Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama says US may reach out to Taliban
you can't disrespect females like you are. You dig ? You are dumber than apes when it come to the girls. So why not drop the extraordinary anti-women total bullshit and peace out ? (means) = The problem with Afghanistan is the Women Factor and the treatment of women by one of the political factions in the country. ^ there is a profound issue of principle here concerning the status of women,and the principle is not Western decadence. Comment How does the Obama administration seeking a new alliance - to reform its relationship with the Taliban, change the status of women in Afghanistan? When their status is the direct expression of the rule of the Taliban? The name of this thread is Obama says US may reach out to Taliban - a political faction. The issue of this thread is the Taliban rather than the status of women in Afghanistan. If you were Obama, which you are not, you still could not do much about the status of women in Afghanistan because their status is governed by the Taliban and the Taliban as a political faction - institution, is the result of American policy shifts and supported by our bourgeoisie. Here is the problem: the crux missile liberals scream bloody murder about the treatment of women in Afghanistan and Iraq as the ideological reason for invasion of these countries by our government. Surely all communists understand this. Inasmuch as you have not written anything even remotely suggesting closing US basis in Afghanistan and withdrawing US military forces, I am assuming you support current American policy as Obama, in Afghanistan. Do you? On the contrary the issue of the status of women in Afghanistan - right now today, is in fact a question of Western decadence and the direct result of first the British Indian Empire in contest and conflict with the old Russian Empire and currently American imperial policy. How can this not be obvious? Are you not aware that the people who financially and militarily helped the Taliban into power live in our country and have government positions and was carrying out American imperialist policy? Perhaps, there is a misunderstanding of what drives American foreign policy, wherein one moment policy supports the Taliban, then overthrow the Taliban government, through invasion and now seeks realignment with the Taliban. Perhaps there is a need to more thoughtfully think out this penning away over the status of women in Afghanistan as the sharpest ideological hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie. What seems to be wrong is mistaking the Taliban for Afghanistan. CB: Iraq and Afghanistan are not identical in that the 9/11 attackers were based in the latter. Although Bush distorted and exaggerated the response in the response to Afghanistan, that aspect is not a nothing. Obama has expressed a sense that is a basis for paring down Bush's overreaction to that legitimate aspect. Reply It is agreed that Iraq and Afghanistan are not identical. The comment above are disturbing. Me think the destruction of Iraq was distorted and exaggerated and invading Afghanistan was nothing less than imperialist intrusion. It would seem you do in fact support the invasion of Afghanistan, but favor a paring down under the Obama administration, as the voice of American communists. And the voice of this Marxist list serv, rather than the voice calling for withdrawal of all American troops and the closing of American military bases - a goal of an important segment of the anti-war movement in our country. Me think that a paring down of US military troops anywhere on earth, is best driven by the voice in our domestic politics as the unconditional demand for the removal of our troops from specific countries. Perhaps I have again misunderstood your meaning . . . again. Obama has expressed a sense that is a basis for paring down Bush's overreaction to that legitimate aspect. Is that legitimate aspect the invasion of Afghanistan? Trying to view the world through Obama eyes, rather than communist morality and vision is fraught with danger and in the end drives one into the camp of the imperialist bourgeoisie. Tragic. WL. **Need a job? Find employment help in your area. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agenciesncid=emlcntusyelp0005) ___ 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] Demands advanced by communists are demands of the proletariat.
