Re: [Marxism] Fwd: The Sanders campaign is officially over. Now his supporters wonder: What’s next? - The Washington Post

[Clay Claiborne via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

If you read my 5 August reply to his thread you know I remember the
Goldwater campaign of 1964. My Dad told me Goldwater got stupid when he got
drunk and he got drunk often. In fact, as a fast rising GOP operative , my
Dad ran a dirty-tricks MLK  Jr. write-in campaign

in key districts in 1964, spending a lot of GOP money in the process. The
idea, of course, was to help Goldwater get elected by getting blacks to
"vote their conscious" by switching from that Southerner to Dr. King. By
the time Reagan got into the White House, Clay Claiborne, Sr. joined
Richard Bissell as one of the 17 members of the think tank strategy board[
or CIA front?] that issued the white paper

for Reagan's plans to take down the Soviet Union  So as it happens, I have
had a lot of info, some of it not public, about every GOP president &
campaign since Ike.

I cried when Nixon got elected in 1968, but not because I feared he was
going to reverse Johnson's trend in civil rights, but because I feared it
would mean 4 more years of war in Vietnam, which it did.

So not only have I lived, as a black person in the US, through all those
presidencies, I generally had some insight into their inter-workings.
Goldwater was widely called out as a racist because he refused to back the
1964 civil rights law but he didn't make white supremacy a big part of his
campaign and as I pointed out in the above referenced post, his stand on
the klan in 1964 was better that Trump's today! Nixon was the one who took
the GOP down the road of the racist "Southern Strategy" it been on since,
courting white voters with racist dog whistles but I defy you to find the
Nixon equivalents of building a wall to keep Mexicans out, or banning all
Muslims.

Trump is certainly giving a wink to the white supremacists, to use your
happy phrase, in a way that no candidate with a real possibly of becoming
president has done in my lifetime. I can tell you how Hilary Clinton used
racism against Obama in NH in the '08 primaries. If you don't already know
that one, then you probably don't need to try to educate me about the
racism of the Clintons. Yes, every presidential candidate, especially from
the GOP has used white supremacy to get elected, but I'm here to tell you
that no other major presidential campaign in my lifetime has put white
supremacy at its center like the Trump campaign.

The black masses are on the Defeat Trump/Stop White Supremacist bandwagon.
At least I think that is what the numbers show. Obama got 93% of the black
vote. Clinton is expected do as well, some polls have her doing better. So
much for the claim blacks just voted for Obama because he is black. In the
past, the GOP could count on a small black vote
.
Bush got 9% in 2000 and 11% in 2004. Trump is expected to get 1% of the
black vote. Some polls have him with 0%

Now, why do you suppose that is? I think its because most black people in
the US are of the same opinion as this seasoned black Marxist, which is to
say that the Trump campaign represents a qualitatively new threat to us.
Some people may think it would be just peachy keen if all those black
voters were to switch their votes from Clinton to Stein even if it meant
Trump gets in the WH but those black voters are not going to vote against
their best interest.

I am finding it quite interesting that those arguing against voting for
either Trump or Clinton, find themselves arguing that Trump really isn't
that bad. I think we are going to see these two arguments joined a lot, the
same way people opposed to intervention in Syria feel the need to bad mouth
the revolution.

So to answer your twice put question. The Left is so tiny that I don't
think it will matter whether they vote for Clinton on not, so they should
feel free to vote whatever makes them feel good, they have that privilege.
And truly, from their POV, a Trump presidency that institutionalizes racism
at a new level, won't be as big a problem as it will be for colored people.

Either Hilary Clinton or Donal Trump will be the next president of the US.
That's just the way it is. I think its important that we stand with the
black masses, in fact all people of color, in the US that will be voting
overwhelmingly to keep Trump out of the WH by voting for Clinton.

I expect the white Left to give backhand support for Trump by campaigning
harder against Clinton than Trump, and by working harder to win voters away
from 

[Marxism] [UCE] Fwd: Can you vote for what you want in 2016? | SocialistWorker.org

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

IN THE words of the late U.S. socialist Peter Camejo, "The enormous 
success of the two-party, pro-money political system developed in the 
United States is in getting about half the people simply not to vote, 
and forcing those who do--even when they disagree with corporate 
domination--to vote in favor of what they oppose."


By contrast, readers of this website will have a lot in common with 
Stein's radical political vision, though we do have some disagreements. 
For example, while opposing U.S. intervention in the Middle East, Stein 
has sometimes downplayed the role of other imperialist forces, such as 
Russia, which is intervening to uphold its own interests.


Stein's newly announced running mate Ajuma Baraka is a dedicated fighter 
for Black liberation, opponent of U.S. imperialism and supporter of the 
Palestinian struggle. But he has written articles minimizing the scale 
of repression carried out by the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria 
against the revolutionary opposition, while reinforcing the myth that 
the Assad regime represents an expression of "national sovereignty" 
against U.S. imperialism. These mistaken views will only alienate people 
drawn to Stein's vision of a democratic struggle for change in the U.S.


