[Marxism] A lesson from the Warsaw Ghetto: it is right to resist your oppressor
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == What courage, what humanity the Warsaw Ghetto Jews showed in resisting the monolith of Nazism. There is a universal message here. It was right then to fight back against the Nazi occupiers. It is right now, even in the face of overwhelming force, to resist your oppressors, their invasions and occupation. http://enpassant.com.au/2014/07/26/a-lesson-from-the-warsaw-ghetto-it-is-right-to-resist/ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == ... Lenin's Tomb is implying that HRW was doing some sort of sampling, whereas HRW says This report documents civilian casualties in the air campaign by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Libya in 2011. They reported on eight incidents including all reported to them by the Qaddafi regime. … All they have to do, and they've now had several years and a relatively free [from the investigative standpoint] Libya to do it in, is document one or more civilian deaths not named in the HRW or even more limited UN report. This also applies to the claims of civilian deaths caused by NATO in Sirte. All those who want to overthrow the NYTimes, UN HRW studies that put unintended NATO civilian deaths at ~72 just need to document a significant number of such civilian deaths not counted by them. Babbling on about how there must be more deaths because they believe there must be doesn't cut it, whereas names and numbers will blow them out of the water. So, to be clear: I point out that the “studies” you are citing neither attempt nor claim to be comprehensive estimates of civilian deaths arising from NATO’s bombing campaign. And your response is to demand of me that I supplement their data by providing documented instances of civilian casualties not counted by them. I’m afraid you’re simply not thinking. You claim that I imply that “HRW was doing some sort of sampling”. Supposing I did claim that, the sentence you quote from the HRW report would be a non-sequitur. No one denies that the report documents civilian casualties”. What is contested is your claim, which is not made in any of the reports, that they document *all* civilian casualties (or even *most* civilian casualties). However, in fact I do not claim that HRW engaged in sampling; I claim precisely the opposite. I claim that HRW does not attempt a representative sample either of air strikes, or of the civilian population of Libya. Sampling is a statistical survey technique. It involves defining a population to be studied, selecting a representative subset and pro-actively measuring characteristics of that subset. The point of sampling is to enable one to estimate characteristics within the whole population. It is what Roberts et al did for Iraq (and also for the DRC); or what Benini Moulton, using figures collected by the Mine Clearance Planning Agency, did for Afghanistan. No such study has been carried out for Libya. The Commission of Inquiry, HRW and the New York Times all investigate specific allegations of human rights abuses: that is all. (Indeed, it is stretching a definition to refer to the NYT report as a “study”. It is a work of investigative journalism, and makes no attempt to have the rigour of a study. It does, however, have the honesty to point out that it is “not a complete accounting”.) There is thus no need to “overthrow” the existing “studies” since, as I have stated, there are no “studies” of total civilian casualties arising from the bombing campaign. In claiming that such exist, you are mis-citing the figures in support of a pro-imperialist position. Ditto the question what deaths were 'accidental.' Since there were civilians NATO considered legitimate targets we are talking about the number of civilians they killed that they did not target. Two questions arise from this 1) What makes a person a legit civilian target in their eyes? 2) Are they killing large numbers of civilians by using a very loose definition of 1? Since we are talking about battles already fought, again this simply requires the submission of names and numbers not already on the list. General speculation won't do. There is no need to speculate. Simply read the reports which you mis-cite. Looking at all three of the reports, they each provide details of specific incidents where civilians were killed at civilian sites. NATO of course claimed that they were also being used for military purposes by Qadhafi supporters. This may or may not be true. The reports cited find no evidence for it, but let’s suppose it is. Since NATO targeted these known civilian sites and since the deaths of civilians at them was predictable, it is an obscene and Regevian standard of apologia to characterise such deaths as ‘accidental’. As to the Hitchens analogy. The one who made that comment apparently is ignorant of my analysis of why NATO was willing to extend a helping hand to the Libyan revolutionaries. It has everything to do with the need for Libya's light sweet crude and European economic crisis and nothing to do with imperialist enlightenment. I simply disagree they those that think the revolutionaries should have turned down that help [ and let their people be
Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: Over a 7 month period, NATO carried out thousands of strike sorties over Libya, killed thousands of Qaddafi's soldiers, hundreds of tanks and other vehicles, took out his air power and pretty much took away his military advantage. This is a dumb comparison, for some pretty obvious reasons. One is that Gaza doesn't have any of that stuff to target. The occupation is fighting sophisticated guerrilla forces here, not a national army a few decades behind the times and best suited for military parades. Another is that its population density is literally less than one-thousandth Libya's. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934666.html -- Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Sorry, that should of course be literally *more *than one-thousandth Libya's. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Joseph Catron jncat...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: Over a 7 month period, NATO carried out thousands of strike sorties over Libya, killed thousands of Qaddafi's soldiers, hundreds of tanks and other vehicles, took out his air power and pretty much took away his military advantage. This is a dumb comparison, for some pretty obvious reasons. One is that Gaza doesn't have any of that stuff to target. The occupation is fighting sophisticated guerrilla forces here, not a national army a few decades behind the times and best suited for military parades. Another is that its population density is literally less than one-thousandth Libya's. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934666.html -- Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað. -- Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Oh, FFS. It's more than one thousand times Libya's. Sorry, guys. I promise you don't want to know how little sleep I've been getting lately. :-D On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Joseph Catron jncat...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry, that should of course be literally *more *than one-thousandth Libya's. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Joseph Catron jncat...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: Over a 7 month period, NATO carried out thousands of strike sorties over Libya, killed thousands of Qaddafi's soldiers, hundreds of tanks and other vehicles, took out his air power and pretty much took away his military advantage. This is a dumb comparison, for some pretty obvious reasons. One is that Gaza doesn't have any of that stuff to target. The occupation is fighting sophisticated guerrilla forces here, not a national army a few decades behind the times and best suited for military parades. Another is that its population density is literally less than one-thousandth Libya's. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934666.html -- Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað. -- Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað. -- Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Fwd: Putin sends a message? Opposition leaders get prison for staging riots (+video) - CSMonitor.com
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == By Fred Weir, author of Revolution from Above: The Demise of the Soviet System: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2014/0725/Putin-sends-a-message-Opposition-leaders-get-prison-for-staging-riots-video Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Fwd: Five Israeli Talking Points on Gaza—Debunked
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/18674/five-israeli-talking-points-on-gaza-debunked Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] PETITION: Jews Say: End the War on Gaza — No Aid to Apartheid Israel! BDS!
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == PETITION: Jews Say: End the War on Gaza — No Aid to Apartheid Israel! BDS! Jews for Palestinian Right of Return, July 22, 2014, https://www.change.org/de/Petitionen/benjamin-netanyahu-jews-say-end-the-war-on-gaza-no-aid-to-apartheid-israel-bds-with-200-initial-signers * * * Introduction by the RCIT and the ISL: Below we reprint a very progressive statement initiated by the Jews for Palestinian Right of Return. Our comrade Yossi Schwartz, a well-know, lifelong communist and Anti-Zionist, and key representative of the Internationalist Socialist League (RCIT-Section in Israel/Occupied Palestine), was among the initial signers of this petition. The statement justly condemns the reactionary Israeli war against the Palestinian people in Gaza as well as the Apartheid regime in the whole of historic Palestine. In addition, the signers of the petition support the international boycott campaign against Israel. As the statement is limited to radical democratic demands, it does not include the goal for which the RCIT and the ISL are fighting: a Democratic, Palestinian, Multinational and Socialist Workers and Fallahin Republic from the River to the Sea; in other words, a Free, Red Palestine. Nevertheless, this limitation does not negate the very progressive nature of this petition which constitutes a powerful tool against the reactionary myth spread by the Israeli state and its international supporters, i.e., that Israel represents the interests of all Jews and all who oppose the Israeli state are therefore “Anti-Semites.” The RCIT and the ISL urge Jews in Israel / Occupied Palestine and around the world to sign this petition. Note: The statement was initially signed by 200 individuals and received more than 1,500 additional signatures in only two day! Read more at http://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/jews-against-apartheid/ -- Revolutionär-Kommunistische Organisation BEFREIUNG ak...@rkob.net www.rkob.net +43-650-4068314 Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Jul 25, 2014, at 9:03 PM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: I have never felt a particular ownership or responsibility for the actions of “our” imperialists….I will always praise imperialists, even our own on the rare occasions when they do the right thing. Besides military assistance to its proxies, I assume doing the right thing in Clay’s view also includes economic sanctions, US imperialism’s weapon of choice for exercising control. I asked Clay about this a couple of days ago - no response as yet - and Louis, Andy, and others who broadly agree with Clay’s characterization of the civil war within Ukraine as “Russian aggression” might also want to have a stab at it: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2014-July/254181.html Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 7/26/14 9:02 AM, Marv Gandall via Marxism wrote: On Jul 25, 2014, at 9:03 PM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: I have never felt a particular ownership or responsibility for the actions of “our” imperialists….I will always praise imperialists, even our own on the rare occasions when they do the right thing. Besides military assistance to its proxies, I assume doing the right thing in Clay’s view also includes economic sanctions, US imperialism’s weapon of choice for exercising control. I asked Clay about this a couple of days ago - no response as yet - and Louis, Andy, and others who broadly agree with Clay’s characterization of the civil war within Ukraine as “Russian aggression” might also want to have a stab at it: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2014-July/254181.html What the hell is this, a trial of Clay and you as District Attorney? Clay is a blogger who has made his positions clear in hundreds of thousands of words. You, by contrast, do nothing except post newspaper or magazine articles prefaced with a 2 or 3 sentence analysis. Leaving aside the question of who is right or wrong about Ukraine, I wish to god that more people would take their politics seriously and defend their politics in a serious manner. It is impossible to have a genuine debate when some seem addicted to Twitter's 140 character means of communication. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 21:48 24-07-14 -0400, Marv Gandall via Marxism wrote: The NATO countries, of course, do not presently have the power to bring the Russian leaders to trial. Instead, the US and its allies are trying to bring pressure to bear through their control of the global financial system. The EU today adopted tougher sanctions in line with those adopted earlier by the Obama administration as part of a staged program designed to progressively squeeze the Russian financial system and cripple the economy. Do you support these efforts? I think that is a really unfair question, because either answer is wrong. When there is a dispute between capitalists, with no overriding principle involved, then if you support one side you are supporting one group of capitalists. Forcing someone to support one or the other is a trap and a diversion from any valid issues which might be tangentially involved. Because one country (or usually both countries) in a dispute deserves to be punished, doesn't mean you need to endorse some particular sort of action. And of course even our own boycott actions are just tactical, such the BDS campaign against Israel. We don't have to answer every question about Why pick on Israel when this other country is doing something awful too? Likewise with economic sanctions which are just a tactic and don't have to be either supported or opposed in every case. But what does become an issue is when they go out of their way NOT to implement sanctions, such as when Reagan came to the aid of South African apartheid by saying that sanctions wouldn't help etc. It's clear why he was against sanctions, and that we surely denounce. But you can't demand from me a list of countries that do or don't deserve sanctions. And although Russia's interference in Ukraine is contrary to the interests and rights of Ukranians, no one has to decide whether sanctions are right or wrong, whatever those terms might mean. The main thing I notice about sanctions against Russia, considering all that has transpired, is that the EU countries in particular are rather reluctant to implement very serious sanctions, because their economic interests (particularly dependence on Russian gas/oil) are at odds with their geopolitical concerns (losing influence in East Europe). That is a more pertinent discussion than whether sanctions will do more harm than good, or which capitalist has the right or moral authority to implement punishments against a different capitalist country. - Jeff Besides military assistance to its proxies, I assume doing the right thing in Clays view also includes economic sanctions, US imperialisms weapon of choice for exercising control. I asked Clay about this a couple of days ago - no response as yet - and Louis, Andy, and others who broadly agree with Clays characterization of the civil war within Ukraine as Russian aggression might also want to have a stab at it: Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] in Belfast
