Re: [Marxism] Castro: Swastika has become Israel's banner
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Do you think A. Lieberman is a fascist politician, leading a fascist movement? He is part of the present government. My own view is there are a variety of fascisms, of which the Nazis were only one strain. Further, I think postwar fascism has been integrated and subordinated to the structures of US democratic imperialism. I don't adhere to the narrow Paxton view which requires that an actual fascist party be in power to qualify as fascist. That would be the requirement for a fascist government, overlooking the possibility that the _regime_ could be fascist, with the actual fascist party or faction on the sidelines as a minority regime supporter. That could easily fit the present Israeli case. But by the Paxton definition neither Franco Spain nor 1930's Japan were fascist. Do you agree? Neither are bourgeois democracy and fascism mutually exclusive. I think that what many define as fascism is actually the classical fascism of the 1920's-30's. But times have changed, and so do political movements. Fascism varies both over time and place. BTW, it is interesting and relevant to the Israeli-American case that the Nazi strategy was to convert Europe into its own racially hierarchialized continent sized settler state-empire. Just like the old 19th century USA. Except they failed. This is a clue to one of the historic functions of fascism as a political movement, government or regime whose program corresponds to the objective requirements of primary accumulation, what D. Harvey calls accumulation by dispossession and what Luxemberg saw as not merely as a prehistory of capitalism, but as coexistent, concurrent and vitally necessary to the existence of capitalist accumulation proper (on this one point I agree with Luxemberg without endorsing other views). Classical fascism was therefore the mode of fascism corresponding to the late phase of the colonial imperialism of Lenin's time. Pre-war Showa Japan had a similar project in Asia, which they implemented in Manchuria (See Japan's Total Empire, Louise Young). Who knows, had the Nazis succeeded, they would have dumped Hitler and mellowed in victory as the United States of Europe. Compared to the orthodox tradition, this is a richer and more nuanced view of fascism that weaves it into the normative structures of capitalism, rather than treat it - and herein lies I believe the Paxton-Berlot political agenda - as a purely exceptional and even accidental phenomenon in relation to capitalism and imperialism, in any case preventable with proper political regulation. -Matt While I share Castro's disgust at the Zionist entity's reprehensible crimes, he misses the point: Israel is a bourgeois democracy, as well as a colonial settler-state, and its state is founded on racism (rights for Jews that Arabs are denied). But to call it Nazi, i.e., fascist, is hardly a defensible Marxist position. Just because a democracy does evil things (e.g., the U.S.'s crimes in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan...), doesn't automatically make it fascist. DT Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] The FBI knocked on my door
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == In a message dated 6/13/2010 7:41:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, farmela...@juno.com writes: Once you start answering questions asked by special agents of the FBI, one may well find that one has unwittingly waived one's rights to remain silent. More than person got into very serious trouble over that back in the McCarthy era because they thought that they could pick and choose which questions to answer. Alas, for them, the courts didn't see things their way, and there is no reason to think that the courts would think differently today. And if one is foolish enough to speak to an FBI agent, getting caught lying to them is a good way to gain admission into a Federal prison. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant Comment Agreed. Saying no is a grave danger. Saying yes is worse. I don't know traps you into another admission. It is best to let an attorney - public defender, handle matters because there is nothing to hide. Am I under arrest seems to work perfect in such encounters. It is best to immediately find out where one stands with a visit from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This way one cannot mistake such a visit as a time for polite conversation. These folks are really trained in investigations. Am I under arrest is actually brilliant and the smart way to express a citizens rights. If i'm not mistaken this approach was handed us by the previous generation who said they got it from the period of 1919 and 1920's when some serious citizens rights was being fought for. I had my visit from these gentlemen 1975 or 75. On the job. The security guard along with a member of management escorted me off the job. What is this about. Someone wants to speak with you. Where's my union rep. You can call him if you want. How comes he's not here now? Because we can't make that decision for you. I entered the office behind the guard shack and two neatly dressed men approached me. The first said Im agent such and such and this is my partner. We're from the FBI. I thought to myself shit. You know how you hate it when the fed say we from the FBI instead of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Can I see you gentlemen badges please? I reached to take the badge of the officer who had spoke and he politely push my hand to the side. You know how you want to hold a Federal Bureau of Investigation badge to see if its real gold with weight? I'm thinking, this guy is not in the friendliest of moods. I bet this shit is not about tickets to the ball game. Looking both gentlemen in the eyes without staring or gimmin' (an intense staring inviting combat) the program came out: Am I under arrest? No but we just wanted to talk about your membership and activity in the League of Revolutionary Black Workers. Am I under arrest? No you are not under arrest, we just wanted to talk. I smile turned on my heels and proceeded out of the door I came in. The movement once had so much literature on citizens rights that everyone had the same program. Don't talk to the feds because they are the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Am I under arrest is beautiful. Now in case the answer is yes, it is best to ask for an attorney and your phone call. Answering questions under arrest is basically a part of interrogation and admissions. Saying I wasn't in town is a bad idea that comes out when its the other agent turn to talk, and he proceeds to say We know, that's why you're under arrest. Let the attorney handle interrogations because it is not unheard of that the wrong person gets arrested. Now if you are a parent over 60 you can curse the agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigations out standing on the inside of your front door. Especially if its about your kids or wife. Unless of course she's really a serial killing and they have photographic proof and genetic material, blood samples and foot print molds from more than three crime scenes. Then it is best to get her an attorney rather than trying to be the spokesperson. WL. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Cockburn Joins Right Wing POW-MIA Hysteria
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Why not cite what he actually wrote? You'd see that he's quoting Sydney Schanberg, whose reporting is by no means infallible, but does raise some interesting questions. http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05282010.html. This is the way I see it. Those on the right will view this from an honor/nationalistic viewpoint, but Cockburn's points shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. When one looks at it from the Vietnamese POV, it is entirely logical. And given the circumstantial evidence involved, one could say there certainly is some smoke; that doesn't mean there is fire, but there certainly could be more to this than what we've been told. -- Fast fact: Since the mid-1970s, the richest one percent of households have doubled their percentage of the US national wealth. As the 2nd richest man in the world, Warren Buffet, bluntly said, If[sic] class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Turks know the difference between Jews and Zionists