WL: How and why is it premature to fight for what people are already fighting for? People are being evicted and walking away from high mortgages and homelessness is growing. Fighting for shelter is not premature. Advocacy for expansion of section 8 and food stamps for the entire working class is not premature. Advocacy for health care for all Americans are not premature. CB: And unemployment benefits .how ridiculous not to praise a raise in unemployment benefits. I didn't say it's premature to fight for those things. I said a _communist_ polarity is premature. Communists' goal is abolition of private property, not what you want redefine it as. Expanded welfare is not communism. It's not even socialism. Comment In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement. _http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm_ (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm) The communist goal is first and above all victory to the workers in their current struggle. That is the communist goal - Job 1, at all times. To make the immediate and long term goal of communists the abolition of private property outside the field of victory to the workers in their current struggle is just silly thinking. Communists do not have separate demands from various segment of the working class. IN fact it is these real world demands that creates the line of march. Here is how Marx and Engels defined the task and role of communists. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole. The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. (End quote) Here is where Marx deploy the communist concept of the line of march. What is wrong with formulating the goal of communists as abolition of private property, is a failure to advance on the basis of the here and now. If comrades are involved in the struggle for unemployment, and they are, that is the goal. For instance, when communist are involved in a strike, the goal is not abolition of private property but to resolve the strike in favor of the workers on strike. When the communist fought for Civil Rights and industrial unions the goal was not to abolish private property but the realization of Civil Rights and industrial unions. Why would this not be the case today? The idea that establishing a communist polarity means fighting for the abolition of private property makes no sense and is hopelessly sectarian. As if communist have interest outside the proletariat. The real issue is my refusal to praise winning a concession. I see no need for genuflecting. There are far to many other concessions to be fought for and won, than to pause and praise the Obama administration for unemployment benefit extensions. Now that not taxing a portion of unemployment has been put into effect, we might consider abolition of all taxes on unemployment, a policy change that begin under the Carter administration. We communists opposed taxing unemployment checks back when the Carter administration implemented this new taxation. We still oppose such. We have not changed our attitude in favor of somehow fighting - detached from the mass of proletarians, a fight to abolish private property. I find such thinking absolutely bizarre and outside the historical experience of American communism. Taxing unemployment was absurd then and is absurd today. Now is the time to push to reform the social safety net - welfare, to expand to cover ever larger segments of the proletariat. Here is the meaning of a communist polarity. A communist polarity is not a concept of ideology but fighting for needs from the standpoint of the proletariat. Expanding welfare is a communist demand and issue, but it is not an issue that only communists support. We are simply the most resolute championing on this issue. When did fighting for socially necessary means of life somehow become a non-communist demand and issue? When Clinton reformed welfare as we know it the communists were in the forefront and the most resolute
[Marxism-Thaxis] Obama’s Interview Aboard Air F orce One 3/8/09
New York Times March 8, 2009 Transcript Obama’s Interview Aboard Air Force One President Obama spoke in a 35-minute interview aboard Air Force One on Friday afternoon as he traveled from Columbus, Ohio to Andrews Air Force Base. This is an edited transcript, as recorded by The New York Times. Q. You said it’s going to take a long time to get out of this economic crisis. Can you assure the American people that the economy will be growing by the summer, the fall or the end of the year? A. I don’t think that anybody has that kind of crystal ball. We are going through a wrenching process of de-leveraging in the financial sectors – not just here in the United States, but all around the world – that have profound consequences for Main Street. What started off as problems with the banks, led to a contraction of lending, which led in turn to both declining demand on the part of consumers, but also declining demand on the part of business. So it is going to take some time to work itself through. Our job is to do a couple of key things. Number one, to put in place key investments that will cushion the blow. Our recovery plan had provisions for unemployment insurance, for food stamps, what we just saw today, grants and assistance to states so layoffs aren’t compounded. The second thing we’ve got to do is we’re going to have to strengthen the financial system. We’ve taken some significant steps already to do that – just for example this week, opening up a trillion-dollar credit line. But there’s going