRACKS JEWISH JOKE AT THE OPENING OF COMMUNITY CENTRE Source: NTV International, Moscow in Russian 1800 gmt 18 Sep 00 [Correspondent] Vladimir Putin is the second Russian president who have opened a synagogue. The first was Boris Yeltsin, who was present at the consecration of a chapel on Poklonnaya Gora [Great Patriotic War memorial in Moscow]. Today Putin took part in the opening of a Jewish community centre - the largest in Eastern Europe. First, the president was invited to have a look inside - the community had a lot to be proud about. Apart from a synagogue, the seven-storey building will house a library, a gym, a cinema, an Internet-cafe, a huge kosher restaurant and offices... [Correspondent] Putin spoke briefly, but passionately, saying that the times of state anti-Semitism in Russia are gone forever. He ended on a more personal note. [Putin] I met Gennadiy Khazanov [popular Jewish stand-up comedian] today and we had lunch together. He told me a good joke. It goes like this: a Jewish family man walks about his home stark naked, save for his tie. His wife asks him indignantly what does he think he is doing walking around like this. To this, the man says can't he just take it easy in is his own home? OK says the wife, I suppose you can. But must you wear a tie? Well, the man says, what if we get visitors? [laughter] And I think now that we have this community centre opened, we can all take it easy, take our ties off and enjoy ourselves because this will be a meeting place for everybody... > ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] To moderators from Russia
> My name is Svetlana Baiborodova. I am a chairwomen of Samara branch of
> Russian Association of the Workers Trade Union "Defense of Labor", a member
> of Coordinating Commitee of the All-Russian Campaign in Defense of Acting
> Labor Code, an editor of weekly Left.ru ("Left Russia"): http://left.ru.
I am sure we'd all want to welcome Svetlana to this list. It is very good to
establish cordial relations with Russian leftist and working class organisations. I
hope that she will play an active part in our discussions. When comrades honestly
and sincerely strive to understand each other's positions, and diligently seek to
explain and analyse differences, much can be achieved. But to begin by attacking the
moderators is not helpful. Rather than begin with a discussion of personalities and
of list policy, I think it would be more useful if Svetlana informed the list about
the activities of her organisation in Samara, and about its viewpoint and arguments,
and also if she asks any questions she has about the political orientations etc of
other people on the list. Then we can hope to find some common ground, or anyway to
understand one another better.
Mark
___
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] To moderators from Russia
>I and my comrades in Russia want to read Vladimir Bilenkin`s point of view >on problems disturbing us in living discussion with all other participants >of your list. >I hope, you will heed our request and correct the situation. > >Comradely, >Svetlana Baiborodova I think Vladimir was thrown off not for what he wrote about Russia, but what he wrote about the USA where he lives: "The big problem in Florida was that democratic operatives gave voters the wrong information. They bused illiterate blacks to the polls and told them to punch a hole on every page - forgetting there were 2 pages of presidential candidates. . . .The reasons the dems didn't want to join in on the black complaints was simple. Black voting in Florida was up 65%. A full 16% of all votes cast in Florida were cast by black voters. Yet, only 13% of Florida's population is black. It's almost impossible to make a claim that they were disenfranchised, when they were actually overrepresented at the polls." This business about busing "illiterate blacks to the polls" is racist. Frankly, I was shocked to read this. I haven't seen anything Vladimir has written in probably 5 years when he was one of the most disruptive Trotskyists in cyberspace. I am afraid he has shifted far to the right. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] To moderators from Russia
>Nestor, that was Vladimir Bilenkin. All four (when we were four) of us
dumped him.
>
>in other words, he wont respond.
>
>Macdonald
>
Dear comrade Macdonald Stainsby and other moderators!
My name is Svetlana Baiborodova. I am a chairwomen of Samara branch of
Russian Association of the Workers Trade Union "Defense of Labor", a member
of Coordinating Commitee of the All-Russian Campaign in Defense of Acting
Labor Code, an editor of weekly Left.ru ("Left Russia"): http://left.ru.
The Russian workers and leftist feel deficiency in knowledges of real
situation with Western working class, its class consciousness and its
ability to stand together with other detachments of the world working class,
in particular, with Russian workers in the future united front for
socialism, against imperialism. I believe it is very important for us to
know different opinions of Western leftists to this problem.
That`s why till today I have been reading with great interest articles and
letters have been posted on the Leninist-International list. We placed some
of them in our weekly "Left.ru" and now the Russian leftist have opportunity
to read your texts.
I have been interested very much in the discussion started on your list
about the imperial working class. Espessialy the point of veiw of comrade
Vladimir Bilenkin attracted my attention.
But now I have read that "he wont respond" because he is dumped.
Why did you do this? I am at a loss and surprised unpleasantly. Till today I
considered that we, the Russian leftists, should learn from our Western
comrades how to organize the broad and free discussion like on
Leninist-International list. Can it really be my mistake? Can you really
consider that dumping is one of means for search of truth? I do not want to
believe that it is so.
I and my comrades in Russia want to read Vladimir Bilenkin`s point of view
on problems disturbing us in living discussion with all other participants
of your list.
I hope, you will heed our request and correct the situation.
Comradely,
Svetlana Baiborodova
___
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: Program, Organization, Conjuncture
> Last year I had my e-mail program crash, so I lost the Crashlist URL, > among other things. Can you mail the URL to me or post it here? > > Yoshie I'll sub you if you like. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: Whither the List?
I think Yoshie's interventions are helpful and I am obliged to her for them. HOWEVER: to say > The clarity of revolutionary Leninist politics can't be achieved if > one part of the Left remains trapped in the overblown fear of > Red-Brown alliances on the periphery and the other part falls for the > overestimation of political capacity of whatever party or movement > that claims to be patriotic, socialist, etc. (e.g. the CPRF). > > Indeed, we need to raise the level of the debate here! I ask sober > heads who are still here to post their thoughts. begs a question. Firstly and IN PRINCIPLE I do not think it is Leninist to accord equal merit to 'one part of the left or another'. ONE part is revolutionary and wishes to overthrow capitalism; the other is accommodationist and has no such intention. The phraseology they use may be almost identical, mensheviks v. bolsheviks q.v., but there is a world of difference IN PRACTICE, no? Second, as Tony properly says, outfits like ISWOR are not part of the left at all, they are stooges of imperialism. If I ran the CIA or MI5 I probably wouldn't help out this kind of thing, but I'm not sure thay are so dignified and noble-minded. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Zyuganov Interview 11 September 2000: Russian CP Leader Supports Kremlin, Drops Old Allies
Yoshie wrote > > Zyuganov Interview 11 September 2000 > > BBC MONITORING > ZYUGANOV INTERVIEW: RUSSIAN COMMUNIST LEADER EXPANDS ON MOVE TO > SUPPORT KREMLIN, DROP OLD ALLIES but if you read what the man says, is it so unreasonable? > Russia today is at a crossroads. Either we following the new state > line which takes the national interest as its guide or continue with > the old policy of [acting prime minister in the early nineties Yegor] > Gaydar or rather [Economic Development and Trade Minister German] > Gref. If the choice is in favour of the latter, of liberal reforms > when the land is sold off and they try to finish off the nuclear > missile shield, when the railways are sold off and the last natural > monopolies are eliminated and when even our forests are sold into > private hands then there will be nothing left of Russia. > > So we shall do everything we can to ensure that people who understand > how far things have gone and recognize that very little time indeed > is left in which to take decisions gain the upper hand in the > executive structure. What do you expect him today, lead platoons of pensioners in an assault on the Telegraph Office, Kremlin etc? Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
you don't think that the CPRF = Marxism-Leninism, do you? No, no and again no, as Vladimir Ilyich might say. But so what? Is it the use of the name 'communist' which winds people up into such hysterical frenzies? But we have had non-communist communist parties for years and decades and people have fogiven them their tactless misappropriation of the name (eg, CPUSA, PCF, PCI, Chinese CP etc etc). So why single out poor Zyuganov? > > Since your comeback, you have argued for the importance of > revolutionary theory & the need to debate it on this list. This may > as well be our point of departure. indeed. > > Russia today, it seems to me, is virtually free from Marxism-Leninism. By what test? According to a recent poll, Russians voted Lenin as 'man of the 20th century' (followed by Stalin) by handsome majorities. There is a well-attested yearning for the good old soviet days, which all polls confirm. Even if Kagarlitsky is right in rubbishing the kprf, there is no getting away from the fact that the Kremlin and its western minders acknowledge *the need* for the kprf, because of the huge residual popularity of Communist ideas, values etc. And I know it's true, because I've spent time there. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