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Eli Stephens (elishasteph...@hotmail.com) wrote on 2010-06-11 at 16:50:14 in about Re: [Marxism] Turks know the difference between Jews and Zionists: I'm certainly not saying that Israel's actions REPRESENT Jews everywhere. Obviously they don't. I always said that the state of Israel is the worst thing happening to Jews since the collapse of the German Nazi regime. I'm saying that is the way millions of people around the world perceive it, and in that sense, they definitely do reflect on Jews everywhere. It is worse: the colonial settler state proclaims that it is not the state of its citizens, but the state of all Jews from all over this planet, and that its crimes are committed in the name and interest of each and every Jew living on this earth. And they suggest that Jews can't live other than as the master race holding down the Arabs in Palestine, and would fall dead if they have to face them as equals. Of course this endangers the existence of Jews everywhere, not only in Palestine (which is, BTW, the most dangerous place for Jews). Cheers, Lüko Willms Frankfurt, Germany visit http://www.mlwerke.de Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotzki in German Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] What is fascism? (was: Castro: Swastika has become Israel's banner)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Michael Smith (m...@smithbowen.net) wrote on 2010-06-13 at 18:05:26 in about Re: [Marxism] Castro: Swastika has become Israel's banner: And of course Fascism is a slippery term. But whatever it is, it's not a quantitative assessment of evilness. Doesn't it have more to do with how the evildoers think about what they're doing, and how they justify it? Isn't Fascism, in great part, a state of mind? Well, the way you use it subsequently is also just a quantitative assessment of evilness. Actually I prefer to keep the term for the actual fascist movements and dictatorships we have experienced from the 1920ies on, notably in Italy and Germany. Its main characteristic is a petty bourgeois mass movement which is used by the capitalist class to destroy the workers movement, smash all their organisations, atomize the class, in order to stabilize the capitalist class rule. Hitler explicitly proclaimed the necessity to smash the workers movement, which did turn out as an obstacle in the war, and to substitute class consciousness by some surrogate. The Italian fascism initially came without antisemitism. Even a number of Jews from Germany fled from the Nazi antisemitic riots to Mussolini's Italy. Cheers, Lüko Willms Frankfurt, Germany Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Pax Ottomanica?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175260/tomgram:_john_feffer,_pax_ottomanica/ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] THE PUNISHMENT OF GAZA - GIDEON LEVY
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == NEW TITLE: THE PUNISHMENT OF GAZA By: GIDEON LEVY Published 5th July 2010 There are more terrible atrocities in the world than what is being done to the caged prisoners of Gaza, but it is not easy to think of a more cruel and cowardly exhibition of human savagery, fully supported by the US, with Europe trailing politely behind. Gideon Levy's passionate and revealing account is an eloquent, even desperate, call to bring this shocking tragedy to an end, as can easily be done NOAM CHOMSKY My modest mission is to prevent a situation in which many Israelis will be able to say, 'We didn't know' - GIDEON LEVY GIDEON LEVY will be speaking at the Edinburgh International Book Festival on 18th August 2010, and speaking in various locations around the UK in the following week. The Israeli assault on Gaza in early 2009 and the Israeli attack on the Gaza aid flotilla in May 2010 have provoked a deluge of coverage and discussion on the war, with news channels charting every missile, every rocket and every death. Tens of thousands have marched in London to protest the war and the attack on the aid convoy, and during both events the airwaves have been full of debate on the legality, morality and strategic sense of Israeli actions. Journalists have been duly despatched to Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Sderot, and the Gaza border to report on the conflict. Yet one voice that is often strikingly absent from the coverage is that of the Palestinians living in Gaza themselves. GIDEON LEVY is an award-winning and internationally acclaimed Israeli journalist. He has been reporting from the occupied territories for the Israeli newspaper, HA'ARETZ, for over 20 years. THE PUNISHMENT OF GAZA takes us back to Israel's 2005 withdrawal from Gaza to chart the events leading up to the bloody assault of 2009. Levy's powerful journalism shows how the brutality at the heart of Israel's occupation of Palestine found its most complete expression to date in the collective punishment of Gaza's residents. The result is both a set of heartbreaking human stories, an incisive analysis of Israeli policy, and an impassioned plea for Israel to end the occupation. LEVY'S work combines piercing political analysis with a journalist's drive to tell the stories of those suffering under the Israeli occupation. LEVY humanises the victims of war, to tell us their names, their birthdays and what they ate for breakfast. Yet LEVY does not speak primarily to, or for Palestinians. His aim is to hold a mirror up to Israeli society, asking Israelis to face up to the everyday brutality of the occupation and to ensure that neither Israelis nor their international supporters can ever say we didn't know. As Gaza continues to make headlines, with the brutal and ongoing Israeli siege scuppering any attempts at rebuilding, the Goldstone report controversy and attempts by activists to break the siege by land and sea meeting with deadly hostility from Israel, THE PUNISHMENT OF GAZA gives the casual observer a timely overview of the shocking recent history of Gaza. GIDEON LEVY is a prominent Israeli journalist. For over twenty years he has covered the Israel-Palestine conflict, in particular the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, for the Israeli newspaper HA'ARETZ in his column Twilight Zone. ISBN: 978 1 84467 601 9 / US$15.95 / £8.99 / CAN$20 / Paperback / 160 pages For more information visit: http://www.versobooks.com/books/klm/l-titles/levy_g_the_punishment_of_gaza.shtml To buy the book in UK: http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/book/9781844676019/The-Punishment-of-Gaza or http://www.amazon.co.uk/Punishment-Gaza-Gideon-Levy/dp/1844676013/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1276513846sr=8-1 To buy the book in US: http://www.amazon.com/Punishment-Gaza-Gideon-Levy/dp/1844676013/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1276513890sr=8-1 ACADEMICS BASED OUTSIDE NORTH AMERICA MAY REQUEST AN INSPECTION COPY - PLEASE CONTACT ta...@verso.co.ukmailto:ta...@verso.co.uk ACADEMICS BASED WITHIN NORTH AMERICA MAY REQUEST AN EXAMINATION COPY - PLEASE CONTACT cla...@verso.co.ukmailto:cla...@verso.co.uk Visit Verso's new blog for information on our upcoming events, new reviews and publications and special offers. http://versouk.wordpress.com/ Become a fan of Verso on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Verso-Books-UK/122064538789 And get updates on Twitter too! http://twitter.com/VersoBooksUK Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Castro: Swastika has become Israel's banner
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:36:26 +0100 Paul Flewers rfls12...@blueyonder.co.uk writes: == I agree with David Thorstad here. Michael Smith's list of fascist manifestations is accurate (with a proviso in respect of racial politics), but, firstly, one can have these factors as prominent features of political discourse and popular opinion within a bourgeois democracy (or to put it more accurately, a formal bourgeois democracy), and secondly, they can be features of political parties that are not fascist, but which operate within the confines of a formal bourgeois democracy. The US from the time of the ending of Reconstruction until the demise of Jim Crow would be one example of such a bourgeois democracy. South Africa under apartheid would be another example. Fascism means more than worshipping the strongman, glorifying violence and believing in racial superiority and inferiority. Michael omits the most important factor of fascism. Fascism means the suppression of -- especially -- working-class organisations, be they revolutionary or reformist, powerful or weak, threatening to the capitalist system or accommodating to it, in the interests of big business. It's not just the suppression of working class organizations, since that sort of thing has often occurred in bourgeois democracies, for instance, the United States. What, I think sets fascism apart, is that this suppression is carried out with little or no regards for the usual bourgeois norms concerning the rule of law. Does this apply to Israel? It has more than just the trappings of a bourgeois democracy, in that formally there are freedoms to organise, protest and publish. There is a trade union movement, a parliament and political freedoms. However, its constitution favours one religious/ethnic group above all others, and therefore inequality on a religious and ethnic basis is institutionally embedded; the main trade union federation plays along with this discrimination. Non-Jews are definitely second-class citizens. Some people call it a herrenvolk democracy, which I understand to mean akin to a democracy for colonialists but not the colonial subjects (like the lands of the British Empire). That's probably not a bad label. The US for much of its history can be similarly categorized. Also in regards to Israel, one of the original objectives of the trade union movement there was to prevent Jewish employers from hiring Arab workers. But then again in the US, for a long time, trade unions similarly acted to prevent employers from hiring African-American workers as opposed to white workers. And trade unions in South Africa did the same thing as well. And this is within Israel proper; what the Israeli state and unofficial Zionist organisations do in the lands outwith the 1967 borders is much worse, and the outlook and activities of many settlers in Arab lands are indistinguishable to those of fascists. But to call Israel a fascist country is, I feel, inaccurate, and seems to me to be an emotive use of the term, rather than one based on the actual nature of Israeli society. I think we should keep in mind that bourgeois democracies can be every bit as violent as fascist regimes. It was the US, after all, that developed and used nuclear weapons in warfare. And the US, which is most definately a bourgeois democracy, has had a long history of backing fascist and semi-fascist regimes around the world. Paul F Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant Project Management Cert Villanova PMP#174 CAPM#174 Classes. Average Salary For PMPs is $100K http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c163a6ba762b92133m03vuc Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Cockburn Joins Right Wing POW-MIA Hysteria
