Re: [Marxism] Hillary Clinton’s Strategic Ambition In A Nutshell. “Regime Change” in Russia… Putin is an Obstacle

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

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

On 10/22/16 8:37 PM, Ralph Johansen via Marxism wrote:

Diana Johnstone is the controversial former European editor of In These
Times. Her books on Clinton, the breakup of Yugoslavia and French
politics challenge the dominant narratives. --MM


I sometimes wonder if the same person is ghost-writing for her and James 
Petras.

_
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] Hillary Clinton’s Strategic Ambition In A Nutshell. “Regime Change” in Russia… Putin is an Obstacle

[Ralph Johansen via Marxism]

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

This just came to my inbox from a correspondent - fwiw. I gather that 
Johnstone is considered less than credible by some on this list, and I 
know little or nothing about her, except that she is supposed to have 
written the book on the former Yugoslavia. However, this is news of a 
sort, or something to be evaluated.


Diana Johnstone is the controversial former European editor of In These 
Times. Her books on Clinton, the breakup of Yugoslavia and French 
politics challenge the dominant narratives. --MM


Hillary Clinton’s Strategic Ambition In A Nutshell. “Regime Change” in 
Russia… Putin is an Obstacle

By Diana Johnstone 
Global Research
October 21, 2016

Hillary-Clinton-6-septembre-2016

It has become crystal clear.

For the record, here it is.

She has big ambitions, which she does not spell out for fear of 
frightening part of the electorate, but which are perfectly understood 
by her closest aides and biggest donors.


She wants to achieve regime change in Russia.

She enjoys the support of most of the State Department and much of the 
Pentagon, and Congress is ready to go.


The method: a repeat of the 1979 Brezinski ploy, which consisted of 
luring Moscow into Afghanistan, in order to get the Russians bogged down 
in their “Vietnam”.  As the Russians are a much more peace-loving 
people, largely because of what they suffered in two World Wars, the 
Russian involvement in Afghanistan was very unpopular and can be seen as 
a cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union.


This led to the temporary reign of the drunken Boris Yeltsin who – as 
recounted in Strobe Talbott’s memoirs – was putty in the hands of Bill 
Clinton.  Hillary would like to renew that sort of relationship.  Putin 
is an obstacle.


The new version of this old strategy is to use Russia’s totally legal 
and justifiable efforts to save Syria from destruction in order to cause 
enough Russian casualties to incite anti-Putin reaction in Russia 
leading to his overthrow. (Note State Department spokesman John Kirby’s 
recent warning that Russia will soon be “sending troops home in body 
bags”.)


That is the prime reason why the United States is doing everything to 
keep the Syrian war dragging on and on.  The joint Syrian-Russian 
offensive to recapture the rebel-held Eastern sections of Aleppo might 
lead to an early end of the war.  U.S. reaction: a huge propaganda 
campaign condemning this normal military operation as “criminal”, while 
driving ISIS forces out of Mosul with attacks from the East, so that 
they will move westward into Syria, to fight against the Assad government.


Ukraine is another theater for weakening Putin.

Hillary Clinton’s ambition – made explicit by her own and her close 
aides’ statements about Libya in emails at the time – is to gain her 
place in history as victorious strategist of “regime change”, using open 
and covert methods (“smart power”), thus bringing recalcitrant regions 
under control of the “exceptional, good” nation, the United States.


This ambition is backed by possession of nuclear weapons.

I am by no means saying that this plan will succeed. But it is very 
clearly the plan.


The electoral circus is a distraction from such crucially serious matters.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] [UCE] Audios from Sydney Socialism conference, including talk on Arab Spring

[Omar Hassan via Marxism]

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

Hi all,

Of interest to many on this list might be the audio recordings from
Socialist Alternative's (AU) annual Socialism conference in Sydney,
especially the world in crisis stream which covers a range of contemporary
issues.

My talk on the situation in the Middle East today is relevant to a number
of the debates on this list RE Syria, our attitude to the US, etc.

http://www.socialismsydney.com/socialism2016.html.


-- 
Subscribe to Socialist Alternative's fortnightly newspaper - *The Red Flag*

Check out our theoretical journal - *Marxist Left Review*

And put away the Easter Weekend for our annual conference, *Marxism 2017*

_
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] question re mail etiquette

[Les Schaffer 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.
*

no it does not mean that.

on the other hand, if you want to clip out text before sending you have 
to click the three dots and then trim text.


Les


On 10/21/2016 11:14 PM, Andrew Pollack via Marxism wrote:

in gmail there's an icon with three dots saying "show trimmed text." If you
don't click it, does that mean the recipients don't get whatever is hidden?
Asking obviously because of our space issues.