Yoshie wrote: > > The CPRF's program, such as it is, can never be achieved by the > CPRF's means. This means that it's a normal party no? Operating according to the normal rules of hypocrisy, double-dealing, sanctimoniousness etc of bourgeois parties everywhere. Until just a few years ago, the British Labour Party's programme for more than 70 years had contained the famous Clause 4, which obliged the party when in govt to take the means of production (!) into national ownership and to secure the full fruits of those who labour by hand and brain, in a just and equitable system of distribution. Nobody called all Labour MPs, ministers etc, systematic thieves, crooks and liars when they did the exact opposite, because no-one ever expected them to carry out any part of their programme. Why is not the same decency, the same right to a fig-leaf, permitted to the KPRF? Actually, hypocrisy is all right in its way. The 'Red Directors' who now squat like tribal hetmen over the plunder of state and party, or the famous oligarchs, are not hypocrites: they honestly behave like feudal barbarians. Which is better? Let's face it, the hypocritical morality of the bourgeois is the only public morality we've got. Better that than the alternative. This from JRL: Foreign Policy January-February 2001 In Other Words True Crime, Russian-Style By Chrystia Freeland Okhota na izyubrya (Stag Hunting) By Julia Latynina 527 pages, Moscow: Olma-Press and St. Petersburg: Neva, 1999 (in Russian) Pity the would-be Russian thriller writer. A big part of the pleasure we take in the latest blockbuster mob movie or bestselling crime novel is the sheer, children's-bedtime-story catharsis of entering an imaginary world whose dangers are vivid, yet safely removed from the struggles of our ordinary existence. But in postcommunist Russia, "real life" is as lurid and scary as any John Grisham pot-boiler. This is a country where a small-business owner, engaged in a trade as mundane as selling shoes, must pay local gangsters more often than the electric company. Here, tax officials sometimes wear bulletproof vests, conceal their faces in black balaclavas, and carry machine guns; the best restaurants have metal detectors in the foyer; and the country's leading tycoons routinely must evade car bombs and flee the country under threat of arrest. And as for luridb well, one of Moscow's most popular news programs features an anchorwoman who strips while she recites the day's top stories. Against the backdrop of this surreal reality, Russian journalist Julia Latynina's attempt to write an "economic thriller" is a heroic undertaking. She tells the story of a Moscow banking oligarch's underhanded campaign to seize control of a Siberian metallurgical factory from Vyacheslav Izvolsky, the plant's tough, young local owner. The book's publishers have tried to set the tone with a pulpish cover featuring a steely-eyed assassin cocking his pistol at the reader. Latynina gamely struggles to keep the book jacket's guns-and-molls promise. She stages a gangland shootout, gives us a couple of scenes of creatively gruesome torture, and, by the end of the book, manages to tote up three corpses, a half-dozen assassination attempts, and several encounters with the prostitutes of Moscow's casino land. It's a noble effort, but ultimately, Latynina is outgunned by the sheer brutality of everyday Russian life. In a country where a week of headlines produces more gore than all 527 pages of Stag Hunting, Latynina's thriller never quite manages to thrill. That may be why Stag Hunting hasn't quite achieved the runaway popular success its publishersb who touted the novel as "a book with every chance of becoming a national best-seller"b had hoped for. But Latynina's work has become a must-read for the select group of mostly Moscow-based journalists, pundits, politicians, and executives who unselfconsciously refer to themselves as the Russian elita. Stag Hunting owes its influence among the elita to the meticulously detailed economic story Latynina tells once she has dispensed with her sex-and-guns subplots. As one of Russia's leading business journalists, Latynina is an able guide to the intricacies of post-Soviet economic life. She deftly combines a firm grasp of the dizzying financial detail of Russian businessb an intentionally confusing realm of barter, arrears, and offshore bank accountsb with a clear understanding of the larger, systemic role these transactions serve. When it comes to interpreting the Russian economy, Latynina is, to borrow Isaiah Berlin's terms, both a fox and a hedgehog, and that is what makes Stag Hunting such a fascinating book. The novel, which helpfully includes a three-page appendix listing all the banks, offshore companies, and trading firms attached to the Siberian metallurgical factory that is the main theater of action, is full of riveting detail. Latynina explains precisely how factory directors use offshore firms to evade taxes, illus
[L-I] Re: Program, Organization, Conjuncture
Mark: > > A revolutionary organization with a clear program has yet to come >> into being in my corner of the planet. What of yours? In the >> absence of a revolutionary party active within a mass movement, into >> what should one assimilate? We have to build it, first of all. >> >> Now, why don't you lay out your analysis of the present conjuncture, > > now that you are here? That should be a good point of departure. > >Ah, I see you are indeed working on the uroborus principle of >circularity. You can't >build a party without a theory, and you can't have a theory without >first having a >party seems to be your position. IMO what you have to do is (a) make >some kind of >analysis of the global conjuncture; (b) persuade other people of it >and (c) organise >around it. No, we already have a pretty good theory (Marx & Lenin are substantially correct); theory isn't the same as an analysis of the current conjuncture, though. What we don't have in our corners of the earth (the UK & the USA) is a growing mass movement on the Left whose spontaneous militancy is such that we can "persuade other people of" & "organize around" a Marxist & Leninist analysis of the global conjuncture. >You have already long ago rejected my version of (a). You mean your analysis of the environment? >If you want to know where I think (a) is at, check out the crashlist >website and >archive. There is a good resume of where (a) is, written by Stan Goff. Last year I had my e-mail program crash, so I lost the Crashlist URL, among other things. Can you mail the URL to me or post it here? Yoshie ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] My resignation as moderator from L-I
> ((( > > CB: Please give an example of a successful list . > > It would be invidious to make examples, but I suppose that if Bob Malecki really has 312 people listening to him on his egroups list, perhaps we should call that a success, hey? Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
>Attempts to equate Marxism-Leninism with the ultra-right are not >only not new, they >are as old as socialism. > >Mark Sure, but you don't think that the CPRF = Marxism-Leninism, do you? Since your comeback, you have argued for the importance of revolutionary theory & the need to debate it on this list. This may as well be our point of departure. Russia today, it seems to me, is virtually free from Marxism-Leninism. Yoshie ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
> >Makahov is very famous for these quotes all the time as not just a CC member >>of the KPRF, but higher than this - > >Higher than a Member of the Central Committee? >What do you mean? > >There are millions of Communists in Russia. So what? It is essential to separate rank-and-file members from officials in political analysis of the CPRF. Yoshie ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] My resignation as moderator from L-I
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/17/01 10:21AM >>> > > CB: What the fuck is going on , Mark ? Why the hell would you call for > closing down the list like some goddamn the lord giveth and the lord taketh away ? If you've been following the exchanges you'll see that i'm concerned to make the list a success, not close it down. ((( CB: Please give an example of a successful list . maybe licence for a little hyperbole is permissible. but it must surely be clear that i want the list to succeed. i'm not responsible for johannes' or anyone else's misunderstandings. maybe you should ask him why he says the odd things he does. mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
Yoshie, what is it about this analysis by Kagarlitsky that you find to be of merit? I find the idea that countries of the capitalist ''periphery" cannot have Social Democratic movements ludicrous. They do all the time. Colombia and Mexico have both recently had Social Democratic formations playing a prominant role in their political life, just to pose two examples. Kagarlitsky says that Russia can't??? Tony Abdo Kagarlitsky. ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Zyuganov Interview 11 September 2000: Russian CP Leader SupportsKremlin, Drops Old Allies