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == [comments mistakenly sent privately and not posted on list as intended] Right, he quoted it uncritically and with approval for its conclusions. Question for you: are you buying into the crap that MIAs were kept in Indochina by the victorious regimes there or that somehow they were victims or that the North Vietnamese were the aggressors and not US imperialism? Moreover, Shanberg has a history of being an imperialist hack and an apologist whose stories about Cambodia were completely divorced from the context of US carpet bombing. William Shawcross' book Sideshow and Chomsky in contrast place this tragedy in its proper context of imperialist aggression. No, Cockburn's piece is a blatant and shocking apologia for right wing mythology notwithstanding whatever fig leaf he places on it about other media cover-ups. I'm flabbergasted that any ostensible leftist would apologize for this pro-imperialist crap. How about the TWO MILLION VIETNAMESE killed by US aggression? __ Estabrook response: I doubt that Alex Cockburn, of all people, ever quoted anything uncritically. Are you sure you read this piece? He certainly doesn't quote Schanberg uncritically: he does say that the evidence he cites needs to be considered. And Cockburn does know that ideology doesn't determine facts a priori. Where do you find anyone suggesting that the 'North Vietnamese' were the aggressors and not US imperialism? You're also temerarious to appeal to Chomsky and Shawcross in the same sentence: the former has been a severe critic of the latter. Cockburn offers no apologia for right wing mythology. He does suggest that the US government is known to have lied about the history of the Vietnam War. Also, I think you underestimate the number of Vietnamese killed by US aggression. A Vietnamese general is said to have told the Russians was that his government was intent on getting war reparations, $3.25 billion in reconstruction money, pledged by the US in peace negotiations headed on the US side by Henry Kissinger. The general told the Russians that Hanoi would hold back a large number of POWs until the money arrived. It seems the Vietnamese had successfully used the same tactic with the French, to elicit promised funds, after which POWs were transferred. But Nixon and Kissinger had attached to the deal a codicil to the effect that the US Congress would have to approve the reparations – which the two knew was an impossibility in the political atmosphere of the time. Thus they effectively sealed the POWs fate. On signature of the 1973 treaty Hanoi released the names of 591 POWs scheduled to be returned. At the time there was widespread consternation in the US – in the New York Times for example - at the unexpectedly low number. In fact, as top official in the US government knew, about 600 POWs were being held back, against delivery of the promised $3.25 billion... Cockburn suggests reasons why we should not immediately place our full confidence - as you seem to - in the account delivered by war heroes John Kerry and John McCain _ my rejoinder: Of course I read it, but not online but in the local print version in The Anderson Valley Advertiser (AVA) available in the local grocery store on the North Coast of CA. He and his friend publisher Bruce Anderson have a long history here where their reputation as clever 5th Column demagogues is in advance of that elsewhere based on their covering for the FBI in the Judi Bari case and other matters. Surely you've seen his denunciations of the pro-life movement and ruminations on the Tea Party that Proyect has alluded to, so I don't have to go into a whole catalogue about their routine slanders of local activists whom they deride as lib labs in a style worthy of Glenn Beck. Again, the issue is not McCain or Kerry but rather pandering to right wing victimology about POWs who were for the most part not grunts slogging through the mud, but flight officers responsible for the deaths of thousands far from harm's way. Demonology about the Vietnamese liberation forces and the victim cult about these POWs and how supposedly some are still being held there, even though there's no evidence is a key part of the right wing's narrative of Vietnam as a noble cause waged against communist aggression and its demonic oppressors and borders on being a fascistic cult heavily promoted by Hells Angels thugs and other chauvinistic reactionaries. That some of you guys don't see that seems incredibly obtuse. With all due respect, don't be a chump. Tellingly, the AVA now has the right wing POW-MIA flag logo on the masthead of its website. I know this one inmate through my work who has the swastika tatooed on one side of his neck and the POW-MIA
[Marxism] The do-nothing president
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Counterpunch June 14, 2010 One Bitch-Slap After Another The Do-Nothing President By DAVID MICHAEL GREEN What do nine dead Gaza activists in the Mediterranean, nine-plus percent unemployment, and ninety years of oil catastrophe clean-up have in common? How about one astonishingly tepid president? How about one guy in the White House who squirms in his chair anytime someone uses the word “bold” and actually means it? How about one dude in the Oval Office who seems much more interested in making deals to determine who should be the Democratic candidates for various state offices than in actually solving national problems? We could hardly have a president more ill-suited to our time if we were to dig up Herbert Hoover and prop his weary bones up on the presidential throne. Barack Obama has five major problems as president. The first is that he doesn’t understand priorities. The second is that he seems to have little strong conviction on any given issue. The third is that to the extent he stands for anything, it is for maintenance of a status quo that continues to wreck the country in order to service the greed of a few oligarchs. The fourth is that he fundamentally does not understand the powers and the role of the modern presidency. And the fifth is that he maintains the worst communications apparatus in the White House since Jimmy Carter prowled its corridors. In fairness to his communications team, though, he has given them almost nothing to sell. You try singing the praises of bailing out Goldman Sachs one hundred cents on the dollar, or of a health care plan that forces people to buy plans they don’t want from hated insurance vultures. It ain’t easy, pal. Yet, on the other hand, Bush and Cheney had far less than nothing to sell when it came to the Iraq war – indeed, they had nothing but lies – and their team handled that masterfully. full: http://www.counterpunch.org/green06142010.html Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Christopher Hitchens Exposed -- Again
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == A few weeks back, I had a posting noting that Christopher Hitchens was not exactly being accurate when he claimed that nobody had previously recognised that there was no Lenin character in George Orwell's Animal Farm. I've done a little research, and I have written up my findings in a short piece which should be going in the next issue of New Interventions. Paul F + Hitched On His Own Petard Writing about George Orwell's Animal Farm in the Guardian on 17 April 2010, Christopher Hitchens loudly proclaimed: 'There is a Stalin pig and a Trotsky pig, but no Lenin pig. ... Nobody appears to have pointed this out at the time (and if I may so, nobody but myself has done so since; it took years to notice what was staring me in the face).' A little research would not have gone amiss. Nobody noticed at the time? Someone did. Writing in The Nation on 7 September 1946, the US left-winger Isaac Rosenfeld reviewed Orwell's tale, explaining that Snowball was 'Trotsky, with a soupçon of Lenin -- for simplicity's sake, Vladimir Ilyich is left out of the picture, entering it only as a dybbuk who shares with Marx old Major's identity, and with Trotsky, Snowball's'. This review is reproduced in Jeffrey Meyers' collection George Orwell: The Critical Heritage (London, 1975). Twenty or so years later, BT Oxley wrote in his brief George Orwell (London, 1967) that 'there is no figure corresponding to Lenin (Major dies