In general, the Stein platform is clearly left wing, and she represents 
an independent alternative to the two-party duopoly. Stein has no 
realistic chance of winning the presidential election in 2016 and 
putting her program into action. But she deserves the vote of those who 
support it--because if they vote for Clinton instead, their agenda will 
be set back.


full: https://socialistworker.org/2016/08/03/can-you-vote-for-what-you-want
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] as things stand in the UK

[Gary MacLennan via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

I continue to feel a bit weird about posting into the vacuum of cyber space
on the British Labour Party's leadership contest.  Though, while young
Proyect's List is stubbornly silent about what I am writing, my venture
into the Twitter-sphere has met with some feed back.  I tentatively put my
toe into the water and tweeted - Yes!. Some liked and some re-tweeted one
of my tweets. (What a sentence).  Can't quite believe it.

In the wonderful world of twitter, I follow Aaron Bastani of Novara Media,
Richard Seymour and several others.

Bastani is definitely interesting.  His doctorate appears to have been on
"connective campaigning" as opposed to collective campaigning. Among the
writers he cited was Sidney Tarrow - the author of -
*Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics.*

I managed to locate a summary of the book and I will pursue it further*.* I
particularly liked Tarrow's claim that power moves through *structure*,
*contention*, *meaning* and *emotion*. There is so much in that. The Corbyn
campaign may be weak on *structure* (I have no idea) but certainly there is
a lot of *contention* and *emotion*.

In the arena of *meaning*, there has been an interesting tweet from Bastani
of an article by a Nick Timothy - the Conservative PM's speech writer.
Timothy says basically that the Labour Party's problem is not that Corbyn
is the leader, but  that it is trapped in neoliberal group think. I feel
that is very close to an accurate depiction of the *meaning* of the Corbyn
campaign. Corbyn is necessary because the people long for relief from
neoliberalism.

The Blairite political strategist, John McTernan, tweeted that Timothy was
trying to support Corbyn in order to weaken Labour. I tweeted to the effect
that he was avoiding the meaning of Timothy's analysis, namely, that the
Parliamentary Labour Party was trapped in neoliberal group think.

At one stroke we had the attraction and the weakness of twitter.  I an
ageing, obscure Lefty from Brisbane could engage a figure of power like
John McTernan in the UK. But of course mine's was a mere heckle -barely a
buzz from a gadfly.

The twitter-sphere does not do analysis. I did not have the space to point
out that McTernan was doing "fast thinking" (See Kahneman) enshrined in the
saying "Corbyn is unelectable". The whole Blairite way of being is tied to
the belief that one must track right to capture the swinging voter and
thereby get into "power".

But what the Blairites are now trying to do is to step into the same river
> twice and ignore that new waters have closed around us (See Heraclitus
> Fragments 41 & 42). The days of being suave and smart and sucking up to
> Rupert Murdoch are over. The masses want an end to neoliberalism and the
> issue is how that end is to be achieved. Will it be through the dark
> sadistic ecstasies of neo-fascism or we will set about re-embedding society
> within its spiritual infrastructure of compassion, love and solidarity?


My friend, the late Roy Bhaskar, spent his last years trying to  bring
about the latter alternative.  For me, the *meaning* of  a victory for
Corbyn is that we have taken a small step along the road to achieving what
Bhaskar strove for.

comradely

Gary
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Fwd: A Brand New Congress?

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

By Mark Lause

Something called “Brand New Congress” now seems to be emerging as the 
latest Democratic Party scam to channel the momentum of the Sanders 
campaign into service of the party.  The organization describes itself 
as originating in “just an idea that some of us Bernie volunteers and 
former staff have been talking about with each other.”  One suspects 
that the latter had much more to do with shaping it than the former.


full: http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=12760
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Fwd: The Sanders campaign is officially over. Now his supporters wonder: What’s next? - The Washington Post

[Dennis Brasky via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

"an openly and profoundly white supremacist way - one we haven't
seen before" - Clay - you are certainly old enough to remember Nixon's 1968
"law and order" campaign which crudely catered to the George Wallace crowd,
and the 1980 Reagan campaign where his first appearance after getting the
Repug nomination was to Philadelphia, Mississippi - the site of the muder
of the three civil rights workers in 1964 - where he made his stand for
white supremacy - in the guise of "states' rights."

Trump is certainly giving a wink to the white supremacists, but they were
crawling out from under their rocks as soon as Obama and his family moved
into the White House, and they will continue to do so whether Trump wins or
loses.

BTW - please clarify - it sounds like you are implying that we should join
the Defeat Trump/Stop Fascism bandwagon, another way of saying Vote
Clinton. Am I right or wrong on this?

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>
> You completely ignore my main argument that what makes the Trump candidacy
> and potential Trump presidency particularly dangerous is that it is being
> done in an openly and profoundly white supremacist way - one we haven't
> seen before. I argue that white supremacists are already feeling empowered
> by Trump and colored people are already starting to feel the consequent.
> You don't respond to any of that. (Not your problem?)
>
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Fwd: The Sanders campaign is officially over. Now his supporters wonder: What’s next? - The Washington Post

[Clay Claiborne via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

I'm from Atlantic City. My brother worked in the casinos. I know what Trump
did to the black community of Atlantic City and it wasn't just empty
ravings. Again you seek to prettify Trump. But to your main point.

Yes, we must not have black people accusing white people of racism!
Especially on the Left were there are so few black people to begin with. It
would seem there is no higher crime. How can one talk sense to a person
that makes charges of racism?

Except I didn't accuse people of supporting racism, did I?

You said that Trump was no worst than any other GOP prez candidate. I said
that wasn't true, presented research ( a waste of my time) to back my
argument and said your position amounts backhand support for Trump, as does
the first sentence of your reply. In that you are trying to portray Clinton
as the greater danger to black people than Trump.