_
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: Before the Flood; The Ivory Game | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

[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.
*

Two documentaries with the imprimatur of Leonardo DiCaprio can be seen 
in New York City and likely in theaters around the country given his 
clout as one of Hollywood’s superstars. Both of the documentaries are 
timely and excellent. They also raise questions about the role of 
tinseltown progressives. With DiCaprio, George Clooney, Sean Penn, 
Angela Jolie, John Cusack and others not so well known picking up where 
Jane Fonda left off years ago, it is a good time to consider their role 
in social change. Since there is a natural and even reasonable tendency 
on the left to regard such personalities as superficial phonies, a close 
look at DiCaprio’s trajectory would be useful.


full: https://louisproyect.org/2016/10/22/before-the-flood-the-ivory-game/
_
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] Socialist Action on Libya and Syria

[Thomas via Marxism]

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

The Social-Democrats ideal should not be the trade union secretary, but the 
tribune of the people who is able to react to every manifestation of tyranny 
and oppression no matter where it appears no matter what stratum or class of 
the people it affects; who is able to generalize all these manifestations and 
produce a single picture of police violence and capitalist exploitation; who is 
able to take advantage of every event, however small, in order to set forth 
before all his socialist convictions and his democratic demands, in order to 
clarify for all and everyone the world-historic significance of the struggle 
for the emancipation of the proletariat.”
-- V. I. Lenin; What Is To Be Done


It would be a fundamental mistake to suppose that the struggle for democracy 
can divert the proletariat from the socialist revolution, or obscure, or 
overshadow it, etc.  On the contrary, just as socialism cannot be victorious 
unless it introduces complete democracy, so the proletariat will be unable to 
prepare for victory over the bourgeoisie unless it wages a many-sided, 
consistent, and revolutionary struggle for democracy.”
-- V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th English Edition; Vol. 22

T

-Original Message-
>From: Andrew Pollack via Marxism 
>Sent: Oct 21, 2016 8:50 AM
>To: Thomas F Barton 
>Subject: Re: [Marxism] Socialist Action on Libya and Syria
>
>  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.
>*
>
>Sigh... I feel like I'm playing whack-a-mole.
>Here we are again with Joe Green
>misrepresenting/misunderstanding/maliciously lying about/displaying his
>ignorance of (you all tell me which one) permanent revolution.
>The point of permanent revolution is to grasp the INTERTWINING of the
>democratic and socialist revolutions, which MEANS at EVERY STAGE supporting
>EVERY democratic demand, and NEVER abstaining from a democratic struggle no
>matter how long it takes to reveal its dialectical connection to the class
>struggle.
>And in practice EVERY MENA Trotskyist group in the revolutionary socialist
>tradition has done exactly that. ALL the groups which have issued joint
>statements, contributed to al-Manshour and Permanent Revolution journal
>etc., have theorized and acted in a way that bears NO relationship to
>Green's malicious caricature.
>
>Keep on trying to derail the class struggle, Joe, it won't work.
>_
>Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
>Set your options at: 
>http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/thomasfbarton%40earthlink.net

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

Re: [Marxism] Socialist Action on Libya and Syria -- Reply to David Walters

[DW via Marxism]

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

Joseph, my original description of Permanent Revolution (PR) was an attempt
to defend it (though I do) rather it was to point out what it is and what
it isn't. However, you reply back to me shows that you too don't have an
understanding of PR anymore than others do who misunderstand it.

Everyone of your examples vis-a-vis National Liberation is actually a
"proof", by *negative example*, of the general correctness of PR. You wrote
that many countries have achieved "independence" people still suffer from
exploitation. PR is very explicit that the *tasks* cannot be completed if
capitalism is not overthrown. Or, it sinks back into a neo-colonial
relationship. Every Trotskyist group historically fought for "independence"
in Latin America because they understood that the formality of independence
achieved throughout the early part of the 19th Century from Portugal and
Spain (France and England as well) would not be true independence unless,
as the Cubans did, overthrow capitalism. And that is the point of PR. Every
gain you noted is not a gain unless it can be achieved in full and without
those democratic tasks being turned back. Only a socialist revolution will
insure or at least truly lay the ground work for a permanent form of
sovereignty otherwise *impossible* to achieve under Imperialism. That is PR
and it's been proven in everyone of the examples you cited.