Zyuganov Interview 11 September 2000 BBC MONITORING ZYUGANOV INTERVIEW: RUSSIAN COMMUNIST LEADER EXPANDS ON MOVE TO SUPPORT KREMLIN, DROP OLD ALLIES Source: Russia TV, Moscow, in Russian, 11 September 2000 Leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Gennadiy Zyuganov has said that he is prepared to back the Kremlin provided Putin gets rid of ministers who want to wipe out the natural monopolies and privatize the national wealth. Interviewed on Russia TV's "Podrobnosti" programme on 11th September, he said he did not intend to insist that the government resign but suggested that Putin should bring more representatives of the Unity movement into it at the expense of the privatizers. He said that the break announced today with governors Tuleyev, Rutskoy and Gorbenko had come about because the latter had chosen to go their own way and predicted that his party would score major successes in the governor elections without them. The following are excerpts from the interview. Subheadings have been inserted editorially. [Pashkov] Gennadiy Zyuganov, leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, said today that he is ready to support the executive authority in every way which corresponds with Russia's national interests, that the State Duma's progovernment Unity faction will very soon split and that this will be connected with the activities of former State Duma deputy Boris Berezovskiy and, finally, that the CPRF will refuse to support governors Rutskoy, Tuleyev and Gorbenko in the forthcoming elections for governor. Our guest on "Podrobnosti" today is CPRF leader Gennadiy Zyuganov... Conditions for supporting Kremlin Let's get down to the main issues straight away. Is the CPRF faction really ready this time to support the executive authority, the Kremlin? [Zyuganov] We have always worked energetically with people who are interested in the rebirth of our country and in the creation of normal conditions for people to work and live in. Russia today is at a crossroads. Either we following the new state line which takes the national interest as its guide or continue with the old policy of [acting prime minister in the early nineties Yegor] Gaydar or rather [Economic Development and Trade Minister German] Gref. If the choice is in favour of the latter, of liberal reforms when the land is sold off and they try to finish off the nuclear missile shield, when the railways are sold off and the last natural monopolies are eliminated and when even our forests are sold into private hands then there will be nothing left of Russia. So we shall do everything we can to ensure that people who understand how far things have gone and recognize that very little time indeed is left in which to take decisions gain the upper hand in the executive structure. Just lately Berezovskiy has been kicking up a big rumpus and putting on a public display with just one aim in mind: he wants to distract the public's attention from the main thing. The government is currently developing one policy to revive the homeland and another which is promoted by the same group which has tortured the country for ten years and which seeks to sell off all the natural monopolies, including our forests. We will work with those who support our national interests. [Q] And so, there is a sort of duality, a two-sidedness in your relations with the Kremlin, the government, the presidential administration and the president himself. You say you will support those who support the national interests of Russia, Can you name some names for us please. [Zyuganov] Indeed I can. There is a real fight going on right now. There are two groups: one is the continuation of the family [Yeltsin clan], Berezovskiy, [energy chief Anatoliy] Chubays and Gref. This group is now doing everything it can to divide the railways into 17 sectors and privatize them. That would spell the end of Russia as a single unit. Let's say [Deputy Prime Minister Viktor] Khristenko and his team have prepared a programme for selling off our forests into private hands. Sixty-nine per cent of the territory of Russia is forest. It is our national wealth... Putin instructs him to stop destroying the industry. But they have already sold the pulp and paper industry and stopped timber processing. So instead of doing what he's told, Khristenko summons and sacks all those who are investigating and tries to have the forests destroyed by some other mafia. So there's a few names for you from the group which is now ruthlessly and quickly trying to - [words lost as presenter interrupts] [Q] But you are naming people with whom the CPRF and you personally have had poor relations for a pretty long time already. There is nothing new about that - [Zyuganov] Hang on a minute Serezha. For now there is no Putin government. There is no [Prime Minister Mikhail] Kasyanov government either. There are these groups, one is the family [Yeltsi
[L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
Lou wrote: >The real issue >is not anti-Semitism or fascism, but the stubborn refusal of some radicals >to get on board the hate Yugoslavia campaign. Now that this is a dead >issue, the demagogues have turned their attention to Russia. Anybody who >does not take an oath of allegiance against the Communist Party of the >Russian Federation is once again tarred with the brush of the ultraright. _Both_ are real issues (& in fact they are _dialectical twins_), in that anti-Semitism in Russia -- socialism of fools -- is an index of political limitation, just as the failure of the Western Left to sustain anti-imperialism is. While there is no reason to promote an overblown fear of so-called Red-Brown alliances on the periphery, dismissing anti-Semitism as "not a real issue" doesn't help defend nations on the periphery from imperialist attacks, first of all because we can't win many to an anti-imperialist politics by dismissing the question just like that, instead of analyzing it. On the contrary, we end up losing anti-imperialist leftists like Johannes. (I myself refused to get on board with the "hate Yugoslavia" campaign, but that doesn't mean I agreed with Jared on his analysis, tactic, etc. either. Jared helped a lot by disseminating some useful info, and I thank him for it, but his glosses on info were sometimes counter-productive, in my opinion.) Skepticism about the political capacity & orientation of the CPRF, the Socialist Party of Yugoslavia, etc. is not at all the same as demagogic portrayals of Jared or anyone else. What we need is a cool-headed, judicious analysis, without which we can hardly make Marxism grow in influence in places where we find ourselves. As a co-moderator, I ask you & everyone else here to provide an analysis _free from wishful-thinking_. Also, I urge all to _separate the political from the personal_. Yoshie ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] Whither the List?
> Let them talk up their positions in their own style as they will, and > then respond as was being done most effectively by several commentators > before this breakdown began. > > I suggest an amnesty be declared. > > Tony Abdo Tony, if this list was the mouthpiece of elists for a revolutionary society, then I would agree with you. But it isn't. if you go to egoups and look up ISKRA and "Proletarism" you will find their lists. I felt very, very troubled about what had happened last night until I did that. I found lists that had 312 people and aproximately 200 something. They were posting now not on just the KPRF but also the Russian Communist Workers Party. Both are three parter anti-semetic `warnings'. The only people who post there are Steve Meyers, a man named Ben Seattle and their circle. The debates were actually around Bob Malecki. Picture this not as a party, but an embryonic meeting of those participants who are trying to build one. There is likely to be a Spart contingent or something similar that comes in to the meeting. If they do all the shouting at other people of similar views until *that becomes the meeting itself*, the meeting gets nowhere, good people go home early, and nothing at all about our situation is learned except a need to find a way to organize without the sectarians. yes, it's email and people can delete them "unheard", but these people will shout insults at the entire floor. There is no bridging the gap with such folks. Macdonald Stainsby ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
>Personally, I am not pleased with >calling the Zyuganov bunch "linked with the working class". They are >not like the SPS >or the PDS. They did not exist from 91- 93. Their reappearance was >to deliberately >hi-jack what was left of the workers movement, to my view. But I >haven't done the >homework. My impression comes from people like Kagarlitsky, and from the >mealy-mouthed rhetoric they have been speaking (depending on the day >of the week). > >Macdonald I don't care for Boris Kagarlitsky's politics very much, but he's no fool, and his analysis of the KPRF has something to recommend itself: * Five years of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation By Boris Kagarlitsky MOSCOW -- In February the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF) celebrated its fifth anniversary. In their commentaries on this event, Moscow's right-wing newspapers showed a striking unanimity: all were full of praise for party leader Gennady Zyuganov and his close associates. In the view of the newspaper Segodnya, the KPRF under Zyuganov had ceased to be communist and had become a social democratic organisation, respecting the new social order and devoted to private property. Western-style social democracy, however, requires a flourishing western capitalism. Social democracy first arose in western Europe under conditions that included developed democratic institutions, a strong labour movement and extensive room for capital to manoeuvre. Obviously, social democracy is possible only in the countries of the capitalist "centre", where the ruling class is able to make concessions to the workers because it controls additional resources on the "periphery". Russia is now part of the periphery of world capitalism, and for this very reason, efforts to construct western-style social democracy here have been doomed to failure. So if the KPRF is not being social-democratised, what is happening to it? When Zyuganov was elected leader in 1993, most observers were inclined to think that the party would shift abruptly to conservative and nationalist positions. But the congress delegates who voted for Zyuganov saw him as a decisive, combative leader, capable of doing what the other candidate -- the moderate, sober-minded Valentin Kuptsov -- was not. The rank-and-file party members wanted action and struggle. The degree to which they were themselves ready to take part in struggle was another question -- most of the registered members were of pensionable age. Zyuganov and Kuptsov managed not only to restore the party's organisational apparatus, but also to sideline rivals who stood to their right and left. The main victims were the radical Russian Communist Workers Party (RKRP) of Viktor Anpilov, and Lyudmila Vartazarova's moderate Socialist Party of Workers (SPT). The RKRP lost many of its activists, and the SPT a mass of passive pensioners. With these additional supporters, the KPRF became able to wage a credible struggle for power. Zyuganov's strength was thus his "will to power". It was this that united the fragments of the communist movement around him. But behind the striving for power there was neither a clear program, nor theory, nor a mass movement capable of taking power and effecting change spontaneously. Perhaps sincerely believing that he was saving the party, Zyuganov in October 1993 took his distance from the armed defenders of the Supreme Soviet building. To be sure, he saved the party. What he saved it for is another question. While the authorities stopped short of forcing the Communist Party underground, they made quite clear that it would have to respect the new rules of the game. Other left organisations were subjected to much more serious victimisation, and the more radical groups were forced out of legal politics. The radicals, however, lacked the boldness, the cadres and the resources for illegal struggle. There were not even serious acts of civil disobedience following the bombardment of the parliament building on October 4, 1993. The leaders of the radical opposition saved their lives and freedom, but at the price of political death. Failing to win seats in the State Duma, and losing their positions in the trade unions and the organs of local self-government, the radical left organisations finished up out of the game. Meanwhile, Zyuganov's fraction voted for the government's 1994 budget, showed no particular interest in the miners' strikes that broke out in the spring of 1994 and, in short, acted as a loyal "His Majesty's opposition". The authorities, in turn, relaxed their pressure. Most workers in Russia are now disorganised and dependent on management, and many of them have been sent on forced leave. Consequently, speaking of a labour movement and even of a working class is possible only with serious reservations. The social base of the KPRF consists not of workers, but of pensioners, managers of former collective