You completely ignore my main argument that what makes the Trump candidacy
and potential Trump presidency particularly dangerous is that it is being
done in an openly and profoundly white supremacist way - one we haven't
seen before. I argue that white supremacists are already feeling empowered
by Trump and colored people are already starting to feel the consequent.
You don't respond to any of that. (Not your problem?)

Instead you use the classic ploy. You reduce my arguments to a charge of
racism.

Now you have no idea how to talk sense to me.

I've been through this movie before. It a big part of the reason the Left
is both overwhelmingly white dominated by white chauvinists - which our
"anti-imperialist" comrades undoubtedly are.

was it ears for beers or beers for ears? i always forget.

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

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 


On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Mark Lause  wrote:

> Well, you have the empty ravings of a classic media celebrity on one side
> and Clinton's record of actually doing things on the other.
>
> But I'd be the first to admit that I honestly have no idea how to talk
> sense to someone who accuses people of supporting racism because they won't
> help you elect one of the authors of the mass incarceration of young black
> men . . .
>
> ML
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Rosa Brooks Examines War’s Expanding Boundaries

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

(So Barbara Ehrenreich's daughter was a Pentagon official. Interesting.)

NY Times Sunday Book Review, August 7 2016
Rosa Brooks Examines War’s Expanding Boundaries
By HAROLD EVANS

HOW EVERYTHING BECAME WAR AND THE MILITARY BECAME EVERYTHING
Tales From the Pentagon
By Rosa Brooks
438 pp. Simon & Schuster. $29.95.

Is Rosa Brooks psychic? Her book had gone to press before the killings 
of July 2016 broke upon us. Did she have a crystal ball to yield an 
image of the ambush in Dallas in which, from a sniper’s vantage point, a 
veteran of the ­Afghan war in body armor machine-gunned 12 policemen, 
killing five? Or of the military bomb squad robot that ended the terror 
without the police risking more lives? Or of the ambush in Baton Rouge 
by a veteran who shot three policemen to death? Or of another loner in 
Orlando, Fla., who was able to walk into a gun shop to buy what Army 
Special Ops calls a “Black Mamba”? That’s a Sig Sauer MCX assault rifle 
capable of firing 24 bullets in nine seconds, advertised by its makers 
as “an innovative weapon system built around a battle-proven core.” 
Forty-nine people died innovatively in the ­battle-proven core of the 
Pulse nightclub.


All these elements of the infiltration of military weapons and methods 
into American life are within the broad compass of Brooks’s perceptive 
book, “How Everything ­Became War and the Military Became Everything.” 
She has seen the paradoxical effects of the inflation of metaphor on law 
and institutions: how the police have become more like the military, and 
how soldiers, in nation-building efforts, have become more like police 
(and farmers); how police forces have bought hundreds of armored cars 
from the Pentagon for “the war on terror”; how “the war on drugs” has 
incarcerated more than one million Americans; how large cities now have 
SWAT (special weapons and tactics) teams. And she has seen how a quiet 
word in a drone command center can end the life of a young terror 
suspect thousands of miles away.


In impressive and often fascinating detail, she documents that the 
boundaries between war and peace have grown so hazy as to undermine 
hard-won ­global gains in human rights and the rule of law. She has no 
simple formula for reconciling refinements of civil rights with the raw 
imperatives of a moment. Her thoughts are not derived from clairvoyance 
but from collisions in her life. She is a daughter of peaceniks who 
married an Army Green Beret, and she was a college campaigner against 
the 1991 Persian Gulf war who came to realize that her generation’s 
aversion to military intervention could be as unconscionable as 
meddling. The pivot in her feelings was seeing raw footage of Rwandan 
corpses clogging the waters of Lake Victoria after United Nations troops 
stood aside from the killings. And, again, when she heard firsthand in 
Uganda from 10-year-old boys in the Lord’s Resistance Army who had been 
forced to hack their siblings to death. And she cheered President 
Clinton’s adroit use of air power to forestall ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.


Soon enough, conscience had another collision with emotion. She recoiled 
in dismay from President Bush’s response to 9/11. “I intuitively knew,” 
she writes, that a global war on terror “was a war that could, by its 
nature, have no boundaries: no geographic limits, no limits on who could 
be targeted, captured or killed, and no end.” In August 2003, intuition 
checked out depressingly in the deserted, looted streets of Baghdad. She 
was a pavement hostage to two angry young Iraqi men who jumped out of a 
pickup truck to menace her, in fluent English, with accusations of 
torture and beatings by American soldiers, and of dead Iraqi children 
dismissed as collateral damage. She was lucky to escape unharmed. She 
was appalled by the “Orwellian” insistence of the Bush administration 
that “neither U.S. law, nor human rights law, nor the laws of war 
constrained U.S. detention and interrogation policy.”


Inspired by the prospect that it would be very different in the Obama 
administration, Brooks put her misgivings on hold and entered the heart 
of darkness, the “vast, bureaucratic death-dealing enterprise” of the 
Pentagon. As a senior adviser to Under Secretary of Defense Michèle 
Flournoy, the highest-ranking civilian woman in the Pentagon, Brooks for 
two years had high-level access to almost anything. She was in on many 
interagency discussions that never made the headlines, but devolved into 
bad blood between agencies and the White House and Defense Department.


A small crisis in Kyrgyzstan provided a classic chastener to righteous 
impulse. The White House 

[Marxism] Communist Histories, vol. 1.