But it's not a perfect theory. It's a guide. Obviously countries can in
fact achieve formal independence in the age of Imperialism. The dislocation
of the very influential Indian Trotskyist organization after WWII is an
example of this. Again, "they didn't get it". They believed that the
*granting* of independence by the British was an impossibility "because of
Permanent Revolution". Certain forms of land reform (codified in the 1918
Mexican Constitution for example) can be achieved. The granting of peasants
the land in S. Korea and Taiwan by buying off the landlord class is an
example of this 'exception'.

But if one is going to discuss PR, we have to agree on what it is, not
project one' own ideological prejudices onto interpreting it.

David Walters
_
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] Socialist Action on Libya and Syria - Reply to Louis Proyect

[Joseph Green via Marxism]

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

Louis Proyect wrote:
> 
> On 10/22/16 8:58 AM, Joseph Green via Marxism wrote:
> > But it's not a bastardization of Trotsky's view
> > of anti-imperialism, it's directly in line with it.
> 
> So you think it was wrong to support Ethiopia against fascist Italy's
> invasion? As I pointed out, precapitalist revolts against capitalist
> states, especially in MENA, don't fit neatly into stagist schemas as I
> pointed out by referring to Omar Mukhtar. I should add that this is a very
> old debate that pitted Eduard Bernstein against Belfort Bax:
> 

Louis, I emphatically agree with supporting the Ethiopian people against the 
Italian imperialist and fascist aggression of the 1930s. This was discussed 
last year on the Marxism list, and you were part of this discussion. True, 
you didn't agree with the distinction I drew between backing Haile Selassie 
in the way Trotsky did, envisioning that the Ethiopian emperor might well be 
a wonderful anti-imperialist dictator who would inspire all of Africa, and 
instead supporting first and foremost the Ethiopian people in their 
resistance to Italian aggression, a resistance which was upset with 
Selassie's absolutism as well as with the  fact that he fled Ethiopia in the 
face of Italian aggression. You didn't even understand the distinction I was 
making, and you claimed that it was "splitting hairs. In the concrete 
situation, one ruler (Mussolini) made war on another (Selassie). It makes no 
sense to say that you support Ethiopia but not the head of state."  But in  
the discussion on this list and elsewhere at the that time, I not only posted 
a history of the Ethiopian resistance to Italian aggression, but also showed 
how Selassie's absolutism impeded the resistance. This was not simply or even 
primarily a war between two rulers: it was a war that involved the peoples of 
Ethiopia. 

It's notable that the Trotskyist movement has had an almost complete 
conspiracy of silence about what happened in the Italo-Ethopian war. It has 
praised Trotsky's stand in this war and used it as a model, but refused to 
evaluate this stand in the light of what happened. I wonder how many 
Trotskyists even know that Selassie fled Ethiopia right after Trotsky praised 
him to the skies. 

Naturally it's a sensitive question about how Selassie should have been dealt 
with at the time of the war. It wasn't a question that the Ethiopian people 
were about to overthrow him. But the resistance wanted reforms so that 
absolutism would not continue after the war, and the Oromo people in Ethiopia 
was so angry at the national oppression represented by Selassie's rule that 
it is said that when Selassie fled Ethiopia, he was fleeing them and not just 
the Italian troops. How does one support an Ethiopian resistance officially 
led by Haile Selassie but in fact with major internal divides? Surely saying 
the war is simply a war between two rulers or two dictators is not the way to 
do it. 

So it was right for Trotsky to support Ethiopian resistance, but the way he 
did it gave rise to bad effects which we are still feeling today. It was not 
a bastardization or misuse of Trotsky's views when Socialist Action denounced 
the Libyan democratic movement.  It is  not a bastardization or misuse of 
Trotsky's views when various Trotskyist groups defend reactionary rulers in 
the name of anti-imperialism. Indeed the Trotskyist movement has even debated 
whether the example of Trotsky's stand towards Selassie would justify support 
for the Taliban. 

Moreover, there is a strong connection between Trotsky's mechanical stand on 
anti-imperialism and his theory of permanent revolution. Permanent revolution 
was bankrupt in dealing with the class and social struggles inside Ethiopia. 
It had nothing to say on this subject. That's why Trotsky praised Selassie to 
the hilt instead. And in the years since, the theory of permanent revolution 
and Trotsky's stand on anti-imperialism have worked together in obscuring the 
class struggles in various countries.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, Louis and assume that you just forgot 
the discussion on the Marxisn list  last year, and also that you forgot that 
I am part of a trend that has fervently supported the anti-imperialist and 
anti-colonial struggles from day one. You deal with many things on this list 
every day, and I understand that you might forget some things. But really, 
Louis, if you want to know my views you should look at what I have written, 
not the debates between the revisionist Edouard Bernstein and Belford Bax. 
Perhaps its time to move into the 21st century and not imagine that the 
modern criticism of Trotskyism is 