before the rising takes place)'; and another decade down the line Alex Zwerdling, in his major study Orwell and the Left (New Haven, 1978), wrote about the discrepancies between the course of the Russian Revolution and the events in Orwell's fable, and informed us: 'The most striking of these is the omission of Lenin from the drama. Major... is clearly meant to represent Marx, while Napoleon and Snowball act out the conflict in the post-revolutionary state between Stalin and Trotsky.' David Wykes' A Preface to Orwell (Harlow, 1987) also clearly indicated the absence of a Lenin parallel in Animal Farm. A decade ago, this magazine published a pamphlet by the present author, 'I Know How But I Don't Know Why': George Orwell's Conception of Totalitarianism (Coventry, 1999, reprinted 2000); and a revised version of it was published in the collection George Orwell: Enigmatic Socialist (London, 2005). Once again, Lenin's absence was noted: 'Some of the characters are eponymous. The taciturn, devious and ambitious Napoleon is clearly Stalin, and the more inventive and vivacious Snowball is an equally obvious Trotsky... There is, however, no porcine Lenin, as Major (Marx) dies just before the animals take over the farm, although the displaying of Major's skull is reminiscent of the rituals around the embalmed Bolshevik leader.' Many other authorities have attempted to find Lenin somewhere in the piggery. Jenni Calder's 'Animal Farm' and 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' (Milton Keynes, 1987) claimed that 'Major is a composite of Marx and Lenin'; a view that also appeared in Averil Gardner's George Orwell (Boston, 1987), Jeffrey Meyers' A Reader's Guide to George Orwell (London, 1984), Brodies Notes (London, 1976), and York Notes (Harlow, 1980). On the other hand, Robert Lee's Orwell's Fiction (London, 1969) and Ruth Ann Lief's Homage to Oceania (Ohio, 1969) both reckoned that Major was Lenin. Finally, in International Socialism, no 44 (Autumn 1989), John Molyneux took a quite different viewpoint: 'It is clear that Napoleon represents Stalin, just as Old Major is Marx and Snowball is Trotsky. Who then represents Lenin? Since Orwell depicts the Rebellion as led by two pigs, Napoleon and Snowball, one is forced to the conclusion that Napoleon also represents Lenin. Thus in Animal Farm the figures of Lenin and Stalin are merged into one character.' So the absence in Animal Farm of a pig representing Lenin, or of a character that at least partly represented him, has been discussed by a wide variety of writers over no less a time than six decades. Hitchens' unique discovery is thus nothing but a hollow boast, one based equally upon arrogance and ignorance. I will not say that nobody has praised Christopher Hitchens for his modesty. But I doubt if many people have. Paul Flewers Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] re : Productivity and Labor Costs
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Haven't gone through all the numbers in this report, yet. However, yes, productivity grew in 2009-- Regarding the overall trend-- in the period 1973-1995 the average annual increase in US manufacturing productivity was 2.7%; between 1995-2007 that rate jumps to 4.1% Overproduction is certainly what's at work here, but overproduction is not underconsumption. Overproduction is the overproduction of capital. The amplification of the productivity of labor means that greater use values are produced representing, overall, the same exchange value.Marx writes [vol 33 of the Collected Works, Economic Manuscripts] The growth of the productive power of labor allows more commodities to be produced in the same labor time... It does not raise the exchange value of the commodity, but only their quantity it rather lessens the exchange value of the individucal commodity However, the total exchange value of all commodities may increase if more labor is employed in conjunction with proportionately greater means of production or if the total labor time is increased. The bourgeoisie measure productivity with their wallets-- output per unit labor cost, not hours. What has occurred has several sources [and manifestations]: increased growth of the fixed portion of capital-- [distinguished by the initial outlay, value, that is recuperated over time and by small degrees] reduces annual returns on the capital advanced; this fixed capital, as well as all the commodities produced by it is subject to the constant threat and reality of devaluation by further increases in productivity [the semiconductor fabrication industry being one of the most acute examples of this]; and, to my mind the most important feature which sums it all up and puts a ribbon on it-- while the totality, the entirety of the fixed capital participates, is essential to the labor process, is essential to amplifying the productivity of labor and aggrandizing relative surplus value, only a portion, a small portion, of this fixed, advanced, capital investment participates in, and is recoverable through the valorisation process [valorisation meaning the accrual of value on top of value-- value added by the process of production itself]. Thus we have the contradiction at the core of capital, the conflict between labor and the conditions of labor, between the laborer and the owner of the means of production, between the labor process and the social, class, organization of that labor, impairing, inhibiting the expanded reproduction of capital itself. None of this has anything to do with underconsumption, except that consumption will reflect what is occurring in this primary exchange between wage-labor and capital. Yeah, they fear deflation all right. No accumulation, no capital. Without a constant magnification, capital cannot be capable, cannot reproduce itself which is nothing but the valorisation process. I'd say somebody just looked over the precipicel, dropped a stone and still hasn't heard it hit bottom. Anyway, Loren Goldner and I are working on a e-publication to appear, hopefully, soon and in the second issue I'll try to go a bit deeper into the impacts of fixed capital. You read it here first. Feel free to use my ideas, as long as you give credit-- and speaking of giving credit-- credit to Michael Perelman for putting me on the scent, trackin' dog that I am. Thank you, Michael. - Original Message - From: dan d.koech...@wanadoo.fr To: David Schanoes sartes...@earthlink.net Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 4:10 PM Subject: [Marxism] re : Productivity and Labor Costs == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Hi Artesian, Productivity in the US is still on the increase in 2010, isn't it ? I had difficulty understanding the productivity figures you posted. And plant utilization ratios are still down, and unemployment is still high, though I haven't got the figures. Ergo, the US economy (and World economy) is still faced with an over-production/under-consumption problem. More use-values are being created per hour of labour and less socially exchangeable value is being produced per hour of labour. Capitalists are still trying to cheapen the cost of socially necessary average labour and are running into contradictions as labour becomes more productive. The economy is in the doldrums, and all the solutions to get it out of there appear to bear the same stamp. Van Rumpy, of the EU, has today talked about greening the EU economy, while Obama gave a speech about the need to invest in more
Re: [Marxism] Why only BP? (Re: Seize BP)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 6/14/2010 4:35 PM, Lüko Willms wrote: Why only BP? Because it is British, and unamerican? Why not the other energy giants, Texaco, Chevron, Exxon, what have you? Bravo, Lüko ... you really showed that dirty-dog opportunist and his plot to leave virtually the entire petroleum industry in the hands of private capitalists and that Chavez guy. But wait! Sure, you want to take the energy giants, but would leave everything from a to z (airplane making to zoology magazines) in private hands. And why stop there? Everyone knows capitalist relations arise spontaneously from commodity production. We demand the immediate abolition of commodity production! Joaquín more radical than thou Bustelo Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Seize BP