Re: [L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
Yoshie: >The CPRF's program, such as it is, can never be achieved by the >CPRF's means. I'm afraid that the anti-Semitic rhetoric employed by >some officials of the CPRF is not just a reflection of "a society in >deep crisis" but also rooted in the CPRF's social democratic >orientation, easily harnessed by someone like Putin. Anti-Semitism >is an index of the very limited criticism of capitalism (e.g., a >criticism of finance & "foreign" profiteers, with no readiness to >reject capitalism wholesale); it's a "socialism of fools." Not >surprisingly, Putin is _not at all_ afraid of the CPRF: Rooted in "social democratic orientation"? Hardly. It is rooted instead in the 19th century when Czarism fanned peasant hatred against the Jews in order to provide an escape valve for built-up resentments against economic suffering. In 1917 the Bolshevik party took aim at these backward social structures and Jews enjoyed a measure of freedom unparalleled in the world. Even when Stalin allowed pre-1917 prejudices to creep in the back door, the USSR remained a haven for the Jews. That is the main explanation for the ferocity of Operation Barberossa, which was aimed at destroying the Bolshevik-Yid conspiracy at its heart. The charges that the USSR was anti-Semitic gained new currency in the 1960s when Zionists like Natan Sharansky took advantage of real problems to create a stampede into the state of Israel. For all of his demagogy, the Soviet Union remained a beacon of tolerance. Part of the problem in dealing with anti-Semitism in Russia today is that some of the best known Yeltsinite capitalist thieves are of Jewish origin, like Boris Berezhovsky. So you get a certain amount of resentment directed against a national group because of the sins of its leaders. In the United States we have a similar phenomenon. It is called "black anti-Semitism" and often reflects itself through demagogic attacks on Jewish-owned newspapers and television stations that put across a racist message. In any case, the sparks that are flying on this mailing list has little to do with this problem. Before Owen got thrown off, we were confronted with just one in a long series of attempts to create false amalgams between leftists like Jared Israel and "fascists" or "anti-Semites". The real issue is not anti-Semitism or fascism, but the stubborn refusal of some radicals to get on board the hate Yugoslavia campaign. Now that this is a dead issue, the demagogues have turned their attention to Russia. Anybody who does not take an oath of allegiance against the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is once again tarred with the brush of the ultraright. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Re: Whither the List?
Mark wrote: >On >the one hand, it's fine that people are talking more militantly; but >on the other, >it makes it all the more important that we don't let these people, who are our >political enemies, drown out the real message about what is a real >revolutionary, >leninist politics. The clarity of revolutionary Leninist politics can't be achieved if one part of the Left remains trapped in the overblown fear of Red-Brown alliances on the periphery and the other part falls for the overestimation of political capacity of whatever party or movement that claims to be patriotic, socialist, etc. (e.g. the CPRF). Indeed, we need to raise the level of the debate here! I ask sober heads who are still here to post their thoughts. Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will! Yoshie Furuhashi, co-moderator P.S. Johannes, come back. We ought to debate this important question. ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
> >I do not know whether General Makashov was a CPRF CC member, but he was >>elected on the CPRF slate to the Duma. Unfortunately it will be rather easy >>to find more antisemitic quotes from leading CPRF members. >> >>Johannes > >Just as you will find antisemitic quotes from leaders of the German >Communist Party in the 1920s, including Ruth Fischer who was herself of >Jewish origin. When a society is in deep crisis, there is a tendency to >find scapegoats. Jews have traditionally played that role in Russia and >Germany. In the USA, it is blacks who fill that role. The real question, >however, is not what racist comments are uttered by one or another official >of the CPRF, but what economic measures can resolve the crisis and relieve >the tensions that give birth to racial demagogy. From that standpoint, >there can be little doubt that the CPRF's program is what Russia needs. >While making all sorts of concessions to "free market" orthodoxy, it is an >attempt to reverse the course set by Yeltsin and continued now by Putin. >Unfortunately, the people in charge of the CPRF are steeped in bureaucratic >modes of functioning that prevent them from mobilizing the power of Russian >workers to dislodge the gang in power right now. They have much in common >with Milosevic, who can also be faulted for using "business as usual" >methods at a time of deep crisis. If Eastern Europe and the former Soviet >Union can not generate true communists, then the situation will continue to >deteriorate with all the resultant woes of xenophobia, suicide, alcoholism, >dope addiction, prostitution, etc. > >Louis Proyect The CPRF's program, such as it is, can never be achieved by the CPRF's means. I'm afraid that the anti-Semitic rhetoric employed by some officials of the CPRF is not just a reflection of "a society in deep crisis" but also rooted in the CPRF's social democratic orientation, easily harnessed by someone like Putin. Anti-Semitism is an index of the very limited criticism of capitalism (e.g., a criticism of finance & "foreign" profiteers, with no readiness to reject capitalism wholesale); it's a "socialism of fools." Not surprisingly, Putin is _not at all_ afraid of the CPRF: * THE HINDU December 4, 2000 HEADLINE: Communists call for Putin's resignation MOSCOW, DEC. 3. The Russian Communist leader, Mr. Gennady Zyuganov, has accused the President, Mr. Vladimir Putin, of failing to deliver on his election promises and called for "irreconcilable opposition" to his regime. Speaking at the opening of a Communist Party congress in Moscow, Mr. Zyuganov called for the resignation of Mr. Putin's Government, which he said, had blindly followed economic reforms prescribed by the International Monetary Fund. The Communist leader said the party was forming a shadow government that would suggest alternative policies in all spheres of life, especially economics. "The party remains a responsible and irreconcilable opposition," Mr. Zyuganov said. Interestingly, Mr. Putin sent a congratulatory message to the Communists' congress, expressing the hope that the party "will firmly adhere to the principles of constructive dialogue and reasonable compromise in its work. "I believe that national interests, stability and civil peace in Russia will continue to be unconditional priorities for the Russian Communist Party," the message said. Mr. Zyuganov said his party's top priority was establishing a "Soviet-type democracy" and building a socialist society in Russia. "Socialism is the modern form of Russian patriotism," he said. He said the party had more than 500,000 members and was steadily increasing its ranks. The Communist Party is the biggest single party in Russia's lower House of Parliament, though it lost many seats during last December's elections. * Putin got Zyuganov's number: "national interests, stability and civil peace." * The Independent (London) September 11, 2000, Monday SECTION: FOREIGN NEWS; Pg. 10 HEADLINE: MILLION PEOPLE 'INVENTED' FOR RUSSIAN ELECTION BYLINE: Helen Womack In Moscow BALLOT PAPERS were burnt, voters bullied and entire electorates invented in large-scale fraud perpetrated during Russia's presidential election in March, The Moscow Times newspaper has claimed. In its weekend edition, the respected English-language daily said its journalists had gathered enough evidence to question the legitimacy of the vote that brought Vladimir Putin, an obscure former KGB agent, to the pinnacle of power. The defeated Communist Party candidate, Gennady Zyuganov, complained at the time that he had been robbed of the chance to go into a second round against Mr Putin. And observers from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, while finding the elections on the whole "democratic and a step forward for Russia", spoke of abuses. However, the newspaper's inquiry, carried out over the last six months, was the most far-reaching and hard-hitt
[L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
