[Marxism] Barry Sheppard: Some comments on the debate around Ukraine | Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal

[glparramatta via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


By *Barry Sheppard*

July 28, 2014 -- /Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ -- 
It is clear that people who consider themselves to be some form of 
revolutionary socialist do not agree on the facts about Ukraine. We do 
not even have agreement on whether or not Russia is imperialist, or even 
what the word means.


I would urge caution and patience in assessing the current situation.

But here is my take in a nutshell of what I think are the facts, culled 
from various sources.


Full article at http://links.org.au/node/3973

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Cory Robin - a Gaza Breviary

[Dennis Brasky via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


*http://coreyrobin.com/2014/07/27/a-gaza-breviary/
*

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Dammit, It Is NOT Unravelling: An Historian’s Rebuke to Misrepresentations of Sykes-Picot

[Anas via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Dammit, It Is NOT Unravelling: An Historian’s Rebuke to Misrepresentations of 
Sykes-Picot

Posted by Reidar Visser on Monday, 30 December 2013 2:25



I have long maintained that Western commentary on the Middle East is driven as 
much by trends in journalese as by realities on the ground and historical 
facts. For example, for much of the past decade we have been told that the 
country of Iraq is about to “implode”, given that it was “cobbled together” 
after the First World War from three “disparate” provinces whose centrifugal 
forces have continued to “fuel” and “stoke” conflict between “embattled” Iraqi 
“factions” in the period after 2003, making it quite impossible for them to 
justly “divvy up” the country’s revenue derived from the “oil-rich Shiite 
south” and the “Kurdish north”. All of this ismisleading, and if these clichés 
hadn’t been employed by Western journos and pundits in the first place it would 
perhaps have been easier to understand the survival of Iraq as a nation despite 
pressures from the outside that can hardly be described as other than extreme.

With the recent shift of attention to Syria, a new artificial focus of 
discussion has emerged among Western pundits, namely, whether the Sykes-Picot 
agreement between the British and the French during the First World War is in 
the process of “unravelling”. Most commentators seem to think it is, with a 
particular emphasis on the supposed role of Sykes-Picot in determining the 
modern boundary between Iraq and Syria. As a consequence of this perspective, 
the ragtag of bandits and terrorists that is also known as the Islamic State of 
Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) end up being portrayed, explicitly or implicitly, as 
the implementers of some kind of deep-rooted popular urge for pan-Arab and 
pan-Islamic unity that supposedly pulls the Syrian and Iraqi peoples towards 
each other.

Here is why the current focus on Sykes Picot is misguided.

1. The Sykes-Picot Agreement Is Not What Many People Think It Is. When it was 
concluded in 1916, the main idea behind the agreement was to secure annexation 
of certain coastal areas that were deemed to be of particular interest to the 
allies, especially Basra for the British and the coastland between Lebanon and 
Cilicia for the French (the Russians were accorded control of the Straits for 
similar reasons). The truly important aspect of the Sykes-Picot map were 
therefore the areas of exclusive control along the coasts – British in 
Acre/Haifa and Basra (naval interest playing a key role); French in Lebanon and 
north to Alexandretta in Turkey (the location of Christian minorities was 
accorded much importance). By way of contrast, the details of demarcation in 
the interior – where a more informal form of British and French influence was 
envisaged – was accorded less importance at the time. Furthermore, scholars 
such as Eliezer Tauber and Nelida Fuccaro have convincingly demonstrated that 
local politics, not the rough lines of Sykes Picot, governed the final details 
regarding the disposal of border areas between Syria and Iraq like Abu Kamal 
and Jabal Sinjar during the 1920s. Conversely, local resistance against Sykes 
Picot at the time was mainly framed as a protest against the way in which the 
agreement  divided what was perceived as  “historical Syria” by isolating the 
coastal fringe including Lebanon and the Alawite lands from Damascus. The 
desire for union between Iraq and Syria, by way of contrast, was not such a 
central theme. By December 1918, the Covenant society loyal to the Hashemite 
princes, probably the most pan-Arab force of the day, had itself fragmented 
into Syrian and Iraqi branches, quite without the help of foreign officers. To 
the extent that cross-border irredentism continued to survive in the 1920s and 
the 1930s, it mostly had the character of local regionalisms rather than 
popular movements for Syrian-Iraqi unity. In particular, the territory along 
the Euphrates from Ana in Iraq north to Raqqa in Syria remained the subject of 
some turbulence, with Raqqa often enumerated among Iraqi nationalists as a 
maximum objective of western expansion. Similarly, Hanna Batatu identified a 
degree of interwar regionalism linking Mosul in Iraq and Aleppo in Syria as a 
result of the way new borders cut across that old trade region. At no point, 
though, did any viable separatist or irredentist party emerge.