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == It is ANSWER. On 6/14/10 12:09 PM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == A message from Seize BP about the Obama administration's new position on BP The Obama administration has just announced a major shift in its handling of BP and the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. For six weeks the Obama administration just said NO to the growing nationwide chorus of public opinion demanding that the government seize BP¹s assets in an amount commensurate with the damage caused by their criminal negligence, and that the funds be placed into a trust that could quickly and easily pay for damages and compensation now and into the future as more damages accrue. Directly on the heels of Seize BP's demonstrations taking place in more than 50 cities -- with more demonstrations occurring every day -- officials from the administration are now announcing a new approach to BP: President Obama has given BP an ultimatum to create an escrow fund administered by an independent body for the payment of claims and damages or the White House will invoke its legal authority to create such an escrow account from BP¹s assets. He plans to address the country in a nationwide television address Tuesday night and meet with BP executives at the White House on Wednesday. But what is the reality undergirding the Obama administration's announcement? It may appear that the administration is now close to the demand of seizure of assets for an escrow account unless BP commits to the establishment of such an escrow account on its own accord. There are several key factors: 1. The administration's 55 days of coddling BP has become unsustainable from a political and public relations standpoint. The government has revealed itself as a subservient appendage to corporate interests. Now they are going out of their way to present a different image. 2. In recent days, Florida and Louisiana have both made demands on BP that funds be escrowed as a down payment to cover initial damages, totaling $7.5 billion. BP says that it only has $6.8 billion in cash and cash equivalents available. BP itself is reassuring its investors that the damages in the Gulf that BP will have to pay will not exceed $3 billion to $6 billion. It needs to be understood that it is not a lowball estimate of the scope of the damage but a statement of intent, of just how little BP intends to pay. BP is reported to have called its large U.S. stockholders -- J.P. Morgan Chase controls deposits and services for 30 percent of BP's U.S. stock -- to pressure the administration. The administration¹s plan for an escrow account may be seen like a get-tough-against-BP policy but still be designed to further protect BP. The telltale indicator will be the amount of BP assets set aside for the escrow fund. 3. The anger of the people is spreading around the country especially as estimates of the amount of oil gushing into the Gulf are growing exponentially. To be more precise, what is changing is the weakening of the corporate and political cover-up of actual spill volume. Substantial amounts of oil being funneled to the surface by BP from its new cap are not being processed by BP's on-site tanker because it lacks capacity, so the oil is being dumped back into the Gulf. BP says it can't get more tankers to the area until July. The relief well planned for August may not even work then. 4. At the same time, President Obama held what was reported as a warm and constructive phone call with the British Prime Minister David Cameron on Saturday in which he recognized that BP is a multinational company and reassured Cameron that he did not want to undermine BP's value. Obama had been hoping that BP would suspend its upcoming shareholder dividend (estimated at more than $10 billion annually), but BP has vacillated publicly on whether it intends to do so. The administration is worried that BP might not do enough to placate the public and that the dire necessity of the situation, as evidenced by Louisiana's and Florida's independent demands, will overtake the administration's attempts to appear in control of the problem. Seize BP¹s position on the Obama administration¹s New Approach Toward BP¹s Assets While it is clear that the Obama administration has undertaken what appears to be a dramatic shift in its handling of one part of the crisis, there are two central issues that will indicate whether it is just another sham public relations offensive or something
[Marxism] Re : Yes, indeed: what is Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Hi Lüko, Germany is a very special case because one can argue that the 1914 aims of Imperial Germany were identical to those of 1939 Nazi Germany : to carve out a continental subjugated territory in Europe proper to counter-balance the fact that Britain, France and the US had extensive overseas holdings. Germany since the second Reich was worried that it was loosing out in the new World Order because it did not have the territory, nor the resources, to compete with France, Britain or the US. It did not control Africa, India, Australia, South America, etc. German industry was extremely productive but felt constrained by the fact that we do not border the Atlantic Ocean. But during WWI, Germany proved that it was a first-rate power. At the battle of Verdun, 3 000 German artillery pieces fired 2 MILLION shells in 12 hours killing 100 000 French troops. Germans pioneered gas attacks and flame-throwers, always relying on superior technology to overwhelm allied defenses. They could fire 4 000 mustard gas shells over the course of three hours, but then had to wait 12 hours before sending in their troops, which gave the French time to send in re-enforcements. Krupp and IG Farben were the proof that Germany had what it takes to be taken seriously. In 1917, after Brest-Litvosk, Germany occupied Ukraine and Byelorussia, immediately getting hold of the coal of the Donetz bassin, the wheat of Ukraine and the petrol of Romania. Hitler had the same strategy. Rather than rush to Moscow, he prefered Ludendorff's 1918 strategy of grabbing the mineral resources of Russia. And just like Ludendorf, he prefered to build an impregnable line on the WEST Front before attacking Eastward. The needs of German industrialists were always served by the Kaiser, the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich. Their imperialist needs didn't change, only the State apparatus that would further them. The only time they were afraid was during the 1918-1920 German revolution. But as early as 1921, and after the German-Soviet rapprochement, they were once again pursuing their continent-wide imperialist agenda. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] China
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == This is insistence on workers' democracy and control -- of their UNION. I.e. not of the factory. (Yet.) On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 6:08 PM, dan d.koech...@wanadoo.fr wrote: = What I see as particularly encouraging is their instance on workers' democracy and control : Here we call all the workers to stay united despite the fact we have different opinions. The negation team [ = the ennemy] pays attention to every worker’s opinion. If one wants to participate in the negotiation, one can join the team based on the census [ = the vote] of other workers. The team will inform all the workers of all the proposals that it has received from the company and then assemble [a] worker’s congress [ = general meeting]. Without approval from the worker’s congress, any negotiation delegate will not agree on any proposal that does not meet the abovementioned requests. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/acpollack2%40gmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fascism
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Comment George Seldes called fascism imperialism turned inwards. The Comintern’s political description of fascism was accurate; the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary most chauvinistic and most imperialistic elements of finance capital. This does not mean one must limit themselves to a formal definition. What has always been critical to fascism and the fascist state - from my political orientation, is the transition in the form and method of rule. What defines fascism as a political form of the state is transition in political form of citizens rights. The meaning of displacement of a history and form of rule or altering (reforming) the citizens and classes relationship between themselves and the state is the inner logic of political fascism and the fascist state. Fascism displaces an existing norm of the bourgeois democratic republic and substitutes in its place legal, illegal and extra-legal violence as the new state norm. This impacts and changes judicial rights for corporations along with that of citizens. The old norm is defined as built up citizens rights in relation to the state as the bourgeois democratic republic, and whatever is peculiar to a country's history. The bourgeois democratic republic is a historically specific superstructure/state, consolidating on the basis of the defeat of political feudalism. The citizen as individual is freed from their old political status as a subject of a lord or master. Fascism exists on a political continuum that is the epochal rule of the bourgeoisie: the bourgeois democratic republic. The world’s first fascist revolution (counterrevolution) occurred in America, after the Hayes Tilden Agreement and withdrawal of federal troops from the South in 1877. Fascism comes to power as a party of attack on the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, on the masses of people who are in a state of unrest; yet it stages its ascension to power as a movement against the bourgeoisie on behalf of the whole nation. What made up the fascist character of the counter-revolution was not simply its brutality or violence, but the fact that the revolt of the poor whites - the so-called petty bourgeoisie, cloaked itself in the mantle of saving the South. The fascist-led revolt was the absolute agent of finance capital of the North. The counter-revolution attacked and overthrew the Reconstruction bourgeois democratic governments. Then, the fascists substituted a reign of terror as the new state