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Outside the City Hall there was a demonstration, about 200 people. They were waving Union Jacks. I suspect they were part of the movement to potect the right to fly the Union Jack - anyway, any time, anywhere. In the middle of the demonstration were two people holding an Israeli flag. The Irish have a proverb which says 'One black beetle recognizes another', and so it was no surprize to see tbe Ultra right supporting the killing in Gaza. Round the corner at the Catholic pub there were posters calling for the slaughter to be stopped. It is at times like these that one realises that Israel is doomed. When your only supporters are the far right fringe, then your cause is truly lost. comradely Gary Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Jul 26, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Jeff via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: But you can't demand from me a list of countries that do or don't deserve sanctions. And although Russia's interference in Ukraine is contrary to the interests and rights of Ukranians, no one has to decide whether sanctions are “right or wrong, whatever those terms might mean. Your analysis is faulty, and frankly I think you’re being evasive on the issue of sanctions because you are uneasy about finding yourself in the same camp as the EU and the US. Re: your analysis. Both Russia and the NATO powers - not Russia alone - are intervening in a civil war to respectively support the predominantly ethnic Russian and ethnic Ukrainian regions of the country respectively. This has been occuring within the more general context of Russian defensiveness about NATO expansion since the end of the Cold War, including into former Soviet republics like Ukraine. It is not, as has been simplistically portrayed here, a case of Russian aggression against “all” Ukrainians. The country is sharply divided along ethnic, religious, political, and to some extent class lines, and the US and EU have arguably done more to provoke the crisis than has Russia. That Louis thinks Putin is a nasty fellow is quite beside the point. Re: sanctions. If I believed, as you do, that the issue truly is Russian aggression against all Ukrainians, then I would support tougher US and EU sanctions against Russia and more military assistance to the Kiev regime. It would be inconsistent - some would say politically cowardly - not to openly join with Western politicians, political parties, and much mass opinion in advocating for such assistance. So why the hesitation? The main thing I notice about sanctions against Russia, considering all that has transpired, is that the EU countries in particular are rather reluctant to implement very serious sanctions, because their economic interests (particularly dependence on Russian gas/oil) are at odds with their geopolitical concerns (losing influence in East Europe). That is a more pertinent discussion than whether sanctions will do more harm than good, or which capitalist has the right or moral authority to implement punishments against a different capitalist country. It’s true that the EU countries have more at stake because of their economic ties to Russia, but they are gradually being pushed into compliance with the tough sanctions regime being proposed by the US, primarily because their banks are dependent on the US dollar clearing system controlled by the Federal Reserve. That is why, whatever their own reservations and interests, the Europeans have also had to fall in line with the sanctions policy. It was much the same in relation to Iran. The next stage of “tier three” sanctions, if implemented, are widely expected to plunge Russia into recession. I very much agree with you that sanctions should not be considered as moral issues. They are political, designed to accomplish a political end. In this case, the sanctions are designed to force the Russian government to abandon its political and military support of the east Ukraine masses who are seeking more autonomy - in some cases, outright independence - from the Ukraine regime which is based on the right-wing parties in the regions to the west. Whether you think the effect of such sanctions “will do more harm than good” depends, of course, on whether you think they will accomplish their objective, and that their objective is worth supporting. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Oxymoron alerty! (was Re: NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Jul 26, 2014, at 11:05 AM, Louis Proyect via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: Shane, when is the last time you wrote anything longer than 500 words? When you were a member of the Robertson-Wolforth faction in the SWP? Your PhD thesis on the FROP? Don't you realize what a waste of time and bandwidth your sniping is? What accounts for your attention deficit disorder? Too many LSD trips? Oh yeah, I’m trigger, trigger happy Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy Oh baby, I’m trigger, trigger happy Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy Oh I’m so trigger, trigger happy Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy Better watch out, punk, or I'm gonna have to blow you away -Weird Al Yankovic “Trigger Happy” Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 7/26/14 11:38 AM, Marv Gandall via Marxism wrote: The country is sharply divided along ethnic, religious, political, and to some extent class lines, and the US and EU have arguably done more to provoke the crisis than has Russia. No, Marvin. The crisis has existed ever Catherine the Great. It is a crisis first and foremost over Ukraine's status as an oppressed nation. It matters little that the Kyiv government is run by pro-EU oligarchs who have appointed Svoboda or Right Sector members to one or another post. The ordinary people who took to the streets in November 2013 were opposing oligarchic rule. They were smart enough to know that Tymoshenko et al did not represent them any more than Yanukovych did. Despite your fancy footwork to prove that you were opposed to both the EU and Russia, it is obvious to anybody who follows your interventions here that you were on the side of Kagarlitsky et al. Marvin Gandall: Kagarlitsky's continuing analysis of the contending forces has been superb. (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.politics.marxism.marxmail/176678/) What a disgrace. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Oxymoron alerty! (was Re: NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Unfortunately, this list for most users is useful only because of the occasionally linked articles with a few words of comment. Hundred of thousands of words aren't so useful. Particularly when they are mostly devoted, as unfortunately often occurs also in this list, not to theoretically relevant questions, but on geopolitical issues and - which is worst - are aimed to explain that Ghaddafi, Assad, now perhaps Putin are to overthrown. Without caring of what really happened in Libya (where a state was simply destroyed by NATO), in Syria (where the same is happening thanks to the insurgents paid from US and the notoriously marxists in power in Saudi Arabia), and in Kiew (Nazis in power, massacre in odessa, bombing of civilians in the east, illegalisation of the communist party and so on, the treaty with the UE that split the country [the former president of the European Commission Prodi - not a marxist indeed - admitted and reproached it!], the NATO continuing expansion toward the East in a Wehrmacht-like strategy, etc etc). Only about Gaza I recently read more equilibrated views. And now I read that someone should write more... I would on the contrary say: write better if you can. If you can't, write less. On 7/26/14 10:33 AM, Shane Mage via Marxism wrote: On Jul 26, 2014, at 9:16 AM, Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote: ...a blogger who has made his positions clear in hundreds of thousands of words... Shane, when is the last time you wrote anything longer than 500 words? Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Oxymoron alerty! (was Re: NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 7/26/14 12:01 PM, Vladimiro Giacche' wrote: Unfortunately, this list for most users is useful only because of the occasionally linked articles with a few words of comment. Hundred of thousands of words aren't so useful. Particularly when they are mostly devoted, as unfortunately often occurs also in this list, not to theoretically relevant questions, but on geopolitical issues and - which is worst - are aimed to explain that Ghaddafi, Assad, now perhaps Putin are to overthrown. Without caring of what really happened in Libya (where a state was simply destroyed by NATO), in Syria (where the same is happening thanks to the insurgents paid from US and the notoriously marxists in power in Saudi Arabia), and in Kiew (Nazis in power, massacre in odessa, bombing of civilians in the east, illegalisation of the communist party and so on, the treaty with the UE that split the country [the former president of the European Commission Prodi - not a marxist indeed - admitted and reproached it!], the NATO continuing expansion toward the East in a Wehrmacht-like strategy, etc etc). Only about Gaza I recently read more equilibrated views. And now I read that someone should write more... Of course they should write more. You just attempted to analyze global conflicts in 50 words. I would be embarrassed to make such an attempt. But I imagine that it must be tough for you to be subbed here when your sympathies are obviously with Stalinism. In a way, it is too bad that the A-List disappeared (at least I think it did) when servers got switched at the U. of Utah. It was a place where you could read 35 messages a day about how evil NATO was and how beneficent China was, especially through its lifting up the Dark Continent. I imagine that it must be tough for Stalinists to start something up on the Internet. That's the price of 90 years of ideological conformity, I suppose. It is much easier to rely on what party bosses told you was right Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Oxymoron alerty! (was Re: NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Unfortunately, this list for most users is useful only because of the occasionally linked articles with a few words of comment. Hundred of thousands of words aren't so useful. Clay Claiborne, Louis Proyect, Sergii Kutnii and others have posted a lot of material about the facts about what is going on in Ukraine, Syria, Libya, etc., and refuting the incredible stream of lies from the revisionist world. I don't agree with all of CC or LP's analysis, but I think the material they have posted is extremely valuable, and I hope they continue to post more. Not everyone has the time to go through all the ins and outs of every claim, or the connections to find the statements from the more serious sources. For myself, I don't find it especially useful when people repeat a few words of condemnation of the masses who have risen against backward forces which the revisionists embrace. One can find that anywhere, from RT to Workers World to certain bourgeois liberals. Well, those words are useful here, but only insofar as they inspire others to refute them. Since the crisis in Ukraine began, I have looked for sources on what's going on. I have read much material from various sources. The material from various Ukrainian trends which are independent of the revisionists has been quite valuable, although these trends have had a hard time developing an adequate political stand. (For example, the material from the Autonomous Workers Union is quite significant, and one sees the dedicated efforts of activists to move Ukraine forward, but their anarchist stand blocks them from figuring out what to do in a complicated situation since as that of Maidan and anti-Maidan.) It is said by some that there are many divisions among Ukrainians, and even among Ukrainian workers, coal miners, etc. It's true that there are divisions. But the history since independence shows that a certain slow, zigzag progress takes place. And without Russian interference, the present complicated political situation would not have given rise to armed conflict. Independence in 1991 did not bring utopia to Ukraine, and Ukraine has suffered immensely from the economic miseries of modern capitalism. But there has been slow political progress among the Ukrainian masses; the situation is still freer in Ukraine than in Russia; and the political progress is important for preparing the masses for something better. The overthrow of Yanukovych was a typical Ukrainian political event, a bit of progress and a lot of complication. (That's actually how things move forward everywhere, insofar as they do sometimes move forward, in the present situation in which the workers movement and the left are disorganized and in crisis everywhere.) But it took Russian government interference to turn this into mass bloodshed, and it takes revisionist blindness to fail to see the important of the masses having risen up against Yanukovych, and having risen up despite the lack of a mass political force that could represent their interests. And it takes revisionist blindness to judge things solely from the standpoint of the rivalry of the EU or Eurasian Union capitalists. It's no secret that the Russian government and Russian chauvinists don't accept the right to self-determination of Ukraine and other former regions of the USSR. It's not secret that Putin acted punitively, even while Yanukovych was still president, out of fear that Ukraine wouldn't take part in Eurasianism. The Russian government and the revisionists are ready to fight to the last Ukrainian (whether Russian ethnic Ukrainian or not) to force Ukraine to do what they want. This is a crime against both the people of Russia as well as those of Ukraine, and those who close their eyes to what's going on are harming the interests of the Russian working class (in Russia) as well as those of Ukrainian working people (including Russophones and Russian ethnic Ukrainians). -- Joseph Green Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/jgreen%40communistvoice.org --- Joseph Green m...