[Prashad, Vijay via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Dear Friends,

I wanted to let you know that LeftWord Books has released the first volume of 
Communist Histories, a series we hope to continue with a volume - we hope - 
each year.

Here is the Table of Contents:


VIJAY PRASHAD Introduction: Communist Histories

SUCHETANA CHATTOPADHYAY Being 'Naren Bhattacharji'

FREDRIK PETERSSON The 'Colonial Conference' and Dilemma of the Comintern's 
Colonial Work, 1928-29

MARGARET STEVENS Cuba and the Red International, 1934

ELISABETH ARMSTRONG Indian Peasant Women's Activism in a Hot Cold War

LIN CHUN The Lost International in the Transformation of Chinese Socialism

ARCHANA PRASAD The Warli Movement and its Living Histories

The book is available from the LeftWord website 
here (both 
as a print and an ebook).

Of the book Prof. Aijaz Ahmad says, 'Delving into buried archives, and ranging 
from Comintern documents to the yet unfinished dialectic of revolution and 
countzrrevolution in China, and from Cuba and Mexico and Black America to 
little corners of the Bombay and Calcutta of yesteryears, Communist Histories 
instructs and inspires. Social History, History from Below, of a different 
kind. Communist archeologies as it were. Audacious beginning. May there be 
more'.

Warmly, Vijay.

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Libya.

[Prashad, Vijay via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

The US has run about fifteen air strikes this past week on Libya. This is the 
first set of strikes since February, since the Government of National Accord 
came to 'power'.

My assessment of the bombing is here in 
English and in 
Turkish. I 
did a Real News segment 
here,
 which picks up on the $67 billion that is owed to the Libyan government and 
held hostage by the West.

All of this develops the chapter on Libya in my new book, The Death of the 
Nation and the Future of the Arab 
Revolution (out soon, 
although already available in India from 
LeftWord).

Warm regards,

Vijay.

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Green Party Sees Opportunity Amid Wide Voter Discontent

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

(A predictably snide article but one that reflects the recognition that 
the GP is becoming more important.)


NY Times, August 7 2016
Green Party Sees Opportunity Amid Wide Voter Discontent
By NOAH REMNICK

HOUSTON — Minutes before she addressed a boisterous crowd at the Green 
Party convention here on Saturday, Jill Stein sat in a mirror-walled 
room backstage, gazing at her reflection with a look of dumbstruck bliss.


“Can you say that again?” Ms. Stein asked.

“You’re at 6 percent in a new poll,” her press director, Meleiza 
Figueroa, repeated. “Sixteen percent with voters under 30.”


Most presidential candidates would blanch at such a figure this late in 
the race, but Ms. Stein, 66, is unlike most candidates. As the nominee 
of the Green Party, she offers an unswervingly progressive platform that 
includes abolishing student debt, establishing a right to a living-wage 
job and cutting military spending by at least 50 percent.


With one more nod of disbelief at the poll numbers, she returned to 
editing her speech and picking at a plastic container of berries. “Wow,” 
whispered Ms. Stein, a physician-turned-activist. “That’s fantastic.”


During a campaign noted for historic levels of discontent with both 
major-party candidates, the Greens are projecting a restored sense of 
vitality and righteousness. Ms. Stein insists she sees a viable path to 
victory that involves disillusioned Democrats and students burdened by 
mountainous debt.


Even though that forecast appears more than a tad overzealous, the 
Greens are having a minor-party moment, with Ms. Stein drawing around 4 
or 5 percent in other polls. When she ran in 2012, she won less than 
half of 1 percent of the vote.


Buoying the Greens’ popularity is a recent wave of progressive 
movements, most notably the insurgent campaign of Senator Bernie 
Sanders. Since Mr. Sanders’s defeat in the Democratic primaries, Ms. 
Stein has made no secret of pursuing his voters. During the Democratic 
National Convention, she courted throngs of “Bernie-or-Bust” adherents 
in and outside the arena in Philadelphia.


And at the Green convention here at the University of Houston, Ms. Stein 
did not wait long to appeal to her new followers. “I want to recognize 
the people coming out of the Bernie Sanders campaign who helped launch a 
national movement and refused to let that movement die in the Democratic 
Party,” said Ms. Stein, who formally accepted her party’s nomination 
alongside her running mate, Ajamu Baraka, on Saturday. The crowd, in 
turn, chanted, “Jill, not Hill!”


Among the newly converted faithful were Blake Weaver and Lisa Malanij, 
former Sanders supporters who sought refuge in the Green Party after 
what both described as a “heartbreaking and disenchanting” Democratic 
primary race.


“They basically orchestrated a coup of the party,” said Mr. Weaver, 30. 
“And here I was thinking the Democrats were the good guys.”


“I loved Bernie, but after he dropped out, there was this vacuum,” said 
Ms. Malanij, 30. “Now I’m trying to figure out what to do with all this 
energy.”


But surveys suggest the vast majority of Sanders supporters, as many as 
nine in 10, intend to vote for Hillary Clinton. And many of those who 
continue to rebuff her “were not truly Democrats to begin with,” said 
Patrick Murray, director of the Polling Institute at Monmouth 
University. “These were third-party voters who got pulled to the 
Democrats by Bernie,” Mr. Murray said. “Now they’re drifting back Green.”