[Marxism] Fwd: H-Net Review [H-Diplo]: Presta on Mangan, 'Transatlantic Obligations: Creating the Bonds of Family in Conquest-Era Peru and Spain'

[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.
*

-- Forwarded message --
From: H-Net Staff 
Date: Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 8:50 AM
Subject: H-Net Review [H-Diplo]: Presta on Mangan, 'Transatlantic
Obligations: Creating the Bonds of Family in Conquest-Era Peru and Spain'
To: h-rev...@h-net.msu.edu


Jane E. Mangan.  Transatlantic Obligations: Creating the Bonds of
Family in Conquest-Era Peru and Spain.  Oxford  Oxford University
Press, 2016.  272 pp.  $29.95 (paper), ISBN 978-0-19-976858-5.

Reviewed by Ana María Presta (Universidad de Buenos Aires - CONICET)
Published on H-Diplo (October, 2016)
Commissioned by Seth Offenbach

Transatlantic Obligations is an ambitious and readable account of
Spanish emigration and its consequences in the conquest period. The
book tells its story via the examination of the sexual and emotional
practices of both men and women of different ethnic and cultural
backgrounds living in sixteenth-century Lima and Arequipa, the
capital of the viceroyalty of Peru and a southern intermediate spot.
Family, kin, marriage, concubinage, sentiments, and especially
parenthood are put under the microscope by Jean E. Mangan in an
attempt to establish how paternity and its obligations were
acknowledged, ignored, demonstrated, withdrawn, negotiated, or
economically manifested.

Among the many changes brought about by the Spanish colonization of
the New World, family, an enduring cultural creation founded on the
notion of Catholic marriage promulgated at Trent in 1563, became an
institution through which new social actors and their emerging
practices were understood. Mangan focuses on the first century of
Spanish domination, when different populations and cultures collided
and negotiated the conquest of territories and bodies through power,
political, sexual, and sentimental alliances, while forging new
social hierarchies as well as new identities. The author has
collected and used a wide range of sources to penetrate the intimate
relations and feelings of those exercised parental rights.

The book is divided into six chapters. In the first, "Matchmaking,"
Mangan introduces the mixed unions and the colonization of family
trees that resulted when elite Indian women and Spanish conquistadors
engaged in consensual relationships that did not result in marriage.
Indian women of high status who never married their Spanish partners
gave birth to famous mestizos of the first generation. Family, blood,
status, culture, legacy, and acknowledgment characterized the
well-known examples of Gómez Suárez de Figueroa (Garcilaso de la
Vega Inca), doña Francisca Pizarro, and Doña Francisca's cousin of
the same name. Other cases, like the marriage of conquistador
Francisco de Ampuero to doña Inés Huaylas Yupanqui (Quispe Sisa,
before baptism), show how leading conquistadors continued to exercise
peninsular seignorial rights on their men, the conquered land, and
its assets. Doña Inés was a former lover of the marquis Francisco
Pizarro, who gave her to one of his men, Ampuero, at the same time
bequeathing on him a significant patrimony as a reward for his
services during the conquest. Mangan argues that while the Crown
favored and promoted marriages between Spaniards to indigenous
peoples, consensual relations between conquistadors and women
descendant from the Incas hardly crystallized in marriage.[1] It
would have been productive for Mangan to reflect on how peninsular
prejudices on race and religion may have affected personal and
intimate relations in the Spanish colonies. During the century of
discoveries, racial, cultural, and religious intolerance crystallized
in the inevitable quest of _limpieza de sangre_ (clean blood), a
concept that identified those who did not possess any trace of
Moorish or Jewish blood, peoples with whom Spaniards had maintained
centuries of _convivencia_ (living together) without integration.
This cultural background could open new avenues to interpret the
relationship with the new "others" stressed by the right of conquest
that resulted in the access to land, labor, and bodies.[2]

Chapter 2, "Removal," focuses on mestizo children and their fathers'
attitudes and rights toward them. Mestizo children were initially a
novelty; as their numbers increased, they became a problem to Spanish
colonial rule.[3] Conquistadors and _encomenderos _(holders of an
_encomienda_, indigenous grantees), most of whom arrived in Peru with
their sons who had been born in Mexico or Nicaragua, demonstrated
affection and a sense of paternal responsibility to their offspring.
The scions' illegitimacy affected their rights to inherit, enjoy
offices, and succeed their fathers in _encomiendas_. Some 

[Marxism] new book on the crisis of capitalism by the EZLN

[Brenda Baletti 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.
*

Readers on this list might be interested in the EZLN’s new book on the 
Capitalist Crisis. It can be purchased here: : 
http://www.paperboatpress.org/bookstore/ Actual announcement follows below.