Steve wrote: >In particular Owen, your description of the KPRF as >more of a reactionary danger to the Russian working class than even Putin's >Kremlin, is very factual, considered and well thought out. The above is a mistaken estimation of the balance of power, contradicted by the statement below: >They do advocate a cleaner, more stable and properly >functioning capitalist system; but Putin has stolen their thunder in this >respect with a concerted attempt to stabilise Russian capitalism, with >certain measures against sections of the oligarchy and a policy of firm >centralisation, as well as severe measures against the Russian proletariat, >with a new Labour Code straight out of Tsarist law books. Yoshie ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] Re: Russia: CPRF Leader Interviewed - Russia TV
> >I do not know whether General Makashov was a CPRF CC member, but he was >>elected on the CPRF slate to the Duma. Unfortunately it will be rather easy >>to find more antisemitic quotes from leading CPRF members. >> >>Johannes > >Just as you will find antisemitic quotes from leaders of the German >Communist Party in the 1920s, including Ruth Fischer who was herself of >Jewish origin. When a society is in deep crisis, there is a tendency to >find scapegoats. Jews have traditionally played that role in Russia and >Germany. In the USA, it is blacks who fill that role. The real question, >however, is not what racist comments are uttered by one or another official >of the CPRF, but what economic measures can resolve the crisis and relieve >the tensions that give birth to racial demagogy. From that standpoint, >there can be little doubt that the CPRF's program is what Russia needs. >While making all sorts of concessions to "free market" orthodoxy, it is an >attempt to reverse the course set by Yeltsin and continued now by Putin. >Unfortunately, the people in charge of the CPRF are steeped in bureaucratic >modes of functioning that prevent them from mobilizing the power of Russian >workers to dislodge the gang in power right now. They have much in common >with Milosevic, who can also be faulted for using "business as usual" >methods at a time of deep crisis. If Eastern Europe and the former Soviet >Union can not generate true communists, then the situation will continue to >deteriorate with all the resultant woes of xenophobia, suicide, alcoholism, >dope addiction, prostitution, etc. > >Louis Proyect The CPRF's program, such as it is, can never be achieved by the CPRF's means. I'm afraid that the anti-Semitic rhetoric employed by some officials of the CPRF is not just a reflection of "a society in deep crisis" but also rooted in the CPRF's social democratic orientation, easily harnessed by someone like Putin. Anti-Semitism is an index of the very limited criticism of capitalism (e.g., a criticism of finance & "foreign" profiteers, with no readiness to reject capitalism wholesale); it's a "socialism of fools." Not surprisingly, Putin is _not at all_ afraid of the CPRF: * THE HINDU December 4, 2000 HEADLINE: Communists call for Putin's resignation MOSCOW, DEC. 3. The Russian Communist leader, Mr. Gennady Zyuganov, has accused the President, Mr. Vladimir Putin, of failing to deliver on his election promises and called for "irreconcilable opposition" to his regime. Speaking at the opening of a Communist Party congress in Moscow, Mr. Zyuganov called for the resignation of Mr. Putin's Government, which he said, had blindly followed economic reforms prescribed by the International Monetary Fund. The Communist leader said the party was forming a shadow government that would suggest alternative policies in all spheres of life, especially economics. "The party remains a responsible and irreconcilable opposition," Mr. Zyuganov said. Interestingly, Mr. Putin sent a congratulatory message to the Communists' congress, expressing the hope that the party "will firmly adhere to the principles of constructive dialogue and reasonable compromise in its work. "I believe that national interests, stability and civil peace in Russia will continue to be unconditional priorities for the Russian Communist Party," the message said. Mr. Zyuganov said his party's top priority was establishing a "Soviet-type democracy" and building a socialist society in Russia. "Socialism is the modern form of Russian patriotism," he said. He said the party had more than 500,000 members and was steadily increasing its ranks. The Communist Party is the biggest single party in Russia's lower House of Parliament, though it lost many seats during last December's elections. * Putin got Zyuganov's number: "national interests, stability and civil peace." * The Independent (London) September 11, 2000, Monday SECTION: FOREIGN NEWS; Pg. 10 HEADLINE: MILLION PEOPLE 'INVENTED' FOR RUSSIAN ELECTION BYLINE: Helen Womack In Moscow BALLOT PAPERS were burnt, voters bullied and entire electorates invented in large-scale fraud perpetrated during Russia's presidential election in March, The Moscow Times newspaper has claimed. In its weekend edition, the respected English-language daily said its journalists had gathered enough evidence to question the legitimacy of the vote that brought Vladimir Putin, an obscure former KGB agent, to the pinnacle of power. The defeated Communist Party candidate, Gennady Zyuganov, complained at the time that he had been robbed of the chance to go into a second round against Mr Putin. And observers from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, while finding the elections on the whole "democratic and a step forward for Russia", spoke of abuses. However, the newspaper's inquiry, carried out over the last six months, was the most far-reaching and hard-hitt
Re: [L-I] Fw: (ftaa-l) Plan Colombia, FTAA and Black Communities in the process of
En relación a [L-I] Fw: (ftaa-l) Plan Colombia, FTAA and Black , el 15 Jan 01, a las 22:36, Macdonald Stainsby dijo: > Part of this mail contains something I've been meaning to pose as a question to > our comrades, such as Nestor or Anthony, as to why Panamas return to Colombia > has never been a demand of the left? It seems to be (if stated properly) part of > the Bolivarian equation... Just a couple of paragraphs, scribbled down in haste. But maybe they can be of help. Why, the basic answer (and quite schematic as it is) should be "because the Latin American National Liberation and Unification Movement is still to appear, lacking as it lacks a Socialist direction". One of the dramas in Latin America is that, save for some exceptional moments (with the APRA during its best times, which were quite short), national bourgeois or petty bourgeois movements have accepted the frontiers we have been imposed on as a datum, a given. Probably -and with the exception of Brazil- the age of the "Argentinisms, Bolivianisms, Chilenisms, Peruvianisms, and so on" is over (the heyday took place by the precise years when Panama was snatched off Colombia by the French-American gang of speculators who built the Canal, that is during the 1900s-1920s). But history is still there. We have been living separate lives for almost a century and a half, and although there is no serious ground to defend the independent existence of any Latin American "nation", there are other reasons, which stem from that history, which make it impossible for a Colombian to call for the unification with Panama. It would most probably be resented by Panamanians as an expression of "Colombian imperialism" much in the sense Serbia is blamed for "imperialism" by such countries as Germany, the USA or France! Not the same for a Panamanian. The logics of the situation would imply that the "smaller" countries should claim for reunification with larger ones, and that the latter be careful not to use this reunification for their exclusive benefit. Say, a strong unifying party in Uruguay looking to Argentina, or a strong unifying party in Panama looking to Colombia (or rather, given the geographical constraints, to Central America as a whole; but you see, while Panamanian culture is basically Colombian, on Central America up to Costa Rica the influence is basically Mexican, something that can be easily understood if one considers the political and cultural history of the Spanish era in Central America). The case of Panama is still more complex, since ownership of the Canal might make the country much thriftier than neighboring and tortured Colombia. > > Macdonald > > - Original Message - > From: el desaparecido <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Plan Colombia, FTAA and Black Communities in the process of global > struggle. > > The US Congress has allocated $1.3 billion to the government of Colombia > for a military intervention which was denominated Plan Colombia. The > official purpose of this 'Plan' is to put an end to the illegal growing of coca > by destroying illicit crops, to put an end to the guerilla and to stabilise > Latin Americas 'oldest democracy'. 84 % of the money will flow straight back > into US economy as it is destined for military aid, primarily Huey and Black > Hawk helicopters. > > Anyone digging up just a bit more information about the situation in > Colombia will immediately see that the drug war is nothing but a pretext > and that the real motivation is to secure access to natural resources > (especially oil) and to gain control over a geopolitical strategic region > in order to continue the implementation of a neoliberal development model > in the whole region and especially the planned FTAA (Free Trade Agreement > of the Amerias) to be discussed in Quebec / Canada in April this year. > > A closer look to the region shows us that Colombia is like a natural trade > platform, having access to both the Pacific and the Atlantic ocean and being > the natural connection between North and South America. The strategic role of > this area was already recognised centuries ago by Spanish conquistadores who > considered connecting both oceans through a canal. In order to secure the > control over this area, the US orchestrated the separation of Panama from > Colombia in 1903. The Panama canal is becoming too small to deal with the > increasing flow of goods in times of economic globalisation between South East > Asia , USA and Europe, especially considering China as an upcoming market. The > infrastructure of the Canal is old and slow, so new interoceanic connections > are being planned. But Colombia is not only attractive in terms of trade routes > crossroad, it is also intended to become a major production place full of sweat > shops. Several megaprojects like road infrastructure, dams, oil pipelines, > monocultures and harbours in order to efficiently sap the resources are on > their way. > > On top of that
RE: [L-I] Whither the List?