The Green Party’s modern heyday — or low point, depending on the 
perspective — came in 2000, when its candidate, Ralph Nader, received 
2.7 percent of the vote, the most the party has achieved in a national 
race. He also drew the ire of many Democrats after George W. Bush 
defeated Al Gore by a mere 537 votes in the decisive state of Florida. 
There, Mr. Nader tallied more than 97,000 votes, most of which, 
presumably, would have otherwise gone to Mr. Gore.


Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee, has even championed the Green 
Party “because I figure anyone voting for Stein is going to be for 
Hillary,” he said recently in Toledo, Ohio.


For the Greens, the spoiler concept is sensitive territory. “We don’t 
want to be a threat; we want to be a force for good,” said Julie 
George-Carlson, 58, a longtime Green activist who is running for 
secretary of state of Missouri. To this day, Ms. George-Carlson said, 
neighbors accost her in the grocery store, blaming her for Mr. Bush’s 
victory in 2000. Still, she has no regrets.


“I vote for my favorite candidate,” she said. “How dare anyone tell me 
to do otherwise.”


But the fear is there.

[Marxism] Fwd: H-Net Review [H-War]: Asaadi on Razoux, 'The Iran-Iraq War'

[Andrew Stewart via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*



Best regards,
Andrew Stewart 

Begin forwarded message:

> From: H-Net Staff 
> Date: August 7, 2016 at 11:34:55 AM EDT
> To: h-rev...@h-net.msu.edu
> Subject: H-Net Review [H-War]:  Asaadi on Razoux, 'The Iran-Iraq War'
> Reply-To: H-Net Staff 
> 
> Pierre Razoux.  The Iran-Iraq War.  Translated by Nicholas Elliott.
> Cambridge  Belknap Press, 2015.  Illustrations. xviii + 640 pp.
> $39.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-674-08863-4.
> 
> Reviewed by Robert Asaadi (University of Minnesota)
> Published on H-War (August, 2016)
> Commissioned by Margaret Sankey
> 
> Pierre Razoux's The Iran-Iraq War ambitiously sets out to address
> what the author frames as the unanswered questions of the Iran-Iraq
> War. These can be classified into two primary categories: cause and
> duration. First, the book is concerned with understanding the cause
> of the war. Causal analysis of war is perhaps the oldest and most
> robust field of inquiry in International Relations, with scholars
> taking Thucydides's analysis of the causes of the Pelopennesian War
> as one of the discipline's foundational texts. While the book does an
> excellent job highlighting the motives and interests of the
> belligerent states, particularly in the Iraqi case, it would have
> benefited from a more sustained treatment of the remote causes, or
> structural factors, that gave rise to the particular domestic
> political actors that occupy a position of prominence as the movers
> of history in Razoux's analysis.
> 
> This prioritization of immediate causes over remote causes mirrors
> the tendency among some social scientists who embrace either a
> strictly rationalist epistemological approach or a thin
> constructivist approach which prioritizes agency over structure. War,
> as is the case with other forms of collective violence, necessarily
> involves both the strategic calculus of influential actors and the
> constraining and enabling effects of the already existing social and
> political structures in which these actors are situated. A
> shortcoming in Razoux's analysis is that he overestimates the degree
> to which these actors, as either opportunists, power-maximizers, or
> revolutionary ideologists, were the makers of their own history, and
> he underestimates or ignores the deeper structural conditions that
> functioned as the conditions of possibility for the emergence of
> these actors in the first instance. For example, the book's third
> chapter "How Did It Come to This?" sets out to show that "the
> Iran-Iraq War resulted first and foremost from the desire for
> confrontation of two men with conflicting ambitions, Saddam Hussein
> and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini." These leaders, according to Razoux,
> were then able to mobilize Iraqi and Iranian society to war because
> of their societies' latent ancient hatreds and, as he puts it, their
> "ancestral rivalry" (p. 45). In a mere twenty-two pages in this
> chapter, Razoux somewhat clumsily reconstructs the history of the
> region from the early sixteenth century to the onset of the Iran-Iraq
> War. This partial analysis is ultimately unpersuasive as an appraisal
> of the structural factors that instead needed to be considered in
> greater depth when asking what caused the Iran-Iraq War. Furthermore,
> the repetition of the Orientalist trope of primordialism as a causal
> motivation for war seems misplaced in his otherwise well-measured
> analysis.
> 
> The book's second question aims to explain the war's duration. Why
> did this bloody and costly war last eight years, making it the
> longest war of the twentieth century? In contrast to the somewhat
> banal observation that the war was caused by leaders who wanted it,
> the book's explanation for the war's duration is given much more
> sustained analysis and cuts across the three images of analysis of
> international politics (individual, state, and international). Razoux
> effectively outlines how the logic of Cold War balancing and the
> simple profit motive of arms manufacturers alongside regional balance
> of power dynamics and the domestic political peculiarities of Iran
> and Iraq coalesced to perpetuate the hostilities. Appendix F,
> "Foreign Military Assistance," is particularly instructive in this
> regard, as it catalogues the specific forms and amounts of military
> assistance both Iran and Iraq received throughout the course of the
> war, which helped sustain the conflict.
> 
> Overall, the book is a significant contribution to the existing
> scholarly literature on its subject for several reasons. First,
> Razoux's meticulous archival research gathers and organizes a 

[Marxism] Fwd: H-Net Review [H-War]: Demchak on Gorodetsky, 'The Maisky Diaries: Red Ambassador to the Court of St James's, 1932-1943'

[Andrew Stewart via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*



Best regards,
Andrew Stewart 

Begin forwarded message:

> From: H-Net Staff 
> Date: August 7, 2016 at 11:35:38 AM EDT
> To: h-rev...@h-net.msu.edu
> Subject: H-Net Review [H-War]:  Demchak on Gorodetsky, 'The Maisky Diaries: 
> Red Ambassador to the Court of St James's, 1932-1943'
> Reply-To: H-Net Staff 
> 
> Gabriel Gorodetsky, ed.  The Maisky Diaries: Red Ambassador to the
> Court of St James's, 1932-1943.  Translated by Tatiana Sorokina and
> Oliver Ready. New Haven  Yale University Press, 2015.  Illustrations.
> 632 pp.  $40.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-300-18067-1.
> 
> Reviewed by Tony Demchak (Kansas State University)
> Published on H-War (August, 2016)
> Commissioned by Margaret Sankey
> 
> _The Maisky Diaries_ is an edited one-volume edition of the extensive
> diaries of Ivan Mikhailovich Lyakhovetsky (who chose the
> revolutionary name "Maiskii"), who served as Soviet ambassador to
> London from 1932 to 1943. According to the editor, Gabriel
> Gorodetsky, all three volumes of the original, unedited diary are
> forthcoming from Yale University Press, including his extensive
> commentary (p. xii). While readers await the publication of the full
> edition, the abridged version is an extremely valuable resource in
> its own right.[1]
> 
> 
> Maisky's diary is almost unique because so few Soviet officials kept
> standard diaries, especially important officials like ambassadors.[2]
> Indeed, as the editor points out, "Maisky's diary is not the typical
> Soviet diary, a vehicle to 'self-perfection,' which was encouraged by
> the regime as a means of political education and transformation" (p.
> xiii). Rather, it is a more traditional diary of the day-to-day
> events and meetings that took place in Maisky's life. It contains not
> only his opinions and ideas on the major diplomatic events of the day
> but also his personal remembrances of political and cultural figures
> in 1930s and 1940s London. For example, Maisky was fond of David
> Lloyd George (who he often affectionately termed "the old man") and
> George Bernard Shaw and his wife, and even recounts meetings with H.
> G. Wells.
> 
> In addition to the diary itself, Gorodetsky provides an introduction
> and conclusion that describe the details of Maisky's life before and
> after the period of the diary. Interspersed with the diary entries
> are explanatory notes that help fill in the gaps between entries.
> Every time an individual is mentioned for the first time, Gorodetsky
> provides a footnote listing the person's occupation and relevance to
> the period. A recommendation for future editions might be to include
> these footnotes in an appendix as well, as sometimes Maisky goes
> several entries between mentioning individuals for the first and
> second time. Readers who are not already familiar with the cast of
> characters, so to speak, might get lost.
> 
> Maisky's own writing style is approachable and easy to understand.
> One of the best lines in the diary occurs in a May 1939 entry, where
> Maisky proclaims, after a visit to Geneva, "The League of Nations
> smelled of carrion" (p. 195). The translators, Tatiana Sorokina and
> Oliver Ready, do an excellent job of translatingthe Russian prose
> into readable English, avoiding the trap of rendering Russian idioms
> too literally into English.
> 
> For a work as long and detailed as this one, there are few errors of
> note. One of the only obvious mistakes occurs late in the book, as
> Gorodetsky incorrectly attributes a name in a footnote. In a quote
> from Lloyd George about Poland in the period after World War
> I--"There wasn't one sensible man among them!... Egged on by
> Clemenceau, the Poles lost all restraint and refused to listen to me
> or Wilson" (p. 521)--Gorodetsky identifies "Wilson" not as American
> President Woodrow Wilson but the secretary of British ambassador to
> the Soviet Union Stafford Cripps, George Masterson Wilson. At another
> point, he claims that the engineers in the Metro-Vickers case of 1933
> were arrested in London; they were actually arrested in Moscow (p.
> 6). These errors are far and few between, however, and do little to
> affect the scholarly erudition of Gorodetsky's overall commentary.
> 
> Readers already intimately acquainted with the details of interwar
> and World War II foreign policy will not find anything shocking in
> the pages of this book. Maisky, for example, was as surprised as
> anyone when the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was announced; Maisky had
> done his best to encourage closer Anglo-Soviet relations throughout
> the entirety of his term in office. However, the 

[Marxism] We’re in a Low-Growth World. How Did We Get Here?

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

NY Times, August 7 2016
We’re in a Low-Growth World. How Did We Get Here?
by Neil Irwin

One central fact about the global economy lurks just beneath the year’s 
remarkable headlines: Economic growth in advanced nations has been 
weaker for longer than it has been in the lifetime of most people on earth.


The United States is adding jobs at a healthy clip, as a new report 
showed Friday, and the unemployment rate is relatively low. But that is 
happening despite a long-term trend of much lower growth, both in the 
United States and other advanced nations, than was evident for most of 
the post-World War II era.


This trend helps explain why incomes have risen so slowly since the turn 
of the century, especially for those who are not top earners. It is 
behind the cheap gasoline you put in the car and the ultralow interest 
rates you earn on your savings. It is crucial to understanding the rise 
of Donald J. Trump, Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, and the 
rise of populist movements across Europe.


This slow growth is not some new phenomenon, but rather the way it has 
been for 15 years and counting. In the United States, per-person gross 
domestic product rose by an average of 2.2 percent a year from 1947 
through 2000 — but starting in 2001 has averaged only 0.9 percent. The 
economies of Western Europe and Japan have done worse than that.


Over long periods, that shift implies a radically slower improvement in 
living standards. In the year 2000, per-person G.D.P. — which generally 
tracks with the average American’s income — was about $45,000. But if 
growth in the second half of the 20th century had been as weak as it has 
been since then, that number would have been only about $20,000.


To make matters worse, fewer and fewer people are seeing the spoils of 
what growth there is. According to a new analysis by the McKinsey Global 
Institute, 81 percent of the United States population is in an income 
bracket with flat or declining income over the last decade. That number 
was 97 percent in Italy, 70 percent in Britain, and 63 percent in France.


Like most things in economics, the slowdown boils down to supply and 
demand: the ability of the global economy to produce goods and services, 
and the desire of consumers and businesses to buy them. What’s worrisome 
is that weakness in global supply and demand seems to be pushing each 
other in a vicious circle.


It increasingly looks as if something fundamental is broken in the 
global growth machine — and that the usual menu of policies, like 
interest rate cuts and modest fiscal stimulus, aren’t up to the task of 
fixing it (though some well-devised policies could help).


The underlying reality of low growth will haunt whoever wins the White 
House in November, as well as leaders in Europe and Japan. An entire way 
of thinking about the future — that children will inevitably live in a 
much richer country than their parents — is thrown into question the 
longer this lasts.


The first step to trying to reverse the slowdown is to understand why 
it’s happening. A good way to do that is to re-examine predictions from 
smart economists.


In January 2005, as it does every year, the Congressional Budget Office 
released its forecast for the United States’ budget and economic outlook 
over the decade to come. If the C.B.O.’s projections had come true, the 
United States would have had $3.1 trillion more economic output in 2015 
than it actually did — 17 percent more. Even if the steep contraction of 
2008-2009 hadn’t happened, the shortfall would have been $1.7 trillion.


Forecasters Expected Much Stronger Growth Than Materialized
The Congressional Budget Office in 2005 predicted the economy would grow 
much faster than it actually did, even excluding the impact of the 2008 
financial crisis.


As a matter of arithmetic, the slowdown in growth has two potential 
components: people working fewer hours, and less economic output being 
generated for each hour of labor. Both have contributed to the economy’s 
underperformance.


In 2000, Robert J. Gordon, a Northwestern University economist, 
published a paper titled “Does the ‘New Economy’ Measure Up to the Great 
Inventions of the Past?” It argued that the internet would not have the 
same transformative impact on how much economic output would emerge from 
an hour of human labor as 20th-century innovations like electricity, air 
transport and indoor plumbing did.


It was a distinctly minority view in that apex of technological 
optimism. “People said: ‘Productivity growth is exploding, Gordon. 
You’re wrong; we’re in a new age,’ ” Mr. Gordon said. But as 
productivity growth 

[Marxism] Matt Taibbi - Thomas Friedman Goes to the Wall

[Dennis Brasky via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

*High priest of globalization lashes out against the enemies of progress *



We never really had a referendum on globalization in America. It just sort
of happened. People had jobs one day, then the next morning they were
fired, replaced by 14-year-olds in Indonesia or sweatshop laborers in
Bangladesh
,
working in unsafe hell-holes without overtime or health care, beaten when
they don’t make quotas.


What exactly does "raising your game" mean in the context of that sort of
competition?

Globalization in the snap of a finger essentially erased nearly two
centuries of America's bloody labor history. It's as if the Thibodeaux
Massacre, the hangings of the Molly McGuires, the Pullman Strike, the *L.A.
Times* bombing, the Flint sit-in and thousands of other strikes and
confrontations never took place.

In the new paradigm, all of those agonizing controversies and wars of
political attrition, which collectively produced a vast set of rules and
standards for dealing with workers, were simply wiped away.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/38448-thomas-friedman-goes-to-the-wall
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Baathist tools freaking out

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

An interesting comment on Moon of Alabama about the problems facing the 
Assad dictatorship in Aleppo. These people are not handling the news well.


---

It is looking like Syria and Russia have suffered a devastating defeat 
in what looks like the critical battle of the Syria war. I don't think 
the importance of this battle can be easily overestimated. It is, I 
think, a turning point not just for Syria, but for the world.


In retrospect, the US side seems to have had a brilliantly coordinated 
multi-layered battle plan. It looks like the first several assaults in 
the Aleppo battle were really feints, intended to deceive Syria and 
Russia, to convince them that they had weathered the storm. This blog 
pointed out that the initial assault on the Syrian Government's hold on 
Aleppo failed quicky because there was no single point of massive assault.


We see now that a word was missing from that analysis - the word "yet".

Syria's role in this disaster is understandable. According to reports, 
the Syrian army has suffered terribly from attrition during the course 
of the war while the US proxies have been massively reinforced 
continuously and especially lately. Spread thin and forced to rely on 
green recruits while facing an enemy that seemed to have an 
inexhaustible supply of battle-hardened, well-equipped and even fresh 
jihadis, terrorists and mercenaries -- the Syrian army has done 
brilliantly to sustain the battle so far.


But Russia's fecklessness seems truly incredible at this point. I doubt 
that any major battle in human history has been so thoroughly 
telegraphed, to the point where Kerry all but told Putin the exact date 
that it would start, August first.