Announcing the release of:
Critical Thought in the Face of the Capitalist Hydra I
Contributions by the Sixth Commission of the EZLN

[https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2=02435fbcc8=fimg=1579aa8ed540c79f=0.0.1=emb=ii_itxecgs71_15796a42742f6421=ANGjdJ-Seqke9DTGXp4EoCFk7mHc4jDqNufQ5am_7Mq__34OJ3qxdugyxSIsUeCWjwqEjaAfLsZF-5gRNDpJgratyHGkWxEARoGTSiZbmlHPN7pwQfChp2Oz3Eh5y_A=w348-h538=1476816594764=1579aa8ed540c79f=1]
​

Published by PaperBoat Press

What unites the grave situation of Greece with that of the tens of thousands of 
killed and disappeared in Mexico? What might explain the recurring failure and 
seeming betrayal, in country after country, of the electoral left? How might 
gentrification of urban centers across the world be inextricably connected to 
the pipelines of an unhinged extractivism (from Bolivia to Standing Rock)? How 
can we explain that on a daily basis, an ever-greater proportion of humanity is 
expelled from production and abandoned to its fate as simple surplus? In this 
daring book, the Zapatistas put forth the hypothesis that a rigorous 
application of critical thought shows us that the inner connection of these 
phenomena can be found in the historically unprecedented crisis of capitalism 
that today gathers steam and in the near future promises to engulf all of 
humanity in a perfect storm.

In May of 2015, the Zapatista Army for National Liberation (EZLN) hosted a 
seminar in Chiapas, Mexico, titled “Critical Thought in the Face of the 
Capitalist Hydra,” in which they invited thinkers from across the world to join 
them in analyzing the economic instability, unceasing war, mass displacement, 
and ecological devastation that today characterize our world. This book 
presents the complete set of interventions made by the EZLN at that seminar. 
Rescuing critical thought from both the trendy relativism of contemporary 
academia and the tweets and facebook posts that now stand in for it, the EZLN 
outlines the contours of this crisis as well as the innovative practices of 
politics that have allowed Zapatismo to survive and constitute one of the few 
large-scale anti-capitalist struggles in the world today. Yet the Zapatistas 
don’t offer themselves as a model to be followed, but rather insist that each 
of us analyze this crisis from our own locations in order to adequately 
confront the monumental task before us. The volume closes with poetry and art 
solicited by the EZLN from various artists and authors as their contribution to 
the seminar.

This text is a translation of the book, El Pensamiento Crítico Frente a la 
Hidra Capitalista I, published in Mexico by the EZLN in July of 2015. That text 
and this English translation include several texts not publicly presented at 
the seminar. In addition, various theorists, intellectuals, and militants from 
around the world were invited to offer presentations to the more than 2,600 
seminar attendees. Their contributions can be found in Spanish in Volumes II 
and III of this series, published in Mexico.

Order online at: http://www.paperboatpress.org/bookstore/

Proceeds from the sale of this translation will go to the Zapatistas.
_
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] Socialist Action on Libya and Syria - Reply to Andrew Pollock

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

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

On 10/22/16 8:58 AM, Joseph Green via Marxism wrote:

But it's not a bastardization of Trotsky's view
of anti-imperialism, it's directly in line with it.


So you think it was wrong to support Ethiopia against fascist Italy's 
invasion? As I pointed out, precapitalist revolts against capitalist 
states, especially in MENA, don't fit neatly into stagist schemas as I 
pointed out by referring to Omar Mukhtar. I should add that this is a 
very old debate that pitted Eduard Bernstein against Belfort Bax:


http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/modernism/hardt_negri.htm

Within a few years, the Second International would become embroiled in a 
controversy that pitted Eduard Bernstein against the revolutionary wing 
of the movement, including British Marxist Belford Bax and Rosa 
Luxemburg. Using arguments similar to Hardt and Negri's, Bernstein said 
that colonialism was basically a good thing since it would hasten the 
process of drawing savages into capitalist civilization, a necessary 
first step to building communism.