Tony, I agree with most of your remarks, and I'm glad you're here and also that you are struggling heroically at Solidarity. In particular I agree that "the phobic iSWor/ > Kagarlitsky crowd" is just a front. You're right: they "trumpet within the Left > of the imperialist bloc countries a hysterical fear that a Russian 'Red > -Brown' uprising is the world's greatest menace" and this is "thoroughly > repugnant and reactionary. " However I also agree with what Lou said the other day: that people who are active on a list, must share some kind of basic commitment to the purpose of the list. People who are actually fronting imperialist, anti-working class propaganda, who are just stooges, obviously do not share this commitment to leninism. It is not searching for purity that motivates me to want to draw a line, but the fact that it is impossible to have any kind of serious discussion while this trench warfare is going on. The fact that the miscreants have gone does not necessarily mean that we shall now get serious debate, because that depends on the energy and input of the rest of us. But it is surely a start. It is noteworthy that people like Doug Henwood and Slavoj Zizek - cynical opportunists and leftwing careerists - have starting talking again about Lenin. I think this is because people sense that things like an economic slowdown or recession, combined with the incoming Bush regime, are going to sharpen social tensions, increase workplace struggles and polarise politics etc. I'm sure they are quite cynical about this: they think there is a political cycle just like the business cycle, and probably in lockstep with it. In a recession you have to sound a little more militant, otherwise you start to look stale and uninteresting. Doug H. is a great one for finding out where the "mainstream" is, and his antenna work. On the one hand, it's fine that people are talking more militantly; but on the other, it makes it all the more important that we don't let these people, who are our political enemies, drown out the real message about what is a real revolutionary, leninist politics. To do this, we have to have some kind of material base or presence, and an elist is one possibility (there are others, obviously). If we were a leninist party, we wouldn't let anti-leninists or imperialist stooges in. So why should we let them in here, since this is the workshop or foundry where we have to try and forge new theory, analysis etc? I agree that there is a fine distinction between censorship and liberal over-indulgence -- lenin himself talked about that all the time and in the excerpts I just posted from Lenin on the press + media, you can see clearly how he saw the problem. And it was never solved in the USSR. And the death of real debate practically guaranteed the eventual death of the Soviet state itself. However Lenin's position was simple: any accommodation between the USSR and the encircling capitalist powers was bound to be illusory and transient, and war to the death was inevitable in the long run. In *that* situation, the party monopoly of power and control of the press was essential for survival; so here is an insoluble contradiction or paradox. If you monopolise power, you guarantee corruption, political senility and bureaucracy. If you permit pluralism, OTOH, you're dead just the same only quicker. The only sure way out of the impasse is to *beat the enemy*, ie destroy world capitalism. That IS the only way. We're not trying to make believe that an elist can be a workers' party, let alone a wrokers' state, but it is important that we do what Lenin wanted to do in 1901, in WITBD: to draw a line between ourselves and the others. Before you unite, you have to split: you have to get ideological and political clarity. That is what we should be trying to do here. Get clarity. It is still possible to debate Myers etc, and even possible to invite them back (btw, it was the moderators who unsubbed them, not me). If it was me, I'd argue the shit out of the sods, but I'm damn sure they'd soon run away anyway, they always do. You wouldn't need to expel them. But then you really would get a gigantic flame war. I'm particularly good at that, but what's the point? Nothing is achieved that way. mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Whither the List?
To the remaining list moderators I would argue that this search for list purity of purpose is the prime destroyer of lists.Not flame wars. I happen to share the opinions expressed by Mark about the phobic iSWor/ Kagarlitsky crowd. I find their desire to trumpet within the Left of the imperialist bloc countries a hysterical fear that a Russian 'Red -Brown' uprising is the world's greatest menace, to be thoroughly repugnant and reactionary. To be totally blunt, iSWor is an effort to get the Left of the imperialist countries mobilized into support of direct imperialist interventionism against Russia. And Meyers/ Kagarlitsky find support in places like Znet, Green Left Weekly, Socialist Action, and many other Left political parties and forums. So why on earth would the moderators of L-I want to expel this tendency off the list where they can be easily (and willingly!) confronted? And debated in front of a fairly neutral forum? I've heard this line spouted so many times in Left circles that it makes me ill. It goes like this They have the right to argue their point of view, but they should do it in the 'right' way. By their actions they brought this down on them. Now, to answer Mark's question. No, Mark, you would not be welcome on the Solidarity list. And neither am I.But they have neither thrown me out of Solidarity, nor off the list.And I frequently, and most vociferously, deride the fact that Solidarity has devolved from a Leninist foundaion, into ANTI-Leninism today. Moderators of this list should provide the same grudging courtesy to Steve and Owen that Solidarity has shown itself capable of providing to me. Lord knows they hate doing it. Let them talk up their positions in their own style as they will, and then respond as was being done most effectively by several commentators before this breakdown began. I suggest an amnesty be declared. Tony Abdo _ Mark me I would urge the moderators to control their 'piss', and resub these 3 individuals. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] My resignation as moderator from L-I
> > CB: What the fuck is going on , Mark ? Why the hell would you call for > closing down the list like some goddamn the lord giveth and the lord taketh away ? If you've been following the exchanges you'll see that i'm concerned to make the list a success, not close it down. maybe licence for a little hyperbole is permissible. but it must surely be clear that i want the list to succeed. i'm not responsible for johannes' or anyone else's misunderstandings. maybe you should ask him why he says the odd things he does. mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] My resignation as moderator from L-I
>>> 3. After Mark Jones had been subbed to L-I he publicly called for closing
CB: What the fuck is going on , Mark ? Why the hell would you call for closing down
the list like some goddamn the lord giveth and the lord taketh away ?
down L-I. 01/17/01 02:16AM >>>
This will be my last post to L-I both as moderator and as a subscriber.
Since there are still some comrades on this list I respect, they owe an
explanation. Here are the reason, why do not want to be associated with this
list in any way any longer:
1. The acceptance of the defence of anti-semitism ('not the real question')
or anti-semitism itself ( criticising Yeltsin for beeing a Jew ) from the
side of moderators. This is simply too disgusting that I do not want to go
into further details.
2. Several actions co-moderator Macdonald Stainsby took either without
consulting or even without informing the other co-moderators. These include:
- the temporary unsubbing of Anton Holberg, without giving any reasons and
not even informing Anton
- subbing of Mark Jones without Marks's prior request or even consent
- unsubbing of Owen Jones, for a message Owen sent privately to Macdonald.
On the list Macdonald publicly distorted this claiming Owen wanted to be
unsubbed
- unsubbing of Steve Myers. I dont need to explain, who Steve is and what he
does. But unsubbing him and leaving others on the list shows what positions
are encouraged and which positions are not argued against but simply kicked
out. To put a friendly label on it I would call it bureaucratic centralism,
other more unfriendly words come to my mind.