2. The Central Features of the Post-1918 Map of the Middle East Had Local 
Antecedents.Sometimes Sykes-Picot is being construed as a complete armchair 
project by willful European strategists. What is often not realized is the 
extent to which the agreement merely put on the map patterns of special 
administrative arrangements that had been in the making under 

Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza

[Clay Claiborne via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 07/26/2014 05:36 PM, Michael Karadjis wrote:
>
> The problem with this discussion when it comes to Sirte is that, even
> if you convinced yourself that not many civilians were killed there
I didn't say and I don't think that few civilians were killed in the
battle of Sirte. Many were, but not by NATO. The battle of Sirte was
brutal and it was under siege for a long time and heavily damaged by
opposition artillery. Later the pro-Qaddafi forces circulated these
pictures of artillery damage in Sirte but labeled it NATO bomb damage
and began the myth of massive civilian casualties caused by NATO in
Sirte. During the Battle of Sirte, 15 Sept - 20 Oct, NATO carried out 45
strikes on buildings in Sirte, all designated as military
ammunition/storage facilities, command and control nodes, military
vehicle storage facilities, military barracks facility, etc and 117
strikes on vehicles, tanks, missile launchers and radar facilities.

>   bombing the hell out of this city.
That is certainly a Qaddafi friendly way to describe the above air activity.
>
> then surely such "support" or toleration should only be for the most
> minimum time necessary. 
Would that be for as long as Qaddafi persisted in killing civilians or
only until he brought his targeting of civilians below a certain
threshold? Did NATO's responsibility encompass the siege of Misrata too
or only Benghazi? At what point was NATO relieved of its responsibility
to protect civilians? At what point did Qaddafi stop attacking civilians?
> In fact even Gilbert Achcar, who was essentially misquoted as
> "supporting" (rather than not opposing) the initial intervention to
> protect Benghazi, said within a couple of weeks of that event, that
> once that was done, if NATO settles in for a more prolonged
> involvement, we should vigorously demand NATO out.
That answers my question. Misrata was SOL as far as the "socialists"
were concerned.
> Whatever Gaddafi was, 
meaning even if he was a fascist, racist, mad dog killer.
> I don' think socialists should have supported a 6-month NATO
> intervention fighting on the side of the NTC to help bring it to power
> in Libya.
>
"socialists" shouldn't support his overthrow once NATO offered to help.
>  Gaddafi fell in August, yet the bloody sieges of Sirte and Bani Walid
> continued for another two full months. 
Micheal may have known he fell in August but that fact wasn't clear to
either the Qaddafi forces or the rest of the world until Sirte and Bani
Walid fell.

>  surely the roles by now were completely reversed: 
In both Sirte and Bani Walid, the Qaddafi regime refused to let
civilians leave the areas under siege. Truly they were using them as
human shields. That is why those sieges were so drawn out. The NTC was
trying to win them with a minimum further lost of life. The true
banality of the Qaddafi regime showed nowhere as in these last two
battles because after the fall of Tripoli it had to be clear to all
involved just how things were doing to turn out. Still the Qaddafi
forces barricaded themselves in these two strongholds, refused to let
the people leave [ and most did want to flee the scene of a battle ] ,
used summary executions to keep them there and forced a series of very
bloody, if hopeless battles at the end. This was not a reversal of
roles, this was a continuation of Qaddafi's same policies even when they
had become irrational. Under these circumstances I don't think NATO's
responsibility to protect would have been served by washing their hands
of these final battles, as Michael wishes, so much as using their air
power and smart weaponry to much more quickly reduce Qaddafi's military
power with considerably less danger to civilians than the NTC's artillery. 


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Libya

[Clay Claiborne via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 07/26/2014 05:47 PM, Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote:
> In our email exchanges, Horace emphasized that he was no fan of
> Gaddafi, an impression that might have been gleaned from his
> condemnation of NATO. This is what he wrote in 2010:
>
> Muammar al-Gaddafi has established himself as an enemy of the
> unification of the peoples of Africa for over 40 years. