Re: [Marxism] Brexit and imperial privilege

[jamie pitman 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.
*

Defensiveness and incomprehension? You either have real issues with arrogance 
or the sort of dull grasp on reality that comes from belonging to a group of a 
dozen or so deluded trots with a propensity for looking at their feet when 
talking to the public. 

It would be a dumb defence indeed that began by personally questioning whether 
I voted correctly. My messages were intended to be collegial/ anecdotal (I wish 
I hadn’t bothered) from somebody here rather than somebody else attempting to 
concoct a party line from afar. In that regard we probably inhabit different 
universes. I have no pretensions about leading the masses. I voted as an 
individual and didn’t try to convince anybody else to vote either way (indeed, 
my partner went the opposite way to me). 

What I am saying is your analysis is dangerously simplistic – not to defend 
some position that I don’t have – but because it is. For 10 of the 12 week 
campaign the main focus (from the remain side who made their voice louder) was 
the economy and not immigration. On a daily basis, ‘captains of industry’, 
asset managers, business leaders, celebrities and world leaders were wheeled 
out to tell everybody they were better in and biblical plagues would surely 
follow withdrawal (‘project fear’; psephology 101 – ‘it’s the economy, 
stupid’). The remain side consistently polled ahead of leave, and again – 
because I don’t follow an unbending line like a lobotomised trotbot – I 
intended to vote remain. It was the daily drubbing from neoliberals telling us 
all we couldn’t survive without them (without ever considering we’ve been lucky 
to last this long with them) that made me switch to leave. At that last-minute 
point, voting against Goldman Sachs didn’t seem to me the sort of ethical 
dilemma you apparently predicted with such prescience.

Your assertion that attacks on the street/ the rise of the right was always a 
foregone conclusion according to determinations thrown up by the referendum is 
complete and utter nonsense. As should be clear by now, this isn’t a defence of 
my vote (that wouldn’t make sense in the context of what I’ve already written) 
but calling bullshit on the conceit that you saw all this coming in the 
parameters you suggest. As you’ve rightly said, the campaign was shaped by 
right-wing opinion from all sides (Corbyn being a nominal remainer but largely 
absent). And, as I said similarly, both sides were racist to varying degrees 
(leave more so, particularly in the final stages) meaning this wasn’t a simple 
binary. Both sides tried to marginalise Farage (think: the relationship between 
GOP and Trump) but it was the In side that delivered Farage a default platform 
because Cameron preferred arguing with him to avoid debating fellow Tories and 
maintain some party unity. When Farage produced an obscene poster reminiscent 
of Nazi propaganda he was denounced by both leave and remain. What nobody 
considered was that large parts of the country who rightfully feel resentful at 
being left behind by neoliberalism didn’t give a fuck 

In short, the inter-dynamics between different sides were as distorted by 
Westminster politics as much as any thought of EU membership. You could argue 
that even if both sides were racist it is well-known here that the far-right 
have always favoured leave. But you could truthfully say that of the far left 
until the 90s. 

In short, the campaign from both sides 

EU
Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: MM
Sent: 28 June 2016 02:19
To: marinercarpen...@gmail.com
Cc: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Brexit and imperial privilege

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 6:46 PM, marinercarpen...@gmail.com wrote:
> 

Defensiveness and incomprehension at basically every point. There just isn’t 
much in your response that it even makes sense to try to respond to.

PS: I’m not remotely important, but if even I saw what was coming, and that the 
only defensible position for the left was to try to defeat the referendum, then 
a lot of other people should have been able to see it as well. Some did. Many 
of those who didn’t have engaged in some of the most ridiculous, defensive 
bullshit I’ve seen in quite a while. Credit to you for at least being willing 
to admit “buyer’s remorse” (although I don’t care for the metaphor).


_
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] Brexit and imperial privilege

[jamie pitman 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.
*

Sent too early.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: MM
_
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] Brexit and imperial privilege

[jamie pitman 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.
*

Defensiveness and incomprehension? You either have real issues with arrogance 
or the sort of dull grasp on reality that comes from belonging to a group of a 
dozen or so deluded trots with a propensity for looking at their feet when 
talking to the public. 

It would be a dumb defence indeed that began by personally questioning whether 
I voted correctly. My messages were intended to be collegial/ anecdotal (I wish 
I hadn’t bothered) from somebody here rather than somebody else attempting to 
concoct a party line from afar. In that regard we probably inhabit different 
universes. I have no pretensions about leading the masses. I voted as an 
individual and didn’t try to convince anybody else to vote either way (indeed, 
my partner went the opposite way to me). 

What I am saying is your analysis is dangerously simplistic – not to defend 
some position that I don’t have – but because it is. For 10 of the 12 week 
campaign the main focus (from the remain side who made their voice louder) was 
the economy and not immigration. On a daily basis, ‘captains of industry’, 
asset managers, business leaders, celebrities and world leaders were wheeled 
out to tell everybody they were better in and biblical plagues would surely 
follow withdrawal (‘project fear’; psephology 101 – ‘it’s the economy, 
stupid’). The remain side consistently polled ahead of leave, and again – 
because I don’t follow an unbending line like a lobotomised trotbot – I 
intended to vote remain. It was the daily drubbing from neoliberals telling us 
all we couldn’t survive without them (without scarcely considering we’ve been 
lucky to last this long with them) that made me switch to leave. At that 
last-minute point, voting against Goldman Sachs didn’t seem to me the sort of 
ethical dilemma you apparently predicted with such prescience.

Your assertion that attacks on the street/ the rise of the right was always a 
foregone conclusion according to determinations thrown up by the referendum is 
complete and utter nonsense. As should be clear by now, this isn’t a defence of 
my vote (that wouldn’t make sense in the context of what I’ve already written) 
but calling bullshit on the conceit that you saw all this coming in the 
parameters you suggest. As you’ve rightly said, the campaign was shaped by 
right-wing opinion from all sides (Corbyn being a nominal remainer but largely 
absent). And, as I said similarly, both sides were racist to varying degrees 
(leave more so, particularly in the final stages) meaning this wasn’t a simple 
binary. Both sides tried to marginalise Farage (think: the relationship between 
GOP and Trump) but it was the In side that delivered Farage a default platform 
because Cameron preferred arguing with him to avoid debating fellow Tories and 
maintain some party unity. When Farage produced an obscene poster reminiscent 
of Nazi propaganda he was denounced by both leave and remain. Such was the 
campaign. Add to this huge feelings of resentment from the parts of the country 
left behind by neoliberalism and it becomes more accurate to say it was the 
atmosphere of the whole campaign + four decades of an ever declining social 
safety net that created the situation we’re now in. In short, a pressure keg 
seeking a release valve which was (stupidly) delivered in the form of the 
referendum. 

The main point being that the far left throwing their paltry weight behind 
remain would have made zero difference. Remain winning by a slender margin 
would have made no difference. The same people would still have channelled 
decades of grievance – and lashed out violently in some cases - in what has 
felt like a fleeting moment of enfranchisement, rather than being emboldened, 
as your analysis would suggest. This would have been the result of a close 
leave or remain, and as I’ve said, the left were never in any position to alter 
the vote meaningfully (I.e. at all). Finally, I think you’re wrong to 
dichotomise the economics of the EU and the right wing reaction they are 
producing all over the continent – making the argument that remain equalled a 
simple win for anti-racism even murkier in my opinion. 



Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: MM
_
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: Inside Charles Koch's Plot to Hijack Universities Across America and Spread His Radical 'Free-Market' Propaganda | Alternet

[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.
*



http://www.alternet.org/investigations/inside-charles-kochs-plot-hijack-universities-across-america
_
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] Poll Finds Opening for Third-Party Candidates as Clinton, Trump Remain Unpopular

[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.
*

WSJ, June 28 2016
Poll Finds Opening for Third-Party Candidates as Clinton, Trump Remain 
Unpopular
Deep dislike for the two leading candidates could scramble the race as 
some voters seek alternatives


By PETER NICHOLAS

Deep dislike for the two leading presidential candidates is creating an 
opening for third-party hopefuls, potentially scrambling the race as 
voters cast about for alternatives, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News 
poll shows.