to be more work to be done there because there are some banks that are still limping along and we’ve got to strengthen their capital bases and get them lending again. We’ve got to be able to distinguish in the marketplace between those banks that have real problems and those banks that are actually on pretty solid footing. We’ve still got the auto situation that we’re going to have to address. And finally, we’ve got to make the investments for long-term economic growth around energy, education and health care. I’m not trying to filibuster, it was a big question. Our belief and expectation is that we will get all the pillars in place for recovery this year. Those are the things we have control over and we have confidence that working with Congress we can get the pillars of recovery in place. How long it will take before recovery actually translates into stronger job markets and so forth is going to depend on a whole range of factors, including our ability to get other countries to coordinate and take similar actions because part of what you’re seeing now is weaknesses in Europe that are actually greater than some of the weaknesses here, bouncing back and having an impact on our markets. Q. Can you envision allowing a major institution to fail? Can you say with certainty that you won’t need to ask Congress for any more money beyond the $250 billion placeholder in your budget. A. I am absolutely committed to making sure that our financial system is stable. And so I think people can be assured that we’ll do whatever is required to keep that from happening. For example, that would mean preventing institutions that could cause systemic risks to the system being just left on their own. We’re going to make sure that the financial system is stabilized and in terms of the resources that are involved. We think the $250 billion placeholder is a pretty good estimate. We have no reason to revise that estimate that’s in the budget. One of the benefits I think of this budget was we tried to surface as honestly and as forthrightly as possible, all the costs of this crisis, all the costs of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, all the potential costs of things like fixing the AMT, which historically have been left off the budget. Something that I don’t think people recognize is that had we used the same gimmicks that had been used previously, we could have driven down our budget projections over the next 10 years, down to point where debt was only 1.3 or 1.5 percent of G.D.P. We could have made ourselves look really good, but I felt very strongly that part of what got us in trouble in the first place, both in the private sector and the public sector, was a failure to do honest accounting about what risks are out there, about what costs are out there and factoring those in, and that’s something that we’ve tried to change. Q. Have you figured out how you would draw the lines against endless rescues? A. Part of the function of the stress test that is being conducted by Treasury right now is to make a determination using some worst-case scenario – what that would mean for a bank’s balance sheet. And I think that what you should see emerging there is an awful lot of banks that are in decent shape considering the circumstances. They’ve been managed well. They didn’t take undue risks.
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Which side are you on ?
^ CB: Well, yeah, that more later WL: The issue is not me or who I am, rather the issue is how are comrades to frame the current struggle of the working class. ^^ CB: Well, yeuuuh. Is you is or is you ain't ain't the issue. I figured that out 30 years ago. And some comrades around here are not framing the current struggles of the working class correctly. when they fail to see that Obama is the leader of the working class right now. Stuff like O is the CEO of the capitalists is bad framing. Hisotric, maybe world historic erroneous framing. Comment The issue is not what you figured out 30 years ago. The issue of framing Obama as CEO of the capitalist class versus a refusal to articulate class and class, is the issue of the purpose of this list serv and why it calls itself Marxist-Theory-Practice. Marxism-Thaxis The problem in my estimate is seeking whose is wrong rather than what is wrong. * Which side are you on is not a conception of Democrats or Republicans but workers and capitalist. WL. ^^^ CB: Wrong. Right now the Democrats of Obama is the side to be on. Which side are you on ? * Reply It is wrong not to be on the side of the Democratic party, is asmuch as President Obama is the head Democrat. The side of the proletariat as it spontaneous strives to realize and express itself as a class, is the side I am on and have been on for a while. Simply because I advocate for say welfare and a part of the political establishment expand welfare does not mean I am on their side. What has happened is called the intersection of class interest. Even my voting for Obama does not mean I am on the Democrat of Obama side. Momentary identity of intersecting class interest always occur in any field of politics. Anyone elected to any office understands this plain most common aspect of politics. 8 years from now and then 12 years from now, the evidence is that I stand a good chance of being found on the side I have been on for the past 40 years. The side to be on is always the issues dear to the working class and on this basis various segments of the political establishment line up. I am not on the side of the Democrats of Obama. You are free to become a democrat. Actually, brother you write as a social democrat and not a communist or Marxist. Your criticisms is basically against my use of the word class and capitalist. WL. (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) **Need a job? Find employment help in your area. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agenciesncid=emlcntusyelp0005) ___ 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] Obama opens up stem cell work, science inquiries