form of domination over the core areas of the defeated South. In the North capital relied on deception, bribery, fraud and varying degree of reactionary bourgeois democratic rule; in short, on bourgeois democracy. Rosa L. and Karl L. were murdered during a period of shift to a reactionary bourgeois democratic form short of the fascist political state. The issue is not degree of violence but the form of the state. In he Black Belt the rule of finance capital was maintained by an unheard of reign of terror, legal and extra-legal, both by police and the KKK. From time to time Communists have raised this question of American fascism only to retract their statements because they held that there was a contradiction between their conception of fascism and imperialism. Fascism is rampant imperialism. George Seldes was quite correct when he said that fascism is imperialism turned inward. Political reaction in America has always had its firm political roots in the South as the politics of containment of the system of slavery and then keeping the black pinned to the land. To understand the rise of fascism in the South means taking fully into account that even during the periods of radical reconstruction, segregation remained a way of life. In the Union Leagues, in the Labor Unions, in the Farmers Alliance, there were white and black locals. Because the decisive element of unity could not be won, it was easy for the fascists to appear on the scene as the progressive leaders of the poor whites. From 1918 to 1945 fascism once again arose as a revolutionary political resolution to the problems of societies, indeed a world in transition and crisis. The crisis was expressed as WW I and the fight to divide an already divided world, while the advanced countries were leaping into the second industrial revolution. This meant wiping out political feudalism, further shifting society from countryside to the city and destruction of the old - closed, colonial system with direct colonies attached to various imperial centers (multinational states). The Weimar government could not contain both the communist and the fascist elements. One or the
Re: [Marxism] Re : Yes, indeed: what is Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == dan escribió: Hi Lüko, Germany is a very special case because one can argue that the 1914 aims of Imperial Germany were identical to those of 1939 Nazi Germany : to carve out a continental subjugated territory in Europe proper to counter-balance the fact that Britain, France and the US had extensive overseas holdings. [...] The needs of German industrialists were always served by the Kaiser, the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich. Their imperialist needs didn't change, only the State apparatus that would further them. The only time they were afraid was during the 1918-1920 German revolution. But as early as 1921, and after the German-Soviet rapprochement, they were once again pursuing their continent-wide imperialist agenda. I guess there would be some caveats as regards the Bismark age. Bismark was against the imperialist expansion, which in a sense cost him his post once the old Kaiser died and a new one come to the throne. But I would also add that the Eastward expansion was not an expansion on no man´s land. In the first place, of course, you have the local peoples. But not always too concealed you also have the powers of the West. One of the results of WW One was that after the stabilisation implanted around 1925 Germany, which had had a couple of allies to the East (the AHE and Ottoman Empires) found herself surrounded by France, Belgium and Holland on the West, all imperialist powers, rump Austria to the South (that is a minor power and a pawn in others´ hands, and a series of subservient states to the East. But not subservient to Germany. Poland had close ties of dependency with England, and Czechoslovakia (and Romania) were close allies (in the usual assymetric way) of France. The Kingdom of the Southern Slavs held close ties with Britain, too. Can´t speak of Hungary, don´t know. And further East, in explosive Eastern Prussia, what did you have but the Baltic States (all linked to England to a great extent), and the Russian Leviathan? Thus, the situation after Versailles was quite different than the previous one. As to the permanent expansion, yes, it is true, the German bourgeoisie has always been trying to expand to the East (that is, after, say, the 1890s) not unlike the US bourgeoisie has been trying to expand to the South. In a sense, this is what they have achieved after the fall of the Berlin Wall. A Soc Dem MP in Germany has recognized it during the Yugoslavian Crime, when he said that it seemed that at last Germany had obtained by peaceful means this that they had been looking for by way of war (twice). I know the declaration existed, but ca´nt find the quotation. Perhaps some comrade can help. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Sports and South Africa PR
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == http://seductivebanter.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/fever-pitch/ Fever Pitch “South Africa has some phenomenal PR,” I thought, walking out of a lecture given by South African Supreme Court Justice Jennifer Yvonne Mokgoro a few years ago on the comparative civil rights protections granted under the South African and American constitutions. According to Mokgoro, the United States came in a far distant second. She wasn’t wrong; the South African constitution is among the most liberally worded and progressive of its kind. But consider the current state of South Africa: Crime and HIV prevalence are astronomically high. Unemployment is around 40%. Income disparity has continued to increase post-apartheid. The President Jacob Zuma – well, the less said about him the better. All the “Rainbow Nation” rhetoric on racism apparently remains just that. So for a country so steeped in problems, I had to admire South Africa’s moxie in positioning itself as a beacon of hope, not only for its continent, but for the rest of the world. More recently, I was again struck by South Africa’s public relations when I was tied down and forced to watch the film “Invictus” (2009) against my will. Based on a book by Independent reporter John Carlin, “Invictus” tells the story of the South African rugby team, the Springboks, and their victory in the 1995 Rugby World Cup. Despite the widespread call post-apartheid to put an end to the historically racially divisive team, Mandela avidly supported the Springboks, anticipating that their victory would bring the country together. Not only was “Invictus” mind-numbingly dull, it suffered from the fatal flaw of most movies of its genre: it lacked both a prequel and a sequel. A prequel would have shown the uglier facts about why Black South Africans so detested the Springboks. A sequel, in turn, would have shown how shortly after the World Cup the Springboks returned to their old ways, and the numerous racial allegations and incidents that had the country once again calling to disband the team. As Louis Proyect writes about such films: “in each case, the audience is hoodwinked into believing that the movie is about the real world rather than some liberal fantasy.” Such criticisms against films like “Invictus” are nothing new; their very premise – that racial discord can be best ameliorated not through structural change but via a sporting victory – itself cannot be said with a straight face. Or so I thought. As it turns out, “Invictus” did nail one thing with spot-on accuracy: the real-world discourse that sports are an effective means of mitigating racial tensions. In the lead-up to the current FIFA World Cup, all sorts of people in high places were throwing such claims around: “Let’s kick discrimination off the field. Let’s tackle exclusion. Let’s put racism offside,” High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay stated in an op-ed published in South Africa’s Business Day. While economic rise can certainly help cure any number of social issues, from what I gather, this optimism is not just about the cash. Hosting the World Cup will lead to an increase in tourism revenue, but South Africa already is a leader in that regard, ranking second among African countries after Egypt in world tourism rankings. So it’s been predicted that any South Africa (as opposed to FIFA) cash gains from the World Cup are unlikely to be offset by the tremendous cost of hosting the event. Writes Chris Bolsmann at the Harvard Business Review: Relying on tax subsidies, the South African organizers have built five world-class stadiums, renovated two existing football stadiums and a further three rugby stadiums, and made additional significant infrastructure changes — all at a cost in excess of 30 billion South African rand, double what was predicted in 2006. This is in a country where poverty is extreme… Not only has this World Cup been predicted to lower racism in South Africa, but in international soccer overall, which is likewise not a particularly nice place for athletes of color, what with the European fans who make monkey noises when Black players touch the ball or throw bananas onto the pitch. The Guardian reported that Cameroon’s captain, Samuel Eto’o, believes that the World Cup in South Africa can “help to diminish the racism that has blighted European football.” This brings to mind a couple of questions, namely: Are they kidding? And, are they serious? Why is it that sports continue to be viewed as a potent means to alleviating racism? Sure, there are several obvious theoretical arguments that can be made to that effect. Though each team plays for its own country, international soccer does have a legacy of