With majorities of registered voters holding negative views of Democrat 
Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump, two other candidates 
notched a level of support that could prove meaningful in a tight race.


Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein together 
drew backing from 16% of the 1,000 people surveyed. When voters had the 
option of choosing the third-party candidates, Mrs. Clinton’s lead over 
Mr. Trump dropped from 5 percentage points to 1 point.


The presence of third-party candidates on the ballot could add a measure 
of unpredictability to the election. The Libertarian Party expects to be 
on the ballot in all 50 states, the Green Party in at least 
three-quarters of states.


Mrs. Clinton led Mr. Trump by 46% to 41% when voters were asked which of 
the two they favored. Mrs. Clinton led by only a single point, 39% to 
38%, when voters could also choose Mr. Johnson or Ms. Stein.


On the four-candidate ballot, some 83% of those who favored Mrs. Clinton 
in a two-way race stuck with her as their preference, while 13% split 
off and threw their support to Mr. Johnson or Ms. Stein.


Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton share unusually high negative ratings 
from voters according to a new WSJ/NBC News poll. The unprecedented 
pessimism is creating a highly polarized dynamic among voters. Photo: AP
Given the same choices, 89% of Trump voters stayed loyal to him, while 
9% moved to Mr. Johnson or Ms. Stein.


The poll also shows that independent voters could be an important factor 
in the election. Polling in the fall of 2012 found that only 11% of 
independents favored third-party candidates in that presidential race, 
compared with 35% in the new Journal/NBC News survey, which was 
conducted June 19-23.


Indeed, Mr. Johnson outpaced Mrs. Clinton among independents, 23% to 
15%, in the new poll.


Those whose views on the race haven’t hardened seem open to choosing Mr. 
Johnson or Ms. Stein. These “persuadable” voters comprised nearly three 
in 10 of those surveyed.


Of them, 28% leaned toward Mr. Trump and 25% toward Mrs. Clinton. Some 
21% favored Mr. Johnson and 12% went for Ms. Stein.


Pollsters cautioned that voters are more apt in the summer before an 
election to say they will back third-party candidates. When the race 
heats up in the fall, they often revert to the major-party contenders.


Yet the 2016 presidential race has often defied conventional thinking. 
One difference between this election and past ones is the unpopularity 
of the two main candidates.


Some 55% of voters said in the new survey that they saw Mrs. Clinton in 
a negative light. For Mr. Trump, the figure was 60%. The ratings are 
worse than those of any Republican or Democratic nominee dating to 1992.


When asked if they backed Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton in the general 
election, 9% told the interviewers that they would vote for neither.


The poll suggests that voters feel little personal connection to either 
candidate. Asked if they shared Mrs. Clinton’s values, 36% said yes 
while 61% said no. Only 30% said they shared Mr. Trump’s values, 
compared with 68% who said they didn’t. Those numbers are far worse than 
for any of the Republican and Democratic nominees in 2008 and 2012.


On this measure, Mrs. Clinton has lost ground compared with her first 
presidential bid, in 2008. In April of that year, voters were evenly 
split on the question of whether they shared her values.


Fred Yang, a Democratic pollster who conducted the Journal/NBC News 
survey with Republican Bill McInturff, said: “This really will be an 
election in which voters will be holding their noses.”


Mr. McInturff said: “Given the historic dissatisfaction with the two 
major-party candidates, there’s an opening for a larger share of the 
vote for the third- and fourth-party candidates than we’ve seen since 
[Ross] Perot.”


Running as an independent in 1992, Mr. Perot captured 19% of the vote, 
finishing behind Republican President George H.W. Bush and then-Arkansas 
Gov. Bill Clinton, who won the election. Mr. Perot ran again in 1996 and 
finished with 8% of the vote.


The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Write to Peter 

[Marxism] Fwd: Think You’ve Got It Locked, Hillary? Meet Jill Stein. - POLITICO Magazine

[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.
*



http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-campaign-election-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-green-party-jill-stein-progressives-liberal-213972
_
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: Seeing the whole picture after the referendum |SocialistWorker.org

[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.
*

The New York Times has several useful pieces today, the common thread -
which I think Michael Roberts will agree with - is the danger Brexit poses
to a global economy still in a slump. (choose "Today's Paper" and search
for brexit).
_
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: Seeing the whole picture after the referendum |SocialistWorker.org

[jamie pitman 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 knew Charlie from my swp days; he lives around the corner from me still I 
would imagine. Actually, to be honest, on the UK left more or less everybody 
knows everybody else. There’s a lot to agree with here but I still maintain its 
an issue that most of the commentariat do not know of who they speak. Not a 
clue. Particularly as most don’t venture beyond London and often have little 
clue of the hand-to-mouth nature of many other people’s lives. For many, 
pontificating on politics is a luxury they can’t afford. I couldn’t help but 
laugh either when he uses formulations that imply ‘historical missions’ etc. 
but some habits die hard I guess.

This Grauniad article is quite interesting in pointing out just how fractured 
things actually are rather than just relying on the lazy ‘us and them’ optic 
(and sort of ties in with the Brexit threads and the Corbyn post from Gary 
yesterday):

 
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/jun/28/why-jeremy-corbyn-is-not-the-labour-partys-real-problem

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Louis Proyect via Marxism
_
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: Brexit: A Victory for the Populist Right | New Politics

[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.
*



http://newpol.org/content/brexit-victory-populist-right
_
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] Brexit and Labour Party crisis in twitterdom

[jamie pitman 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 the Labour Party held the no confidence vote in Jeremy Corbyn today. 172 MPs 
voted to say they had no confidence in their leader and 40 voted to support him.

This means the coup has successfully deepened and widened and what started in 
the Blairite camps has spread through the centre and soft left MPs who had 
previously sided with Jezza.

This all means that a leadership election is inevitable – the *crucial* 
question in the short term is whether Corbyn is automatically placed on any new 
ballot (the opposition argue that this is not the case. If it isn’t then he’s 
unlikely to get the numbers needed to put him there. He’ll go and so will tens 
of thousands of new members).

If he is automatically on the ballot however, then there’s nothing to suggest 
that he still doesn’t enjoy overwhelming support from the membership and won’t 
be returned as leader. 

Even so, the scale of opposition (81%) makes the smooth running of the party 
impossible; this is obviously no small problem.

More importantly, Corbyn’s wider popularity is still untested (sort of - he has 
consistently abysmal approval ratings but defied expectations in local 
elections twice this year - if he hadn’t then this coup would have happened a 
lot earlier). This is a *real* problem although I feel slightly dirty to admit 
it as the plotters are using it as the pretext for their coup. It is a real 
problem though because there is likely to be a snap general election before 
Christmas designed to give Cameron’s successor the mandate they’ll obviously 
need considering the UK is currently an anarchy with nobody leading government 
or the opposition. 

So another consequence of Brexit is that Corbynism is likely to be given its 
ultimate test way before anybody envisaged. I’m afraid I don’t believe Corbyn 
can win a GE (I’d obviously love him too but that’s not the point). I’ll 
continue to support him and go to any more demo’s as needed but I think the 
smart move would be to try and reunite Labour by offering Jeremy to step down 
but only if he’s replaced with McDonnell - preferably uncontested - but even if 
not, McDonnell would receive the same thumping mandate as Corbyn. This is 
unlikely to appease the rebels however, as McDonnell is Corbyn’s closest ally 
and from precisely the same political mould. My reason for suggesting it is 
simply that I think McDonnell is genuinely electable and the media would have 
little time to compile/ compose the sort of character assassination against him 
as they already have Corbyn.

Corbyn has just refused to resign (which is the response everybody expected).



Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Gary MacLennan
_
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] Brexit and Labour Party crisis in twitterdom

[ioannis aposperites 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 28/06/2016 07:12 μμ, jamie pitman via Marxism wrote:

the UK is currently an anarchy with nobody leading government or the opposition.


if this is not an opportunity for the left (whether it is Callinicos' or 
Lynch's or any other's organisation) then, there is no such a thing as 
un oppotunity for the left


JA
_
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: Seeing the whole picture after the referendum | 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.
*



https://socialistworker.org/2016/06/28/the-whole-picture-after-the-referendum
_
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: So You Think You Can Take Over the Democratic Party? – The South Lawn

[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.
*



https://thesouthlawn.org/2016/06/14/so-you-think-you-can-take-over-the-democratic-party/#more-1403
_
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] Pilger on why the vote for Brexit

[Philip Ferguson 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://johnpilger.com/articles/why-the-british-said-no-to-europe
_
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] More on the UK political scene

[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.
*

Brexit has brought British politics onto the list and that is a source of
something l very much welcome, for the absence of threads on UK and Irish
politics has been a source of frustration for me.  Perhaps it is my
Eurocentrism at work but I feel that what happens in the UK is very
important for Australia.

Now if comrades will forgive me I will express a wish that we post in a
comradely fashion. We will disagree of course but let us show ourselves as
non-abusive thinkers and non-sectarian activists. Let us reserve our anger
for those  who are the enemies of humanity.

I have read the Finger and Greenslade articles and they are very
informative. But I have a reservation about some of their formulations.  I
am unhappy about the calling into being of a great swathe of people who
seem to be outside our political ken.  I refer to those who live in the
former Labour heartlands.  I have in mind that commentators are painting a
picture of us on the Left looking over a fence at something like the lumpen
proletariat.

What we are dealing with are those people who have been driven into misery
by the turn to neoliberalism that took place in the early 70s and which
Social Democratic and Labor Parties acquiesce to.  We all know that. We all
also understand there were a series of defeats for the Left which were
essential to that process.  In the UK, Bennism was defeated and eventually
largely purged.  Then the miners were clubbed into the ground. But Benn was
defeated first in the cabinet discussion by Healey and Callaghan in 1976.
In Australia, the Whitlam government was sacked by an extra-parliamentary
coup in 1975, but even before that the Keynesian treasurer Jim Cairns was
overthrown in very murky circumstances in 1974.  Listers can fill in
similar events for their own countries.

The conversion of the Labor/SD Parties to neoliberalism and the embrace of
what Mair called "responsibility" has spawned great bitterness, and misery
and disorientation.  A defeated Left could not offer a response here. It is
not that we did not know what was needed, it is just that no one at all was
listening.
But nothing stays the same. A new generation born under neoliberalism has
emerged that is finding its way, in its own way, to politics. I did that in
the 60s and the new generation are doing now in this decade. Corbyn and
Sanders have been chosen as flag bearers for this new movement.

Those who now inhabit the shells of the parties that compromised with
Neoliberalism, (in Britain it is the Blairite faction largely), think they
can see off this challenge.  Unlike Sanders in the States who will embrace
Clinton, though Corbyn will not compromise apparently. He is now in the
role of the "meddlesome priest" and my respect for him has grown
exponentially.

The pressure though on him is enormous. No one should doubt that. His
strength though is that unlike his enemies he has a mass movement to draw
upon. Should he stand firm and take his movement to the heartlands he might
be able to create a mass Left Party.  In the States if Sanders had decided
to go to the Greens and stands with them something very radical might have
emerged.  But Sanders lay down with the dogs of the Democratic Party and
unsurprisingly he got fleas.

So where are we?  Well I have to get ready to go to work! and will break
off here, without having aid much - oops sorry.  But I will rejoin
conversation later.

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: The Free State of Jones | 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.
*

Like last year’s “Trumbo”, “The Free State of Jones” is guaranteed to 
earn my vote for best film of 2016 for its combination of film-making 
genius and political commitment. If “Trumbo” might have been a success 
with someone other than Bryan Cranston in the title role, it was his 
presence that made you feel like you were watching the legendary 
screenwriter himself rather than an actor. Matthew McConaughey elevates 
“The Free State of Jones” in the same way. Present in every scene, he is 
utterly convincing as the anti-secessionist guerrilla leader who was the 
walking embodiment of what Noel Ignatiev called the Race Traitor.


full: https://louisproyect.org/2016/06/28/the-free-state-of-jones/
_
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] David Laibman, Review of *“The Most Dangerous Communist in the United States”: A Biography of Herbert Aptheker*, by Gary Murrell

[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.
*

Once, when much. much younger, I heard him speak.  He explained that the 
Hungarian Revolution, 1956, was a plot by the CIA, that took place against and 
behind the backs of the socialist Hungarian people, and that the Russian tanks 
that rolled into Budapest were called for by the Hungarian people to crush 
counter-revolutionaries, and merely defending socialism. 