In a January 5, 1898 article titled "The Struggle of Social Democracy 
and the Social Revolution," Bernstein makes the case for colonial rule 
over Morocco. Drawing from English socialist Cunningham Graham's travel 
writings, Bernstein states there is absolutely nothing admirable about 
Morocco. In such countries where feudalism is mixed with slavery, a firm 
hand is necessary to drag the brutes into the civilized world:


"There is a great deal of sound evidence to support the view that, in 
the present state of public opinion in Europe, the subjection of natives 
to the authority of European administration does not always entail a 
worsening of their condition, but often means the opposite. However much 
violence, fraud, and other unworthy actions accompanied the spread of 
European rule in earlier centuries, as they often still do today, the 
other side of the picture is that, under direct European rule, savages 
are *without exception better off* than they were before...


"Am I, because I acknowledge all this, an 'adulator' of the present? If 
so, let me refer Bax to The Communist Manifesto, which opens with an 
'adulation' of the bourgeoisie which no hired hack of the latter could 
have written more impressively. However, in the fifty years since the 
Manifesto was written the world has advanced rather than regressed; and 
the revolutions which have been accomplished in public life since then, 
especially the rise of modern democracy, have not been without influence 
on the doctrine of social obligation." (Marxism and Social Democracy, p. 
153-154)


_
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] Socialist Action on Libya and Syria - Reply to Andrew Pollock

[Andrew Pollack 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.
*

same old Maoist garbage

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Joseph Green via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> *
>
> Andrew Pollack Andrew Pollock refuses to deal with
> what
> it means that so many advocates of the "permanent revolution" has fallen on
> their face with respect to the Arab Spring, as shown by the stands of
> Socialist Action and a number of other Trotskyist organizations. Instead,
> he
> repeatedly calls me a Menshevik, either directly or by arbitrarily
> asserting
> that I uphold Menshevik positions.
>
> In October 3, Pollock wrote in reply to me:
>
> >Oy.
> >The Mensheviks are back at it.
> >Once again 90% of their argument against permanent revolution
> >is based on whether particular worker
> >organizing/mobilizing/theoretical steps are
> >possible or likely. And their answer is always No.
>
> So here he derides me as a Menshevik, simply because I criticize permanent
> revolution. And he says that I am opposed to workers organizing and
> struggling on all fronts.
>
> But for year after year, I have said exactly the opposite. Pollock doesn't
> know or care what I have written. He simply repeats a stock Trotskyist
> attack
> on a critic.
>
> Pollock comes back to the same theme, however, on October 21 when he writes
> that
>
> > ... why I get angry at Joe, [is] because he (and Sam Hamad) want
> > only democratic demands addressed
>
> A lie is a lie no matter how often it's repeated. I have stressed, year in
> and year out, that the working class should raise social demands in a
> democratic movement.
>
> What I do claim is that, due to the concrete circumstances of the Arab
> Spring, the uprisings didn't have any chance of leading to socialist
> revolution. That's very different from saying that the workers won't, or
> cannot, or shouldn't have any their own class role in the Arab Spring. In
> fact, I would argue that it's essential for the workers to realize the
> democratic nature of various movements if they are to have a chance to
> build
> up their own independent movement which not only zealously participates in
> the democratic movement but has its own socialist goals that go far beyond
> that of the general democratic movement.
>
> -- Joseph Green
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/
> options/marxism/acpollack2%40gmail.com
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Socialist Action on Libya and Syria -- Reply to David Walters

[Joseph Green 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.
*



David Walters wrote:

> All Permanent Revolution says/advocates/predicts is that
> in order to actually *achieve* those democratic *tasks* it will take the
> complete overthrow of the existing capitalist regime and the installation by
> the working class of Workers Government. That's it.

The prediction is completely wrong. For example, many countries have become 
independent, and most of the colonial system has collapsed. And yet there 
wasn't workers' government.

National independence hasn't brought the prosperity that people expected. It 
has also  left countries subject to political and economic domination. It has 
not fulfilled the program of radical parties, nor the promises that were made 
to the masses.

But this doesn't mean that national independence doesn't exist. It means that 
national independence, like all democratic changes, doesn't end exploitation; 
doesn't eliminate capitalism, but generally vastly expands it; doesn't usher 
us into the petty-bourgeois idea of the democratic utopia; doesn't guarantee 
that the working masses will obtain a lot of democratic rights; and so on. 
Socialism, not mere democratic changes, is necessary for working-class 
liberation.

But national independence changes the class alignments in a country, as 
various other democratic changes too. The situation in the former colonies is 
vastly different than what it was before; the struggles in these countries 
occur in a different social and economic context than before.  And democratic 
changes can also open the way for an expanded class struggle. These changes 
are of the utmost importance for the working class. To say that national 
independence or other democratic changes "will take the complete overthrow of 
the existing capitalist regime and the installation by the working class of 
Workers Government" means replacing a serious assessment of the social, 
economic, and political situation with empty Trotskyist dogma.

The idea that these changes can't take place until socialism is generally 
defended by replacing the idea of democratic changes as they occur in the 
world, with a glorified idea of democracy. It might be said that the 
democratic struggle cannot be "completed" until the socialist revolution. By 
this  means judging the completion of the democratic movement by whether so 
many democratic changes have occurred, rather than by the changes in the 
class alignments and social conditions. If a very backward and abortive 
change nevertheless results in breaking up the impetus for democratic change, 
then the overall movement will have to grow up on a new basis. Even though 
various of the old democratic demands are still set forward, the overall 
character of the movement will have changed.

Marxism showed from the start that democratic changes alone do not end 
exploitation; the working masses have to continue the struggle to socialism. 
But any truth can be exaggerated until it's nonsense. From the truth that 
democratic changes are limited and are not the end of exploitation, one can 
pass on to the claim that democratic changes can't even take place until 
socialism. 

> There are none, ZERO,
> preconditions about who or whom to support in achieving this except that to
> go "all the way", again to achieve the reason people were rebelling in the
> first place, means to break with the capitalists *politically* who may be
> part of the initial phases of the revolution and keep the working class
> independent.

And yet  one Trotskyist group after another denounced various struggles in 
the Arab Spring. If nothing can be achieved unless one goes "all the way" and 
achieve workers' government, then this does affect what to organize and which 
struggles to support.

However,  I think the statement about zero preconditions does reflect one 
aspect of "permanent revolution". It reflects the idea that I have seen 
expressed elsewhere that everything is tactical, except that the revolution 
must continue to workers' government.  I think this view has had bad 
consequences.  But that for another time. 

-- Joseph Green

_
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] Socialist Action on Libya and Syria

[Joseph Green 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 will deal in this note with some issues which I think apply to everyone who 
replied to my contribution to this thread,  and I will deal in separate notes 
with specific points raised by individual comrades.

I was disappointed that no one dealt with whether the theory of pernmanent 
revolution was responsible for Socialist Action denouncing the anti-Qaddfi 
struggle in Libya. It pretty clearly was, but it seems that various people 
would prefer this swept under the rug. There is a theoretical crisis in the 
left, and the left is going to deal with it seriously, it has to look at 
these examples seriously. Otherwise it's just a matter of clinging to dogmas 
of the past, and refusing to see what has to be changed.

It's not as if Socialist Action is some kind of outlier and exception. It was 
hardly the only Trotskyist group which was led astray on Syria and the Arab 
Spring by permanent revolution. I have given quotes elsewhere from a number 
of Trotskyist groups. True, some Trotskyists do support the democratic 
uprising on Syria and write useful material on it, but that's not the result 
of the theory of permanent revolution and it's not representative of the 
Trotskyist movement as a whole.

It has been charged that I have distorted the meaning of permanent revolution 
or don't really understand it. But that charge was made with respect to the 
definition of permanent revolution that came from Socialist Action: I quoted 
their own description of "permanent revolution".  Moreover, I have studied 
"permanent revolution" from the writings of Trotsky and various Trotskyist 
groups. Indeed it's notable that one comrade, while writing that my 
understanding of permanent revolution was supposedly shallow, went on to 
criticize Trotsky's formulations as well.  Apparently Trotsky didn't really 
understand it either.

The fact is that the Arab Spring is a major problem for permanent revolution. 
But the defenders of permanent revolution want to avert their eyes from this. 
One way they do it is by not mentioning permanent revolution when they have 
to go against it in practice, such as when supporting the democratic movement 
in Syria. Another way they do it is by pretending that the critics of 
permanent revolution are Mensheviks or have distorted it;  they pretend that 
no serous issue has been raised by the practice of the Arab Spring or by the 
critics of Trotskyism. There's a certain "code of silence" that is widely 
observed, in which the important thing is to rally around the "old man" or 
permanent revolution, not to test revolutionary theory in the light of 
events, not to advance revolutionary theory, not to examine why things have 
gone wrong repeatedly.. 