Re: [Marxism] Why only BP? (Re: Seize BP)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == In a message dated 6/14/2010 1:48:12 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, ecto...@gmail.com writes: Because they are in the news and the mainstream American understand politics by headlines. Comment And because a specific corporation is tied to and identified with a particular act. Putting a hole in the earth where oil is coming out. The American people are not class consciousness. And yes, why not go after a British corporation as the opening act? WL. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Joan Hinton, Physicist Who Chose China Over Atom Bomb, Is Dead at 88
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:13:46 -0400 Louis Proyect l...@panix.com writes: == Michael Perelman wrote: Connection with William Hinton? The NY Times obit did not mention any but the wiki states: Her brother William H. Hinton (19192004), a sociologist, had travelled to China for the first time in 1937 and observed the land reform in the communist-occupied areas. (He would thirty years later publish Fanshen about his findings, a book that became very successful in the US.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Hinton Me thinks that the NY Times is getting sloppy in the obit writing department like they are elsewhere. In the not so distant past, they never would have allowed a detail like that to get by them. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant Penny Stock Jumping 2000% Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c16c9988731d957f0m03vuc Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fascism
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Waistline, Your post contains a lot of insight into the nature of fascism. It IS different in nature from bourgeois democracy, because as you point out, it blurs the lines between bourgeois legality and thuggish extra-legality. That is a very important point. Actually, it is the point that most citizens see as the most obvious difference between Fascism and bourgeois democracy. And within this paradigm, major corporations fuse with the Sate apparatus. And end up controlling the State. Mussolini, after his rescue, argued briefly that his ideal Fascism had become corrupted by Capitalists and that his Social Republic of Salo would be a workers' state. Of course, Salo was a German puppet State. Hitler was very quick to tone down Strasser's Socialist rhetoric and align with the wishes of German Capitalism. Franquist Spain, while never a pure Fascist state on the Mussolinien model, rather a reactionary, clerical dictatorship, was to adapt in the 50s, 60s and 70s to the changes affecting Spanish capitalism. Open up to tourists on the Costa Brava in the 60s, encourage joint ventures, start investing Spanish pension funds in the US in the 70s ... Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fascism
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:12 PM, waistli...@aol.com wrote: Fascism today seeks to facilitate a whole new world order based on private property without capitalism or the wage labor form as the pivot of production. Today, it is not a sector of capital that drives the political impulse of fascism. Fascism is being driven by the logic of the revolutionary leap as a dying class seeking to discover a new form of property and preserve itself as ruling class. This in turn means the old political institution called the anti-communist, anti-fascist democrat or what is the same, the historic political middle, has been rendered superfluous and sides are being taken in a different way. One cannot remain anti communist and democratic at the same time, for pretty much the same reason one cannot campaign for a Third World Revolution and be politically relevant. Things are not going to be that difficult for us but extremely tricky because the bourgeoisie is attempting what all old ruling classes attempt; to leap to a new property form and preserve their privileges as a section of the old ruling class under new conditions. Today, this specific movement take place on the basis of intelligence agencies of the huge state bureaucracy. The tea baggers are at best ideological fascist with the real fascist in government and seats of power. Capital is not above being discarded by the capitalist as a ruling class. The only thing sacred to a ruling class is power or ruling. Could you elaborate please on the ideas in this second paragraph, in particular on the part about the intelligence agencies of the state bureaucracy? Greg Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Joan Hinton, Physicist Who Chose China Over Atom Bomb, Is Dead at 88
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Michael Perelman wrote: Connection with William Hinton? Yesss, unless we are mistaken in the following. We knew her daughter Karen in the early '80s. She was working on a Ph.D. in Agriculture at thhe U of I, and reteurned to China. She identified herself as the neice of William Hinton. Carrol Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Chinese workers rising
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/maisano140610.html -- “Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion.” — Oscar Wilde, Soul of Man Under Socialism “The free market is perfectly natural... do you think I am some kind of dummy?” — Jarvis Cocker Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Helen Thomas and the moral failure of liberals
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == In my opinion, I consider this the best expression I have seen of what was wrong with the wonderful and wonderfully brave Helen Thomas' comments. I never for a minute considered her an anti-semite of any kind--I have followed her news-conference work for a long time, but was uncomfortable with some of her responses. One thing Cook misses is when he suggests she reaponded to the question What should Israel do? with the response that Jews should get out of Palestine. She did not? Her answer was Get out of Palestine! -- a legitimate response. The existing state of Israel should get out of Palestine. When the interviewer responded, Where should they go? (a question that I assume was not aimed at entrapment, but simply a reflection of the argument that Israel equals the Jews and the Jews equal Israel. Feeling entrapped ub this framework she responded as quoted. Allow me to come partially to the defense of her view that they coi;d gp back to Poland and Russia and so forth. Richard Cohen insists that the Jewish victims of Hitler could not stay in Europe? Why not? Why could the Jewish communities of France, Germany, Poland, Hungary and Russia not have set out to rebuild the shattered Jewish communities of their countries. There were actually no obstacles except for the judgment of the imperialist rulers that the Jews must leave Europe, and that Palestine must be their homeland. This was the COMPLETING PHASE of the destruction of European Jewry, not some kind of liberation. It is horrible that such minor errors as Thomas made can finish your career in the United States, while racism against Latino remains an expression of true Americanism. And racism against Blacks, despite claims to the contary, remains the most deeply and unconditionally rooted of facts of life. Fred Feldman Helen Thomas and the moral failure of US liberals http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11332.shtml Jonathan Cook, The Electronic Intifada, 10 June 2010 The ostracism of Helen Thomas, the doyenne of the White House press corps, over her comment that Jews should get the hell out of Palestine and go home to Poland, Germany, America and elsewhere is revealing in several ways. In spite of an apology, the 89-year-old has been summarily retired by the Hearst newspaper group, dropped by her agent, spurned by the White House, and denounced by long-time friends and colleagues. Thomas earned a reputation as a combative journalist, at least by American standards, with a succession of administrations over their Middle East policies, culminating in Bush officials boycotting her for her relentless criticisms of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. But the reaction to her latest remarks suggest that, if there is one topic in American public life on which the boundaries of what can and cannot be said are still tightly policed, it is Israel. Undoubtedly, Thomas' opinions, as she expressed them in an unguarded moment, were inappropriate and required an apology. It is true, as she says, that Palestine was occupied and the land taken from the Palestinians by Jewish immigrants with no right to it barring a Biblical title deed. But 62 years on from Israel's creation, most Jewish citizens have no home to go to in Poland and Germany -- or in Iraq and Yemen, for that matter. There is also an uncomfortable echo in her words of the chauvinism underpinning demands from some Jews -- and many Israelis -- that Palestinians should go home to the 22 Arab states. But Thomas did apologize and, after that, a line ought to have been drawn under the affair -- as it surely would have been had she made any other kind of faux pas. Instead, she has been denounced as an anti-Semite, even by her former friends. The reasoning of one, Lanny Davis, counsel to the White House in the Clinton administration, was typical. Davis, who said he previously considered himself a close friend, asked whether anyone would be protective of Helen's privileges and honors if she had been asking Blacks to return to Africa, or Native Americans to Asia and South America, from which they came 8,000 or more years ago? It is that widely-accepted analogy, appropriating the black and Native American experience in a wholly misguided way, that reveals in stark fashion the moral failure of American liberals. In their blindness to the current relations of power in the US, most critics of Thomas contribute to the very intolerance they claim to be challenging. Thomas is an Arab-American, of Lebanese descent, whose remarks were publicized in the immediate wake of Israel's lethal commando attack on a flotilla of aid ships trying to break the siege of Gaza. Unlike most Americans, who were half-wakened from their six-decade Middle East slumber by the killing of at least nine Turkish