Obama opens up stem cell work, science inquiries By SETH BORENSTEIN and BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writers Seth Borenstein And Ben Feller, AP – President Barack Obama signs an Executive Order on stem cells and a Presidential Memorandum on scientific … WASHINGTON – From tiny embryonic cells to the large-scale physics of global warming, President Barack Obama urged researchers on Monday to follow science and not ideology as he abolished contentious Bush-era restraints on stem-cell research. Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values, Obama declared as he signed documents changing U.S. science policy and removing what some researchers have said were shackles on their work. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology, Obama said. Researchers said the new president's message was clear: Science, which once propelled men to the moon, again matters in American life. Opponents saw it differently: a defeat for morality in the most basic questions of life and death. The action by the president today will, in effect, allow scientists to create their own guidelines without proper moral restraints, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said. In a crowded ornate East Room, there were more scientists in the White House than Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science had seen in his 30 years in Washington. More happy scientists than I've seen, he added. The most immediate effect will allow federally funded researchers to use hundreds of new embryonic stem cell lines for promising, but still long-range research in hopes of creating better treatments, possibly even cures, for conditions ranging from diabetes to paralysis. Until now, those researchers had to limit themselves to just 21 stem cell lines created before August 2001, when President George W. Bush limited funding because of fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. Science, politics and religion have long intertwined and conflicted with each other. In his actions Monday, especially with the stem cell decision, Obama is emphasizing more the science than the religion, when compared with his predecessor, science policy experts say. But they acknowledged politics is still involved. Don't expect stem cell cures or treatments anytime soon. One company this summer will begin the world's first study of a treatment using human embryonic stem cells, in people who recently suffered spinal cord injuries. Research institutions on Monday were gearing up to ask for more freely flowing federal money, and the National Institutes of Health was creating guidelines on how to hand it out and include ethical constraints. It will be months before the stem cell money flows; the average NIH stem cell grant is $1.5 million spread out over four years. Scientists focused on a new sense of freedom. I think patients everywhere will be cheering us on, imploring us to work faster, harder and with all of our ability to find new treatments, said Harvard Stem Cell Institute co-director Doug Melton, father of two children with Type I diabetes who could possibly be treated with stem cells. On a personal level, it is an enormous relief and a time for celebration. ... Science thrives when there is an open and collaborative exchange, not when there are artificial barriers, silos, constructed by the government. Opponents framed their opposition mostly, but not exclusively, on moral grounds and the scientifically contested claims that adult stem cells work just as well. Said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America: President Obama's order places the worst kind of politics above ethics. Politics driven by hype makes overblown promises, fuels the desperation of the suffering and financially benefits those seeking to strip morality from science. In Congress, Reps. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., and Mike Castle, R-Del., said they would seek a quick vote on legislation to codify Obama's order in federal law, after failing twice in the past to overturn Bush's restrictions. DeGette said she doesn't want stem cell research to become a pingpong ball going back and forth between administrations. But Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., chairman of the Republican study committee, said the president's new policy would force taxpayers to subsidize research that will destroy human embryos. De Gette and Castle said their legislation tries to minimize destruction of embryos. Stem cells are typically derived from fertility clinic surplus, destined for destruction. Obama also said the stem cell policy is designed so that it never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. Such cloning, he said, is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society or any society. In addition to
[Marxism-Thaxis] A Backlash Against Obama's Budget ; which side are you on