@communistvoice.org Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Fwd: The Kill Team | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Arguably, the only good things to come out of the war in Afghanistan are the more than 30 documentaries depicting the American role as nothing less than heinous. Joining “Restrepo” and “The Tillman Story” in the top ranks is “The Kill Team”, which opened yesterday at Lincoln Center (full schedule information, including a nationwide rollout is here: http://killteammovie.com/see-the-film). full: http://louisproyect.org/2014/07/26/the-kill-team/ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 7/26/14 1:52 PM, Marv Gandall wrote: For these reasons it is not deserving of the kind of uncritical and unconditional support you and others have extended to it. Actually most of what I write has little to do with support of any kind. As has been the case since the Arab Spring began, I am much more interested in cutting through the bullshit I keep seeing over and over again, much of it inspired by Russian and Iranian TV that the left in Britain and the USA sucks up to. When a thousand articles were written to praise Qaddafi's resistance to AFRICOM, I took the trouble to go to the AFRICOM website and find documentation on the Libyan military's bromance with AFRICOM. When the left jumped on board the Baathist express, I made a point of tracking down all the articles that showed the mutual interests the White House and Syria had, starting with the CIA rendition program that landed men (sometimes innocent) in Syrian dungeons to be tortured for months on end. After going through 4 years of wading through the latrines on Libya and Syria, I was all set to be on the lookout for the same sorts of things going on with Ukraine. It staggers the mind to see the pure crap that gets written by Kagarlitsky, Stephen F. Cohen, and Robert Parry. I feel like the guy in coveralls with a broom following the elephants in the parade. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: The Kill Team | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 7/26/14 3:29 PM, Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote: Arguably, the only good things to come out of the war in Afghanistan are the more than 30 documentaries depicting the American role as nothing less than heinous. Joining “Restrepo” and “The Tillman Story” in the top ranks is “The Kill Team”, which opened yesterday at Lincoln Center (full schedule information, including a nationwide rollout is here: http://killteammovie.com/see-the-film). full: http://louisproyect.org/2014/07/26/the-kill-team/ Just heard from Alan Wald on this: Ralph Levitt, one of your greatest fans, just sent me your review. Dan Krauss is my nephew--oldest son of my older sister. He previously made an Oscar-nominated documentary about radical photographers against S. African apartheid, The Bang Bang Club. I just forward the review to him, which he will appreciate as he was dismayed by yesterday's N.Y. Times piece by Manola D.. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 07/26/2014 04:20 AM, Lenin's Tomb wrote: So, to be clear: I point out that the “studies” you are citing /neither attempt nor claim/ to be comprehensive estimates of civilian deaths arising from NATO’s bombing campaign. And your response is to demand of me that I supplement their data by providing documented instances of civilian casualties not counted by them. I’m afraid you’re simply not thinking. Lenin's Tomb examples the Left's main error on Libya, which is its failure to learn from its mistakes. Lenin's Tomb has now demonstratively been wrong on Libya but rather than examining its past analysis for errors, it ignores them and doubles down on its generally negative assessment of the Libyan Revolution. Let's examine the record: In March 2011 http://www.leninology.co.uk/2011/03/un-votes-for-libya-air-strikes.html this was its best-case scenario for the Libyan revolution, which it thought unlikely: The best-case scenario is that people are killed to little avail, and the former regime elements in the transitional leadership have just diverted energies and initiative down a blind alley. I suppose you might object that the best-case scenario is that the air strikes exclusively kill the bad guys, turning the initiative in favour of the revolutionaries, allowing them to sieze power, build a liberal democratic state, and the cavalry heads home. And the band played, 'Believe it if you like'. My assessment of what did happen is that the air strikes killed 90-95% bad guys, did turn the initiative in favor of the revolutionaries allowing them to seize power and then the cavalry flew home. Process of rebuilding the state virtually from scratch, and not in the way Lenin's Tomb envisioned, is on going and continues to be the center of political struggle. In April 2011 http://www.leninology.co.uk/2011/04/springtime-for-nato-in-libya.html, Lenin's Tomb offered the opinion that after NATO intervention only a puppet government could emerge: Can I just risk a modest proposition? NATO, the CIA and the special forces belonging to the world's imperialist states are not forces of progress in this world. Does anyone disagree with that? If not, then it follows as surely as night follows day that the successful cooptation of the Libyan revolution by NATO, the CIA and special forces is a victory for reaction. It's no good hoping that the small, poorly armed, poorly trained militias of the east of Libya, who are now utterly dependent on external support, will somehow shake themselves free of such constraints once - if - they take power. LT thought the most likely outcome would be a deal brokered by NATO that left the Qaddafi state machinery in place: they [NATO] offer a prolonged civil war at best culminating in a settlement with Saif and his sibling. Given events in Syria, I wouldn't call Libya's civil war prolonged and Saif's relation to state power is detention awaking trial. LT elaborates: Yes, I know. A negotiated settlement would be a step back from outright victory for the rebels. But that is an increasingly improbable outcome anyway, and I thought we were trying to save lives here? And as it happens, a diplomatic solution seems to be exactly what is on the cards now. LT came to the conclusion early that the Libyan Revolution had been converted into the US War on Libya: The opposition leaders are now adjuncts to a NATO strategy which may not even have been disclosed to them. Let's at least give credit where it's due. This is NATO's war. And that means, this is Washington's war. As things developed, the US never flew more than about 17% of the strike missions in what LT had called Washington's war, so LT changed its position accordingly, in April http://www.leninology.co.uk/2011/04/where-is-bombing-of-libya-going.html predicting a Qaddafi victory unless NATO put in troops: The US is pulling out of the air war, amid divisions and recriminations, and is saying that it will not engage in the training or arming of the rebels. In short, it is retreating from any explicit military involvement in the Libyan revolt. This may amount to an admission of failure. Qadhafi's recent recovery in some parts of the country may be reversed, but he is unlikely to lose the core western territories that he now commands. Is this the kind of stability that is sought? A constant war of attrition between two slightly better matched forces? What's the alternative, apart from a land invasion? LT thought http://www.leninology.co.uk/2011/08/libya-downfall.html Washington's war would ultimately result in a re-constituted Qaddafi regime. This was said in August
Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Jul 26, 2014, at 7:59 AM, Joseph Catron via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: Oh, FFS. It's more than one thousand times Libya's. Sorry, guys. I promise you don’t want to know how little sleep I've been getting lately. :-D We can guess. Glad to hear you’re all right, especially after the hospital shelling. Kudos for your exemplary first-hand reporting to EI and other news outlets. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 07/26/2014 08:38 AM, Marv Gandall via Marxism wrote: the US and EU have arguably done more to provoke the crisis than has Russia. Russia side of ledger: Thousands of unmarked Russia troops occupying Crimea. The annexation of Crimea by Russia The infiltration of thousands of Russian agents in east Ukraine to build a separatist movement. Providing armor and advanced anti-aircraft weapons to its military forces fighting in Ukraine. Filling its media with lies and fabrications about Ukraine http://www.stopfake.org/en/russia-s-top-lies-about-ukraine-part-1/ http://www.stopfake.org/en/russia-s-top-lies-about-ukraine-part-2/ Using the Russian air force against Ukraine Firing artillery into Ukraine. And on the US EU side of the ledger we have what exactly? And why are we even having this conversation? Is it your job, Marv, to distract us from discussing the real world? Clay Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 26 Jul 2014, at 23:58, Charles Faulkner via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: thanks clay. as has been usual in the short time i have been on this listserv you are very thorough and present a compelling case in this instance. i look forward to the reply, which i hope is as substantive. No, I’m afraid not. There are three reasons for this. First, Clay’s argument amounts to a huge and abrupt change of subject. If he isn’t going to deal with my substantive points, I don’t see why I should deal with his. Second, everything he has to say about my blog posts is either pointmissing or circular - but it’s pointmissing or circular in order to deflect attention from the original subject. Third, I have a chapter to rewrite. This is displacement activity. If anyone finds Clay's case “compelling”, I’ll just have to live with it. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Libya
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 7/26/14 7:40 PM, Lenin's Tomb via Marxism wrote: Third, I have a chapter to rewrite. This is displacement activity. If anyone finds Clay's case “compelling”, I’ll just have to live with it. I should mention that I have been going through the mainstream press from the month following the death of Qaddafi until the present moment. I was up to Feb. 8, 2012 but had to put it on the back burner. I plan to return to my research this week to deal with the question of what happened in Libya against the backdrop of the problems of revolution in general, either political or social. I may or may not get to evaluating Horace Campbell and Maxmillian Forte's books on Libya as part of this analysis. I had some contact with Horace a while back and can state that he is a lot closer to me than Forte, who I regard as a big fat liar. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Libya
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Louis Proyect writes: I should mention that I have been going through the mainstream press from the month following the death of Qaddafi until the present moment. I was up to Feb. 8, 2012 but had to put it on the back burner. I plan to return to my research this week to deal with the question of what happened in Libya against the backdrop of the problems of revolution in general, either political or social. I may or may not get to evaluating Horace Campbell and Maxmillian Forte's books on Libya as part of this analysis. I had some contact with Horace a while back and can state that he is a lot closer to me than Forte, who I regard as a big fat liar. Funny, I edited Horace's book at the end of 2012. So much work it completely ruined my holidays. As I was reading it, I thought to myself that Louis Proyect would not agree with any of it. So it will be interesting to see what he says about it. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == -Original Message- From: Clay Claiborne via Marxism and while, as their narrative makes clear, every death is an individual tragedy, I still have seen no facts that back up a claim that NATO caused massive civilian deaths in Sirte. The problem with this discussion when it comes to Sirte is that, even if you convinced yourself that not many civilians were killed there (an unlikely proposition) and that these deaths were accidental, surely the issue is whether NATO had any right whatsoever (I don't mean legal right but ethical or any way you look at it) to be bombing the hell out of this city. Obviously, most in this discussion, other than Clay, have said that it's not a great idea to call on NATO to intervene even in exceptional circumstances. But even if we were to concede, for argument's sake, that there was a case to support NATO defending Benghazi from an immanent massacre by Gaddafi (I'd prefer to say, difficult in practice to oppose, and that was Gaddafi's fault, and who can blame the Libyans in Benghazi for calling for it) then surely such support or toleration should only be for the most minimum time necessary. In fact even Gilbert Achcar, who was essentially misquoted as supporting (rather than not opposing) the initial intervention to protect Benghazi, said within a couple of weeks of that event, that once that was done, if NATO settles in for a more prolonged involvement, we should vigorously demand NATO out. Whatever Gaddafi was, I don' think socialists should have supported a 6-month NATO intervention fighting on the side of the NTC to help bring it to power in Libya. But again for argument's sake, even if one really did think that was a good idea, how can one possibly justify a continued NATO intervention *after Gaddafi had been ousted from power*? Gaddafi fell in August, yet the bloody sieges of Sirte and Bani Walid continued for another two full months. As NATO bombed these cities from the sky (allegedly trying to avoid accidents), the ex-rebels besieged them on the ground. Thus whatever one's view on the previous engagement, surely the roles by now were completely reversed: NATO was by then launching an air war against two population centres on behalf of a new regime; the populations of these two cities were now the rebels because they didn't support the new regime; however, they were not launching a rebellion to take power, merely to keep the new NTC/Misrata militia goons out. Why was it necessary for NATO and the NTC to bomb these cities into submission for two months? Obviously not to protect civilians a la Benghazi 8 months earlier. I suggest to consolidate the process of turning what had begun as a liberation movement into its opposite, turning former rebel militias into repressive bodies of the new state. In the process, demolishing Sirte, making it look like the cities and towns all over Syria that have been demolished by Assad, as abundant photographic evidence will show. An epic war crime. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I just read Michael K.'s contribution and am really glad I did. On the other hand I skipped about 20 messages in this thread once it degenerated into a flame war. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Michael Karadjis via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == -Original Message- From: Clay Claiborne via Marxism and while, as their narrative makes clear, every death is an individual tragedy, I still have seen no facts that back up a claim that NATO caused massive civilian deaths in Sirte. The problem with this discussion when it comes to Sirte is that, even if you convinced yourself that not many civilians were killed there (an unlikely proposition) and that these deaths were accidental, surely the issue is whether NATO had any right whatsoever (I don't mean legal right but ethical or any way you look at it) to be bombing the hell out of this city. Obviously, most in this discussion, other than Clay, have said that it's not a great idea to call on NATO to intervene even in exceptional circumstances. But even if we were to concede, for argument's sake, that there was a case to support NATO defending Benghazi from an immanent massacre by Gaddafi (I'd prefer to say, difficult in practice to oppose, and that was Gaddafi's fault, and who can blame the Libyans in Benghazi for calling for it) then surely such support or toleration should only be for the most minimum time necessary. In fact even Gilbert Achcar, who was essentially misquoted as supporting (rather than not opposing) the initial intervention to protect Benghazi, said within a couple of weeks of that event, that once that was done, if NATO settles in for a more prolonged involvement, we should vigorously demand NATO out. Whatever Gaddafi was, I don' think socialists should have supported a 6-month NATO intervention fighting on the side of the NTC to help bring it to power in Libya. But again for argument's sake, even if one really did think that was a good idea, how can one possibly justify a continued NATO intervention *after Gaddafi had been ousted from power*? Gaddafi fell in August, yet the bloody sieges of Sirte and Bani Walid continued for another two full months. As NATO bombed these cities from the sky (allegedly trying to avoid accidents), the ex-rebels besieged them on the ground. Thus whatever one's view on the previous engagement, surely the roles by now were completely reversed: NATO was by then launching an air war against two population centres on behalf of a new regime; the populations of these two cities were now the rebels because they didn't support the new regime; however, they were not launching a rebellion to take power, merely to keep the new NTC/Misrata militia goons out. Why was it necessary for NATO and the NTC to bomb these cities into submission for two months? Obviously not to protect civilians a la Benghazi 8 months earlier. I suggest to consolidate the process of turning what had begun as a liberation movement into its opposite, turning former rebel militias into repressive bodies of the new state. In the process, demolishing Sirte, making it look like the cities and towns all over Syria that have been demolished by Assad, as abundant photographic evidence will show. An epic war crime. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/ options/marxism/acpollack2%40gmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Libya
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 7/26/14 8:35 PM, michael yates via Marxism wrote: As I was reading it, I thought to myself that Louis Proyect would not agree with any of it. In our email exchanges, Horace emphasized that he was no fan of Gaddafi, an impression that might have been gleaned from his condemnation of NATO. This is what he wrote in 2010: Muammar al-Gaddafi has established himself as an enemy of the unification of the peoples of Africa for over 40 years. Last week, Gaddafi exceeded his conservative instincts when he stated before a group of young students that Nigeria should be split in two. Instead of motivating the students to work for the transformation and unification of the peoples of Nigeria as one prerequisite for the unification of Africa, Gaddafi called for the country to be divided on religious grounds. He exposed his ignorance of African religious and spiritual traditions because there was no room for followers of African religious beliefs in his call for the division of this society. This call for the division of Nigeria is one more effort to break up Nigerian society so that this society is weakened and its people subjected to more exploitation and manipulation. For 40 years Gaddafi had supported the butchers and dictators in Africa. Starting with his military support for Idi Amin of Uganda and other murderers such as Foday Sankoh and Charles Taylor, this militarist in Libya was an obstacle to African liberation. For a short while after Nelson Mandela rescued him from obscurity, Gaddafi had sought to use his wealth to buy the leadership of the African Union (AU). He was made to understand that the unity of Africa was more profound than the meeting of leaders of states. The statements of Gadafi on Nigeria must be condemned in the strongest terms and it is time to strip away the fallacy that Gaddafi stood in the ranks of African revolutionary leadership. full: http://pambazuka.org/en/category/panafrican/63299 Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == LT, I really had nothing to add to the original subject of how many civilians NATO killed in Libya. The most anybody has counted is 72, we both agree there may be more, you cling to the notion that there are a lot more but feel no responsibility to say who they were and where they died. I think you take this stand because you still need to believe in a set of facts that support the conclusions you made about NATO's war over Libya even before it began. My longer response was designed to explore the range of wrong opinions about Libya that you are still trying to defend when you should be trying to help the Libyan people succeed. I hope that chapter you are re-writing is about Libya. Clay Clay Claiborne, Director Vietnam: American Holocaust http://VietnamAmericanHolocaust.com Linux Beach Productions Venice, CA 90291 (310) 581-1536 Read my blogs at the Linux Beach http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/ http://wlcentral.org/user/2965/track Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 07/26/2014 05:36 PM, Michael Karadjis wrote: The problem with this discussion when it comes to Sirte is that, even if you convinced yourself that not many civilians were killed there I didn't say and I don't think that few civilians were killed in the battle of Sirte. Many were, but not by NATO. The battle of Sirte was brutal and it was under siege for a long time and heavily damaged by opposition artillery. Later the pro-Qaddafi forces circulated these pictures of artillery damage in Sirte but labeled it NATO bomb damage and began the myth of massive civilian casualties caused by NATO in Sirte. During the Battle of Sirte, 15 Sept - 20 Oct, NATO carried out 45 strikes on buildings in Sirte, all designated as military ammunition/storage facilities, command and control nodes, military vehicle storage facilities, military barracks facility, etc and 117 strikes on vehicles, tanks, missile launchers and radar facilities. bombing the hell out of this city. That is certainly a Qaddafi friendly way to describe the above air activity. then surely such support or toleration should only be for the most minimum time necessary. Would that be for as long as Qaddafi persisted in killing civilians or only until he brought his targeting of civilians below a certain threshold? Did NATO's responsibility encompass the siege of Misrata too or only Benghazi? At what point was NATO relieved of its responsibility to protect civilians? At what point did Qaddafi stop attacking civilians? In fact even Gilbert Achcar, who was essentially misquoted as supporting (rather than not opposing) the initial intervention to protect Benghazi, said within a couple of weeks of that event, that once that was done, if NATO settles in for a more prolonged involvement, we should vigorously demand NATO out. That answers my question. Misrata was SOL as far as the socialists were concerned. Whatever Gaddafi was, meaning even if he was a fascist, racist, mad dog killer. I don' think socialists should have supported a 6-month