Though beeing attacked personally none of my co-moderators even
reacted to this. To avoid public flaming I wrote to Mark Jones privately
asking him either to unsub from a list he sees as useless or to help making
the list useful.
As a reaction Mark asked the moderators either to remove me from the
moderation or to be unsubbed himself. I agreed that this was the only
choice. Since Macdonald decided to keep Mark on the list and did not say one
single word of defending myself, I did not have any choice at all. Mine
Aysen Doyran and Yoshie Furuhashi kept silent, a reaction I can only
interpret as an agreement with Macdonald.
Judging from Mark Jones' recent postings I can oly come to the conclusion
that Mark wants to destroy a list from within he once initiated. I can only
attribute it to Macdonald's inexperience and Yoshie's and Mine's desinterest
that they do not resist such attempts. Since I could not win a majority
within the moderation for the defence of Leninist-International, I have to
resign.
Here I stand and do not have any choice.
Johannes Schneider
___
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
___
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] On Centrism Today.
Nestor, that was Vladimir Bilenkin. All four (when we were four) of us dumped him. in other words, he wont respond. Macdonald - Original Message - From: Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 3:30 AM Subject: Re: [L-I] On Centrism Today. > En relación a Re: [L-I] On Centrism Today., > el 14 Jan 01, a las 18:58, rosskommuna dijo: > > Now, it is me who did not understand. Could you please expand? > > Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] On Centrism Today.
En relación a Re: [L-I] On Centrism Today., el 14 Jan 01, a las 18:58, rosskommuna dijo: > > --- Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > In fact, the working class can be integrated to the > > capitalist system, as it > > actually has been for decades in the core countries. > > But this integration > > cannot deny the fact that, existentially, this class > > is the negation of > > anything that is human by the system. So that it > > takes the form of a rebellious > > integration, thus, centrism. > > I am not sure I understand this last sentence, but the > one before is implausible. The imperial working class > simply could not have been integrated into imperial > society unless it's been allowed to climb closer to > the > better end of the alienation stick. The average > British or US worker is no more "existentially > negated" than the pardoned genius of leveraged buyouts > Milken or the chief editor of London Times. Now, it is me who did not understand. Could you please expand? Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Bushie Takes Over
--UNITED STATES: George Bush junior takes over
BY NORM DIXON
George Walker ("Dubya") Bush will be inaugurated as the United States of America's
43rd president on January 20. Even before he sets foot in the White House, vast
numbers of Americans are already convinced that Bush has no legitimate right to be
there. So determined was the ruling capitalist class to install a government prepared
to intensify and broaden the attacks on the poor and working class, within the US and
around the world, that only the barest formalities of democracy were adhered to.
The facts speak for themselves: only 50% of eligible US voters participated in the
November 7 presidential election; Bush won a minority of the votes cast and was
outpolled by his Democrat opponent Al Gore by more than 500,000 votes; the evidence
is overwhelming that Bush's "victory" by 537 votes in Florida (which gained the
Republicans the electoral college votes needed to take the Oval Office) was gained by
widespread vote-rigging and the systematic racist disenfranchisement of hundreds of
thousands of African-American, Hispanic and elderly voters; Bush's Florida "win" was
only secured by the openly partisan decision by the right-wing activist majority of
the Supreme Court to block vote recounts that would have overturned the result and
delivered the White House to Gore.
Finishes:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/current/432p19.htm
-
Macdonald Stainsby
Rad-Green List: Radical anti-capitalist environmental discussion.
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
Leninist-International: Building bridges within Marxism in the tradition of V.I.
Lenin.
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
___
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] My resignation as moderator from L-I
I just want to point out that it was no less a rooted stalinoid perverted sectarian than I myself who originally invited Nestor G. -- and what's more, Johannes S. -- to comoderate L-I. So I picked up a stone and dropped it on my own foot, in the latter case, as the maoists say. But I have always taken the view that we need to talk, and still do. Mostly what I hope for is to *raise the level of debate*. We should not be afraid of losing arguments. In the case of Nestor and many other folks whose political backgrounds are dissimilar to my own, the dialogue has generally been fruitful and I am very glad of it. Mark > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Macdonald Stainsby > Sent: 17 January 2001 09:17 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [L-I] My resignation as moderator from L-I > > > > - Original Message - > From: Johannes Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 11:16 PM > Subject: [L-I] My resignation as moderator from L-I > ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Kabila was reportedly shot by a bodyguard - NYTimes/ Covert Action on Kabila; Civil War.
Congo Leader Reportedly Dead After Being Shot by Bodyguard By NORIMITSU ONISHI President Laurent D. Kabila was reportedly shot by a bodyguard. BIDJAN, Ivory Coast, Jan. 16 - President Laurent Kabila of Congo, who deposed one of Africa's great dictators but then brought his country into even worse disarray, was shot and killed today, diplomats and associates said. The president was shot by one of his bodyguards, according to John E. Aycoth, a lobbyist and public relations consultant in Washington who acts as Mr. Kabila's spokesman in the United States. He said he had talked to top Congolese officials, who told him that the president was dead. The killing was also reported by Louis Michel, foreign minister of Belgium, Congo's former colonial ruler, who said he was told of Mr. Kabila's death by "two trustworthy sources." The circumstances of the shooting were not immediately known, but one report said that it had involved a dispute between Mr. Kabila and some of his generals. The Congolese government gave no details of the incident, but announced that it had sealed borders, closed the airport and imposed a night curfew. A televised address by President Kabila's personal chief of staff, Col. Edy Kapend, suggested the seriousness of the events. Soldiers surrounded the presidential palace, according to reports from the capital, Kinshasa, though the city itself appeared calm. There was no indication who was in charge. Ordering senior commanders to bring their units under control, Colonel Kapend said: "No shots may be fired, for whatever reason, without prior order. The population must not be thrown into panic and the troops must not grow agitated." The government's minister of interior, Gaetan Kakudji, one of Mr. Kabila's closest allies, went on state television to say that the president himself had ordered the curfew, suggesting that he was still alive. But in Washington, a senior administration official said the United States has received several reports from credible sources that Mr. Kabila had been assassinated. "Our operating assumption is that he is dead," the official said. Mr. Kabila's death would dramatically alter the dynamics of a two- and-a-half-year war that has drawn in half a dozen African nations and destabilized all of Central Africa. Mr. Kabila, who deposed the longtime dictator Mobutu Sese Seko in 1997, had long been considered the main obstacle to any diplomatic resolution to the current conflict, and had become increasingly isolated in his four years in office. It was not clear tonight who might have led the shooting of Mr. Kabila, though his standing in the military had fallen recently. After months of stalemate during which the warring parties had seemed satisfied with carving up Congo and feasting on its natural resources, Mr. Kabila's forces suffered a serious defeat late last year in Katanga, the mineral-rich province in the southeast. Shots were heard this afternoon near the presidential palace, where fighting also had occurred, according to the United Nations in New York, citing Kamel Morjane, the United Nation's special envoy to Congo, who was in Kinshasa. While Mr. Kabila had promised to deliver the Congolese from the years of Mr. Mobutu's dictatorship, he immediately banned all political parties after coming to power. And he never followed through on his promise to hold elections in April 1999, instead running the country himself, with the help of a strong military. Mr. Kabila steadily lost popularity in the capital. He traveled only at night, because during the day pedestrians would lift their shirts to show their bellies at his passing motorcade as a sign that they were hungry. article finishes at: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/17/world/17CONG.html?pagewanted=2 U.S. Military and Corporate Recolonization of the Congo by Ellen Ray The United States' involvement in Congo since before independence from Belgium in June 1960 has been steady, sinister, and penetrating. Most notable was the CIA's role in the overthrow (September 1960) and later assassination (January 1961) of Congo's first Prime Minister, the charismatic (and socialist) Patrice Lumumba. The full extent of U.S. machinations was not known for years,1 but the failure at the time of the United Nations to protect Lumumba was patent. And questions continue to linger over the mysterious plane crash in September 1961 that killed U.N. Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold as he was flying to the border town of Ndola to meet with Moise Tshombe, president of the breakaway Katanga Province. The plane fell from the sky, killing all aboard.2 Is it any wonder that in Congo today there is little trust of Washington or respect for the United Nations? Introduction In October 1996, the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo-Zaire (ADFL), commanded by and composed mainly of Tutsi military forces from Paul Kagame's Rwanda Patriotic Army (RPA), along with Tutsi r
Re: [L-I] My resignation as moderator from L-I
- Original Message -
From: Johannes Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 11:16 PM
Subject: [L-I] My resignation as moderator from L-I
> This will be my last post to L-I both as moderator and as a subscriber.