How many times has Putin seen the US and its allies/proxies use the 
trick of declaring truce completely insincerely, to stop successful 
campaigns by opponents, while re-arming and reinforcing? How is it that 
everyone in the world knew exactly what the US and its allies would do 
but Putin did not?


How many times has Putin seen the US make major moves during the 
Olympics? Is it possible that he didn't see it coming once again? Putin 
is supposed to be smart, but he falls for the same ploys again and again 
and again?


How can it be that Russia was so easily distracted by Kerry's blatantly 
insincere 'negotiations', so obviously meant as a distraction and as a 
way of stalling for time and as a way of softening Russian attacks? Even 
the controversy about Russia's Olympic team now looks like a brilliant 
distraction.


It now seems painfully obvious that Russia had no real plan B, no real 
plan for what would happen when the sham truce ended and the war 
restarted. More than that, Russia now looks like the real paper tiger. 
Manpads basically sidelined Russian air power and took the Russians out 
of the battle. The only counter Russia seemed to have had was to delude 
itself or to lie, claiming that Russian air power was successfully using 
high altitude bombing to devastate/decimate enemies as they approached 
to attack Aleppo. It now looks like Russia not only failed to impact 
attacking forces. but didn't even know how many forces were moving and 
where they were. A massive force seems to have converged to a single 
massive push and Russia seems never to have seen it coming.


I hope things turn around once again. Right now though one really has to 
wonder why Putin went for that fake trucem which seems now to have 
doomed Syria. What is his game really?

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Cynthia McKinney interviewed by Alex Jones

[Ken Hiebert via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Second picture down.  The title doesn't mention McKinney, but she is 
interviewed.

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/govt-insider-reveals-hillarys-murderous-past-shocking-new-interview/
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Solution is Socialism conference, CT, Oct. 22, 2016

[praxisperhaps--- via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

The Solution is Socialism

Learning from Our History • Planning the Fight for Our Future

 

It has never been clearer.  Capitalism is the problem. It is a system built on 
inequality and exploitation, poverty for the vast majority of the world’s 
people, racism, sexism, homophobia, and the destruction of the planet’s 
life-sustaining natural systems. But what is the solution? Come to an 
educational conference organized around the conviction that we can build an 
eco-socialist future managed and enriched by working class democracy, 
creativity, and solidarity.

 

A One-Day Conference • October 22, 2016

Central Connecticut State University, New Britain CT

Sponsored by the CCSU Youth for Socialist Action

 

Speakers include:

 

·   David Farrell, Youth for Socialist Action, Capitalist Crisis & 
Revolutionary Socialist Strategy Today

 

·   Hannah A. Holleman, Amherst College, Method in Ecological Marxism

 

·   Charles Post, Borough of Manhattan Community College, Origins of US 
Capitalism

 

·   Alan Sears, Ryerson University, Toronto, Marxism & LGBTQI Liberation

 

·   Wendy Z. Goldman, Carnegie Mellon University, Women, the State, and 
Revolution

 

·   Edmond Caldwell, independent scholar, The Revolutionary Culture of the 
Paris Commune

 

·  Johnny E. Williams, Trinity College, The Carceral State as a Social 
Control and Profit-Making Agent

 

 

 

International guests include:

 

·   Juan Cruz Ferre, Partido de los Trabajadores de Socialistas, The Left 
and Workers Front (FIT) Electoral Strategy and Victory in Argentina

 

·   Student representative, Movimiento Independista Nacional Hostosiano, 
The Fight Against Austerity in Puerto Rico

 

Special Appearance:

 

·   Jeff Mackler, Socialist Action candidate for President   

 

Activist panels will address the current struggles for immigrant rights, for 
Black lives, for low wage workers, for LGBTQI rights, for abortion rights and 
against rape culture, against the fossil fuel economy, and against war.

 

Time to socialize to follow. For more information: Facebook.com/ccsuysa

 
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] [marxism-thaxis] Doug Greene on "The Critical Communism of Antonio Labriola"

[Charles Brown via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Doug Greene , the non-Marxist

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 6, 2016, at 10:10 PM, Jim Farmelant  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCz8BxWDFdE
> 
> Jim Farmelant
> http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant
> http://www.foxymath.com 
> Learn or Review Basic Math
> 
> 
> Surprising Way to Lose Pounds, Relieve Gas and Bloating
> You eat right, exercise, but still can't seem to lose those extra pounds. ...
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/57a698d2d538b18d2182fst02vuc
> 
> 
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> 
> marxism-tha...@lists.riseup.net
> 
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/marxism-thaxis

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Black Hillbilly - or - What you really know about the Upper South?

[Greg McDonald via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

http://www.amoeba.com/blog/2015/02/eric-s-blog/black-hillbilly-or-what-you-really-know-about-the-upper-south-.html


The fiddle and the banjo soon made their way to the mountains of the *Upper
South
*
where
they were played at barn dances and frolics by free men. Although it’s
probably a widely held assumption that free blacks all hightailed it to the
*North,* most actually remained in the *South*. Many free black southerners
came from the *Caribbean
 *or had lived in *France
*’s* La Louisiane
, *where blacks
were free until it was purchased by the *US
*. Even more were freed
former slaves who either elected to remain or were unable to leave. In
1860, 84% lived not in the *Deep South
*, however, but in
the hilly *Upper South
* (*Arkansas
*,*Kentucky
*, *Missouri
*, *North Carolina
*, *Tennessee
*, and *Virginia
*).
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com