T


-Original Message-
>From: Kevin Lindemann and Cathy Campo via Marxism 
>Sent: Jun 28, 2016 12:10 AM
>To: Thomas F Barton 
>Subject: [Marxism] David Laibman, Review of *“The Most Dangerous Communist in 
>the United States”: A Biography of Herbert Aptheker*, by Gary Murrell
>
>  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.
>*
>
>Science & Society July 2016, Vol. 80, No. 3: 437-440
>
>“The Most Dangerous Communist in the United States”: A Biography of Herbert 
>Aptheker, by Gary Murrell. Afterword by Bettina Aptheker. Amherst/ Boston, 
>Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press, 2015. Paper, $29.95. Pp. 
>xviii, 444.
>
>Gary Murrell, Professor of History at Grays Harbor College in Washington 
>State, has given us a much-needed comprehensive study of the life and work of 
>Dr. Herbert Aptheker, Marxist historian and political theoretician. Aptheker’s 
>scholarship on the African American people — with dozens of published works, 
>including the monumental Documentary History of the Negro People in the United 
>States — set the direction of historical research in this area, despite being 
>ignored, repressed and vilified in official academia and in the publishing 
>world. His long association with Dr. W. E. B. Du Bois, and his multi-decade 
>editorship of that scholar’s legacy, resulting in another 44 volumes, are yet 
>another signal contribution to U. S. and world letters. His virtual odyssey 
>across the USA’s college campuses, in speaking tours that again spanned 
>decades, became a major element in the counterattack against McCarthy-era 
>repression, and thus in the emergence of the New Left in the 1960s. His 
>testimony in various Smith Act and McCarran Act trials made him a principal 
>voice of reason and the quest for political and intellectual freedom. Finally, 
>his staunch support of the Communist Party USA and his steadfastness in 
>defense of that organization — despite many complexities and tensions in his 
>evolving relationship with the Party’s leadership, and his eventual break with 
>the Party — make him an exceptional, and controversial, figure in the American 
>left in the 20th century and beyond. All of this, and more, is covered in 
>Murrell’s book, based on impressive references, archival study, and many hours 
>of interviews, including centrally with Dr. Aptheker himself.
>
>The story is told in 26 chapters, arranged broadly (if not entirely) in 
>chronological order, covering Aptheker’s early life; his research on slavery 
>and on slave rebellion in the U. S. South; his ever-troubled relationship to 
>the academic and publishing establishment, especially within the history 
>profession; Aptheker’s role in the military in World War II; his defense of 
>the CPUSA during the McCarthy-era attacks; conflicts within the Party 
>concerning control over the publication activities of Party members (including 
>his daughter, Bettina); founding and building of the American Institute for 
>Marxist Studies; running for Congress in the 12th CD in Brooklyn; the trip to 
>Hanoi, with Staughton Lynd and Tom Hayden; the long struggle to publish the Du 
>Bois papers and letters; the movement to free Angela Davis after her arrest, 
>following the events at the courthouse in San Rafael, California, in August 
>1970; the fateful 25th Convention of the CPUSA in Cleveland, in December 1991 
>and the founding of the Committees of Correspondence; and the final years in 
>California, during which Aptheker finally achieved some recognition in 
>academia and secured some teaching posts, which had long been denied him.
>
>On the personal level, we learn of Aptheker’s deep and loving relationship 
>with his wife of many years, Fay, and their daughter Bettina. The latter’s 
>recent testimony concerning sexual abuse by her father during her childhood is 
>discussed in a forthright and dignified manner in the Preface, and is also 
>addressed in Bettina’s “Afterword.”
>
>There are many complex, and 

[Marxism] Fwd: Should the US strike Assad now?

[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.
*



https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/2016/6/28/should-the-us-strike-assad-now
_
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