I regret this greatly. But don't act as if you had no choice. You most certainly did.
> Since there are still some comrades on this list I respect, they owe an
> explanation. Here are the reason, why do not want to be associated with this
> list in any way any longer:
>
> 1. The acceptance of the defence of anti-semitism ('not the real question')
> or anti-semitism itself ( criticising Yeltsin for beeing a Jew ) from the
> side of moderators. This is simply too disgusting that I do not want to go
> into further details.
>
Personally, I haven't the slightest opinion on it either way. It is really
*irrelevant* to what is happening in Russia. Why I get angry about the KPRF is their
*total abandonment* of using the power of the working class in Russia to fight for
workers power. They have done little at all, except lecture other Marxist groups in
the country and carry the worst aspects of the old state over- those aspects being
that the public is not to be involved. The reason this party is still a minor
hinderance to the total dismantling of what little is left of public property in
Russia has everything to do with the Yeltsinites being far more "suspicious" of
public action. If I truly believed that there was an even *partial* chance that any
of our contributors (including the "Jew" Louis Proyect, no less) were anti-semetic in
what they are saying, I would take action. They aren't; they are calling it an
irrelevant issue on the "KPRF question". I agree with this.
> 2. Several actions co-moderator Macdonald Stainsby took either without
> consulting or even without informing the other co-moderators. These include:
> - the temporary unsubbing of Anton Holberg, without giving any reasons and
> not even informing Anton
I posted to the list *which still included him* long before I went to the admin page.
It was done that way consciously so he would get a message detailing it. It didn't
work- the reason is simple: I had never had the occasion to unsub *ANYONE* in the
year prior I had this delightful job.
> - subbing of Mark Jones without Marks's prior request or even consent
Only because he publicly advocates the practice and we needed people with better
debating skills. Tact is another matter entirely.
> - unsubbing of Owen Jones, for a message Owen sent privately to Macdonald.
> On the list Macdonald publicly distorted this claiming Owen wanted to be
> unsubbed
As I said- I've talked with him many times. There are times when there is no point.
He threatened to leave and "take others with him". In other words, to split. I helped
him along.
> - unsubbing of Steve Myers. I dont need to explain, who Steve is and what he
> does. But unsubbing him and leaving others on the list shows what positions
> are encouraged and which positions are not argued against but simply kicked
> out.
Johannes, the reason I want you here (and I truly sincerely think highly of you) is
precisely because we have almost all the same deviations as these other folks- but
YOU don't start with how best to show that your opponent is "extremely wrong",
showing "fascist tendencies" and what have you. You think and help build synthesis.
But evidently if a "Stalinist" attacks and starts fights with "Trotskyists" we lose
the cover? Comrade, I hoped for better. Go find the other lists and look how Owen and
Myers interact with people and try to imagine them ever convincing someone else of
squat. They want to be "right", and three people in a coffee shop being "right" for
the past 20 years has achieved little but isolation. They need to understand what it
is to be less "right" and more accomodating.
> To put a friendly label on it I would call it bureaucratic centralism,
> other more unfriendly words come to my mind.
Johannes, we have been trying desperately to rescue the list. We were achieving high
volume again. That was the good thing. There is a need for immediate action with
hyper sectarians. You had every right to do other things as well.
> 3. After Mark Jones had been subbed to L-I he publicly called for closing
> down L-I. Though beeing attacked personally none of my co-moderators even
> reacted to this. To avoid public flaming I wrote to Mark Jones privately
> asking him either to unsub from a list he sees as useless or to help making
> the list useful.
> As a reaction Mark asked the moderators either to remove me from the
> moderation or to be unsubbed himself. I agreed that this was the only
> choice. Since Macdonald decided to keep Mark on the list and did not say one
> single word of defending myself, I did not have any choice at all. Mine
> Aysen Doyran and Yoshie Furuhashi kept silent, a reaction I can only
> interpret as an agreement with Macdonald.
Distortio
RE: [L-I] Re: Owen-the-Kid Panics Old Goats
Mac, it's not a question of being pro- or anti-kprf. I don't think, for instance that either Lou or I are pro-kprf (i shouldn't speak for him anyway). The point is that we have to begin from two simultaneous start-points: (a) analysis of the global conjuncture and how Russia sits in that and (b) analysis of the programme, history, leadership etc of specific political entities oncluding bnut not only the kprf. It's impossible to analyse the kprf in asbtraction from overall russian reality and from the concrete history of the kprf, cpsu etc. Bilenkin and Myers are simply hopeless sectarians, who were once bosom pals and then fell out and became bitter enemies; and the whole hollow hoopla is about nothing and for nothing. i don't honestly think that kagarlitsky is any better; altho he is undoubtedly better-informed, better-paid and better-known, he too has a self-marginalising sectarian take on russian reality and the kprf. his conspiracy-theory analysis of the kprf's alleged role as 'loyal opposition' to the yeltsin/putin regime ignores the basic social, class and economic realities which define the existence of all political entities in all countries, not only russia, and which mark off or delimit the social space and political opportunities open to them. quite obviously the kprf is not a leninist revolutionary party, and if it tried to be the regime would instantly close it down. equally obviously, it has an important social and political role to play. you might as well get hyserical about tony blair or chancellor schroeder or lionel jospin or al gore, as get wound up about zyuganov. They all claim to be socialists. blair is against fox-hunting and pro socialised health care. on balance, i'd vote for him, definitely. but, as they say, *without illusions*. people like owen jones, steve myers etc, are great fountains of moral indignation and outrage when it comes to the alleged derelictions of political leaders in far-away countries of which they know perilously little. It might be helpful if they at least supplemented their activity with equivalent indignation, outrage etc about events and personalities closer to home. at least bilenkin and kagarlitsky have the merits of being russian citizens, altho as far as i can tell both spend much of their time elsewhere. The plain fact is that all this indignation and hysteria is simply a fuel for what would otherwise be extraordinarily empty and sectarian politics of the kind for which grouplets avowing allegiance to trotsky[ism] are notorious. It is simply a complete waste of time (and one cannot help noticing how this great indignation, principled stands over 'antisemitism' etc, is always highly tuned to whatever is winding up the NY Times or WSJ this week, etc.) What we need is theory, theory, theory, and concrete analysis, investigation, synthesis. We need ideological organisation and we need to struggle for political clarity, not about the rights and wrongs of zyuganov etc but about *global capitalist crisis*. Our ideas about the infamy of Bush, the horrors of Makashov etc etc, must be focussed on *how these things relate to capitalist crisis, the crisis of the state* etc, and not the other way around. best wishes as ever and keep up the good work: you did the right thing. Mark > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Macdonald Stainsby > Sent: 17 January 2001 03:56 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [L-I] Re: Owen-the-Kid Panics Old Goats > > > > - Original Message - > From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > This is not about censoring a point of view. It is about trying to move > > away from dead end factionalism. There were problems with James (Red Rebel) > > Tait, the DHKC, and A. Wosni as well. I can't even remember if they were > > unsubbed or not. This mailing list had turned into trench warfare of the > > kind that destroyed mailing lists in the past. My only observation is that > > unless it can figure out what it's mission is--and adhere to it--it will be > > vulnerable to destructive interventions. > > > > Louis Proyect > > Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ > > If people want to know these things, Anton has been allowed back on the condition > that getting into silly combats where we sling slogans and labels at one another > ceases. In other words, no attempts to start fights. James has been > warned, and one > of the DHKC addresses was removed and has not returned. The moderators > have agreed on > a basic mission for the list. It will be announced. > > A personal note. I like Owen, but he has now informed me that I am a > "Proyectist" and > that he will not return. To make this very dramatic, he also removed > himself from my > other project, Rad Green. We had an exchange on "ICQ" about this whole > recent spate > this morning. He threatened to try and "organize list member walkouts" is the best > way to sum it up- if I didn'