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Neo-Taylorism
On 6/11/10, Ralph Dumain wrote: Didn't Hitler drive a VW? ^ Yes (smile) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen History For vehicle time line tables, see: Volkswagen (timeline), Model of Porsche Type 12 (Zündapp), Museum of Industrial Culture, NurembergIn the early 1930s German auto industry was still largely composed of luxury models, and the average German rarely could afford something more than a motorcycle. Seeking a potential new market, some car makers began independent peoples' car projects - Mercedes' 170H, Adler's AutoBahn, Steyr 55, Hanomag 1,3L, among others. The trend was not new, as Béla Barényi is credited with having conceived the basic design in the middle 1920's. Josef Ganz developed the Standard Superior (going as far as advertising it as the German Volkswagen).[2] [broken citation]Also, in Czechoslovakia, the Hans Ledwinka's penned Tatra T77, a very popular car amongst the German elite, was becoming smaller and more affordable at each revision. In 1933, with many of the above projects still in development or early stages of production, Adolf Hitler declared his intentions for a state-sponsored Volkswagen program. Hitler required a basic vehicle capable of transporting two adults and three children at 100 km/h (62 mph). The People's Car would be available to citizens of the Third Reich through a savings scheme at 990 Reichsmark, about the price of a small motorcycle (an average income being around 32RM a week).[3] Despite heavy lobbying in favor of one of the existing projects, Hitler chose to sponsor an all new, state owned factory. The engineer chosen for the task was Ferdinand Porsche. By then an already famed engineer, Porsche was the designer of the Mercedes 170H, and worked at Steyr for quite some time in the late 1920s. When he opened his own design studio he landed two separate Auto für Jedermann (car for everybody) projects with NSU and Zündapp, both motorcycle manufacturers. Neither project come to fruition, stalling at prototype phase, but the basic concept remained in Porsche's mind time enough, so on 22 June 1934, Dr. Ferdinand Porsche agreed to create the People's Car for Hitler. [citation needed] Changes included better fuel efficiency, reliability, ease of use, and economically efficient repairs and parts. The intention was that ordinary Europeans would buy the car by means of a savings scheme (Fünf Mark die Woche musst Du sparen, willst Du im eigenen Wagen fahren — Five Marks a week you must save, If to drive your own car you crave), which around 336,000 people eventually paid into. Volkswagen honored its savings agreements in West Germany (but not in East Germany) after World War II[citation needed]. Prototypes of the car called the KdF-Wagen (German: Kraft durch Freude — strength through joy), appeared from 1936 onwards (the first cars had been produced in Stuttgart). The car already had its distinctive round shape and air-cooled, flat-four, rear-mounted engine. The VW car was just one of many KdF programs which included things such as tours and outings. The prefix Volks— (People's) was not just applied to cars, but also to other products in Europe; the Volksempfänger radio receiver for instance. On 28 May 1937, the Gesellschaft zur Vorbereitung des Deutschen Volkswagens mbH (sometimes abbreviated to Gezuvor[4]) was established by the Deutsche Arbeitsfront. It was later renamed Volkswagenwerk GmbH on 16 September 1938.[5] VW Type 82EErwin Komenda, the longstanding Auto Union chief designer, developed the car body of the prototype, which was recognizably the Beetle known today. It was one of the first to be evolved with the aid of a wind tunnel, in use in Germany since the early 1920s. The building of the new factory started 26 May 1938 in the new town of KdF-Stadt, now called Wolfsburg, which had been purpose-built for the factory workers. This factory had only produced a handful of cars by the time war started in 1939. None was actually delivered to any holder of the completed saving stamp books, though one Type 1 Cabriolet was presented to Hitler on 20 April 1938 (his 49th birthday). War meant production changed to military vehicles, the Type 82 Kübelwagen (Bucket car) utility vehicle (VW's most common wartime model), and the amphibious Schwimmwagen which were used to equip the German forces.. On 06/07/2010 02:14 PM, c b wrote: VW plant trains 'industrial athletes' Chattanooga workers prepared to 'perform at the highest level' Bill Poovey / Associated Press Chattanooga, Tenn. -- Volkswagen is requiring production workers hired for its new U.S. assembly plant to go through a fitness program on top of the usual job training, aiming to forge an industrial athlete who can lift, grip, bend and push without flagging ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
[Marxism-Thaxis] Labor and N.A.A.C.P. Plan October Rally
Labor and N.A.A.C.P. Plan October Rally By Steven Greenhouse New York Times May 10, 2010 http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/labor-naacp-plan-october-rally/?scp=1sq=1199%20demonstration%20Washingtronst=cse Several labor unions and the N.A.A.C.P. are planning a rally in Washington this October to push for stepped-up job creation efforts and to counter what they say is a misguided perception that the Tea Party represents the views of America's working people. The rally - which is being organized by the heads of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the largest local in the Service Employees International Union - aims to create momentum for President Obama and Congress to enact more progressive- minded legislation on jobs, a financial overhaul and other matters. It's very annoying to see the Tea Party folks on television all the time as if they're speaking for working people, while all they're doing is divide working people and push our agenda back, both racially and economically, said George Gresham, president of 1199 S.E.I.U. United Healthcare Workers East, which is based in New York and with 300,000 members is the service employees' largest local. It is annoying that some people treat the Tea Party as the only voice out there trying to speak out about the economic downturn. Mr. Gresham and the N.A.A.C.P. have proposed scheduling the rally and march on Saturday, Oct. 10, and he is calling the event 10-10-10. Mr. Gresham and Benjamin T. Jealous, the N.A.A.C.P.'s president, are planning a meeting in June designed to attract additional groups and to finalize a name and themes for the event. Mr. Gresham has approached the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and other labor and liberal groups about sponsoring the rally. Mr. Gresham, who came up with the idea for the rally, said he saw it as a way to counter conservative pressures against Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats. I always thought we just can't put President Obama into office, but we have to be constantly out there to support the change we believe in, he said. I remember what Franklin Delano Roosevelt told the labor movement about reforms: `Go out and make me do it.' Mr. Gresham said, While I was watching the health care reform effort, which so many people supported, one somehow got the impression that people didn't want health care reform. That was wrong. Some Democrats have questioned the timing of the rally, asserting it would distract labor and liberal groups at an important moment during the fall campaign when their energy and resources might be better used knocking on doors and making campaign phone calls instead of converging on Washington. But Mr. Gresham insisted that the rally would strengthen the Democratic campaign efforts. We're building up the kind of momentum that we think we need for a major march, he said. That could help in November. It will get people to follow up by taking assignments and fighting for the change they believe in. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