NATO intervention fighting on the side of the NTC to help bring it to power in Libya. socialists shouldn't support his overthrow once NATO offered to help. Gaddafi fell in August, yet the bloody sieges of Sirte and Bani Walid continued for another two full months. Micheal may have known he fell in August but that fact wasn't clear to either the Qaddafi forces or the rest of the world until Sirte and Bani Walid fell. surely the roles by now were completely reversed: In both Sirte and Bani Walid, the Qaddafi regime refused to let civilians leave the areas under siege. Truly they were using them as human shields. That is why those sieges were so drawn out. The NTC was trying to win them with a minimum further lost of life. The true banality of the Qaddafi regime showed nowhere as in these last two battles because after the fall of Tripoli it had to be clear to all involved just how things were doing to turn out. Still the Qaddafi forces barricaded themselves in these two strongholds, refused to let the people leave [ and most did want to flee the scene of a battle ] , used summary executions to keep them there and forced a series of very bloody, if hopeless battles at the end. This was not a reversal of roles, this was a continuation of Qaddafi's same policies even when they had become irrational. Under these circumstances I don't think NATO's responsibility to protect would have been served by washing their hands of these final battles, as Michael wishes, so much as using their air power and smart weaponry to much more quickly reduce Qaddafi's military power with considerably less danger to civilians than the NTC's artillery. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Dammit, It Is NOT Unravelling: An Historian’s Rebuke to Misrepresentations of Sykes-Picot
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Dammit, It Is NOT Unravelling: An Historian’s Rebuke to Misrepresentations of Sykes-Picot Posted by Reidar Visser on Monday, 30 December 2013 2:25 I have long maintained that Western commentary on the Middle East is driven as much by trends in journalese as by realities on the ground and historical facts. For example, for much of the past decade we have been told that the country of Iraq is about to “implode”, given that it was “cobbled together” after the First World War from three “disparate” provinces whose centrifugal forces have continued to “fuel” and “stoke” conflict between “embattled” Iraqi “factions” in the period after 2003, making it quite impossible for them to justly “divvy up” the country’s revenue derived from the “oil-rich Shiite south” and the “Kurdish north”. All of this ismisleading, and if these clichés hadn’t been employed by Western journos and pundits in the first place it would perhaps have been easier to understand the survival of Iraq as a nation despite pressures from the outside that can hardly be described as other than extreme. With the recent shift of attention to Syria, a new artificial focus of discussion has emerged among Western pundits, namely, whether the Sykes-Picot agreement between the British and the French during the First World War is in the process of “unravelling”. Most commentators seem to think it is, with a particular emphasis on the supposed role of Sykes-Picot in determining the modern boundary between Iraq and Syria. As a consequence of this perspective, the ragtag of bandits and terrorists that is also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) end up being portrayed, explicitly or implicitly, as the implementers of some kind of deep-rooted popular urge for pan-Arab and pan-Islamic unity that supposedly pulls the Syrian and Iraqi peoples towards each other. Here is why the current focus on Sykes Picot is misguided. 1. The Sykes-Picot Agreement Is Not What Many People Think It Is. When it was concluded in 1916, the main idea behind the agreement was to secure annexation of certain coastal areas that were deemed to be of particular interest to the allies, especially Basra for the British and the coastland between Lebanon and Cilicia for the French (the Russians were accorded control of the Straits for similar reasons). The truly important aspect of the Sykes-Picot map were therefore the areas of exclusive control along the coasts – British in Acre/Haifa and Basra (naval interest playing a key role); French in Lebanon and north to Alexandretta in Turkey (the location of Christian minorities was accorded much importance). By way of contrast, the details of demarcation in the interior – where a more informal form of British and French influence was envisaged – was accorded less importance at the time. Furthermore, scholars such as Eliezer Tauber and Nelida Fuccaro have convincingly demonstrated that local politics, not the rough lines of Sykes Picot, governed the final details regarding the disposal of border areas between Syria and Iraq like Abu Kamal and Jabal Sinjar during the 1920s. Conversely, local resistance against Sykes Picot at the time was mainly framed as a protest against the way in which the agreement divided what was perceived as “historical Syria” by isolating the coastal fringe including Lebanon and the Alawite lands from Damascus. The desire for union between Iraq and Syria, by way of contrast, was not such a central theme. By December 1918, the Covenant society loyal to the Hashemite princes, probably the most pan-Arab force of the day, had itself fragmented into Syrian and Iraqi branches, quite without the help of foreign officers. To the extent that cross-border irredentism continued to survive in the 1920s and the 1930s, it mostly had the character of local regionalisms rather than popular movements for Syrian-Iraqi unity. In particular, the territory along the Euphrates from Ana in Iraq north to Raqqa in Syria remained the subject of some turbulence, with Raqqa often enumerated among Iraqi nationalists as a maximum objective of western expansion. Similarly, Hanna Batatu identified a degree of interwar regionalism linking Mosul in Iraq and Aleppo in Syria as a result of the way new borders cut across that old trade region. At no point, though, did any viable separatist or irredentist party emerge. 2. The Central Features of the Post-1918 Map of the Middle East Had Local Antecedents.Sometimes Sykes-Picot is being construed as a complete armchair project by willful European strategists. What is often not realized is the extent to which the agreement merely put on the map patterns of special administrative arrangements that had been in the making under
[Marxism] Cory Robin - a Gaza Breviary
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == *http://coreyrobin.com/2014/07/27/a-gaza-breviary/ http://coreyrobin.com/2014/07/27/a-gaza-breviary/* Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Barry Sheppard: Some comments on the debate around Ukraine | Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == By *Barry Sheppard* July 28, 2014 -- /Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ -- It is clear that people who consider themselves to be some form of revolutionary socialist do not agree on the facts about Ukraine. We do not even have agreement on whether or not Russia is imperialist, or even what the word means. I would urge caution and patience in assessing the current situation. But here is my take in a nutshell of what I think are the facts, culled from various sources. Full article at http://links.org.au/node/3973 Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