There's a big class battle brewing. Which side are you on ? http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_11/b4123016507664.htm BusinessWeek BusinessWeek Exchange Search all of BusinessWeek.com: NEWS MarBusinessWeek BusinessWeek Exchange Search all of BusinessWeek.com: NEWS March 5, 2009, 5:00PM EST A Backlash Against Obama's Budget Businesses from startups to global giants to drugmakers and farmers are gearing up to fight the President's spending plan with ad campaigns and public protests ch 5, 2009, 5:00PM EST A Backlash Against Obama's Budget Businesses from startups to global giants to drugmakers and farmers are gearing up to fight the President's spending plan with ad campaigns and public protests ___ 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] Obama gets high marks in the latest NEWSWEEK poll,
It's the People vs the Business class. Which side are you on ? CB ^^^ Newsweek Honeymoon In Hell Amid all the gloom, Obama gets high marks in the latest NEWSWEEK poll, with the GOP in the doghouse. Michael Hirsh Newsweek Web Exclusive Despite the tumbling economy, Barack Obama continues to enjoy a honeymoon with the American public in the face of the most trying crisis any newly inaugurated president has encountered since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The GOP, meanwhile, is viewed by a majority of Americans as the party of no, without a plan of its own to fix the economy, and even rank-and-file Republicans are concerned about the party's direction, according to the first NEWSWEEK Poll taken since Obama assumed office. People give Obama credit for reaching out to Republicans, but they don't see Republicans reciprocating, says pollster Larry Hugick, whose firm conducted the survey. A surprising number said bipartisanship is more important than getting things done. Overall, 58 percent of Americans surveyed approve of the job Obama is doing, while 26 percent disapprove and one in six (16 percent) has no opinion. Although his approval ratings are down from levels seen a few weeks ago in other polls, 72 percent of Americans still say they have a favorable opinion of Obama— a higher rating than he received in NEWSWEEK Polls during the presidential campaign last year. The president's rating in this poll is consistent with estimates provided by other national media polls in the last week. On the most important issue of the day, the NEWSWEEK Poll shows that close to two thirds (65 percent) of the public say they are very or somewhat confident that Obama will be successful in turning the economy around. That's down just a little from the 71 percent who felt that way before he took office. Still, overall perceptions of the economy remain solidly negative, with 84 percent saying the national economy is in poor shape and just 3 percent viewing things positively. The public is also dubious about some of the president's programs. Majorities of Americans think too much has been spent so far to help rescue large banks in danger of failing and domestic auto companies facing bankruptcy. A somewhat surprising majority (56 percent) supports nationalizing large banks at risk of failing—a policy the Obama administration has shied away from. And fewer than half of those polled (49 percent) say they support Obama's proposal to allow the expiration of tax cuts for those with incomes above $250,000 at the end of next year. (Forty-two percent say they oppose ending these cuts.) Even so, faith in Obama personally has apparently carried over into optimism about the future. More than a third (37 percent) of the public expect economic conditions to improve in the next 12 months, compared with 29 percent who think things will be worse. Another big plus for the president's policies is that a huge majority of Americans (73 percent) favor his plan to remove most U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of next year. The biggest problem for the GOP, according to the poll, may be that 58 percent of Americans believe that Republicans who have opposed Obama's economic-rescue plans have no plan of their own for turning the economy around. With the Republicans having lost the White House and both houses of Congress, public identification with the party has dropped to a recent low point of 26 percent, after running at or near 30 percent for most of the last 15 years. That's the lowest level since the Watergate era and a striking loss of stature for the party, considering that self-described conservatives continue to outnumber liberals in the country by nearly two to one (39 percent vs. 20 percent). Many Republicans express concern about where their party is headed and whether GOP leaders in Congress are in touch with their constituents. Asked about the direction of their party, 45 percent of rank-and-file Republicans say it is moving in the right direction, while more than a third (35 percent) think it is going in the wrong direction. This is in sharp contrast to what a NEWSWEEK Poll found in 1999 after the Clinton impeachment hearings. At that time, 65 percent of Republicans said their party was headed in the right direction. Some of these results spring from discontent over Republican leadership; other survey respondents indicate the party is ideologically lost. More than half of Republicans today (52 percent) say they don't think GOP congressional leaders are in touch with what the average Republican thinks. While four in 10 Republicans (39 percent) think the GOP is about right in terms of ideology, another 38 percent believe it is not conservative enough, and only 20 percent think it is too conservative. Apart from Obama himself, however, the Democratic Party can hardly crow about these results.