In line with this, it also seems that various people who commented on my 
views didn't bother to first see what my views were. Instead they repeated 
shopworn arguments from the past, and stock curses. But theory does advance 
over time, whether the Trotskyist movement cares to look at it or not. The 
fact is that Trotskyist theory is backrupt with respect to the Arab Spring, 
and so far no one I've seen has been able to produce an analysis based on 
"permanent revolution" that has stood up to the events of the Arab Spring. 
The Communist Voice Organization can reproduce what we wrote at the beginning 
of the Arab Spring, and the general framework still stands. But the 
predictions based on the permanent revolution were wishful thinking at best

-- Joseph Green




_
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: H-Net Review [H-Histsex]: Rabinovitch-Fox on Kowal, 'Tongue of Fire: Emma Goldman, Public Womanhood, and the Sex Question'

[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.
*

-- Forwarded message --
From: H-Net Staff 
Date: Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:49 PM
Subject: H-Net Review [H-Histsex]: Rabinovitch-Fox on Kowal, 'Tongue of
Fire: Emma Goldman, Public Womanhood, and the Sex Question'
To: h-rev...@h-net.msu.edu


Donna M. Kowal.  Tongue of Fire: Emma Goldman, Public Womanhood, and
the Sex Question.  Albany  State University of New York Press, 2016.
222 pp.  $75.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-1-4384-5973-8.

Reviewed by Einav Rabinovitch-Fox (Case Western Reserve University )
Published on H-Histsex (October, 2016)
Commissioned by Philippa L. Hetherington

As an anarchist and a feminist who was at one point known as the
"most dangerous woman in America," Emma Goldman has captivated the
attention of many. Both to her contemporaries and to present-day
researchers and activists, Goldman's ideology and public image have
been a source of interest, debate, attraction, fear, and repulsion.
Adding to the extensive scholarship on Goldman, Donna M. Kowal's
book, _Tongue of Fire: Emma Goldman, Public Womanhood, and the Sex
Question_, focuses on the words and rhetoric of Goldman, and
especially on her approach to sexuality and women's bodies. Analyzing
Goldman's ideas on women's liberation and sexual freedom as they were
reflected in her writings, speeches, and media coverage of her,
_Tongue of Fire_ positions Goldman as a "philosopher of gender/sex
who recognized women's bodies as a focal point of sociopolitical
struggle"  and as a unique voice that is still relevant today (p.
xvi).

By exploring "the ways in which [Goldman's] public advocacy
contributed to a shift of power over women's bodies" and to the
reclaiming of women's sexual agency as a source of power (p. xiv),
Kowal illuminates the central role that questions of sex and women's
bodies played in public discourse in the early twentieth century.
Kowal does not offer a biography of Goldman, so much as an analysis
that situates sex and gender at the center of her activist thought
and rhetoric. The first chapter situates Goldman as a unique voice in
a broader anarchist milieu, showing how her ideas both corresponded
to and differed from those of other female anarchists. In chapters 2
and 3, Kowal moves to analyze Goldman's arguments regarding sexual
freedom and expression in more detail, as well as her critique of
capitalism as an oppressive sexual system. Goldman advocated sexual
freedom and choice in the realms of marriage and motherhood and
viewed sexuality as a positive and empowering force, for both men and
women. She rejected the moralistic view that saw women as helpless
victims and instead called for women to develop sexual awareness and
knowledge. Goldman viewed the devaluation of women's work as
connected to their sexual expression and compared marriage to
prostitution, seeing both as economic institutions that sought to
oppress women. Kowal is right to observe that by defining sex as a
significant social force and not as a biologically determined
identity, Goldman created an opening for recognizing homosexual and
heterosexual relationships equally. And indeed, Kowal's discussion of
Goldman's view of same-sex relationships in chapter 2 provides some
of the most interesting interpretations of her ideology.

In chapter 4, which is the book's strongest, Kowal shows her skills
as a communication and media scholar when analyzing Goldman's
rhetoric style. Demonstrating how Goldman's challenge to gender and
class conventions were expressed not only in the message she conveyed
but also in how she delivered this message, Kowal shifts the
attention to the importance of appearances and style in modern
politics. Pointing to how Goldman "constructed a persona that was
gendered in a way that intersected with her class, ethnicity, and
suspect citizenship" (p. 77), Kowal's analysis offers an important
contribution to our understanding of the varied ways women negotiated
and defied social norms, and of the origins of modern publicity
tactics and intersectional performance. By using a style that was
based on authoritative tone, use of analogies, metaphors, expert
testimony, deductive reasoning, and negotiation of gender norms,
Goldman embodied her call for freedom and independence, agitating her
listeners to embrace her anarchist message. While Kowal presents a
convincing argument regarding Goldman's performance style, her
argument regarding the influence of her Jewish-Russian background on
her ideology is less persuasive. While Goldman certainly was aware of
her Jewish heritage, given that her political development and
radicalization happened while she was already in the United States,
it is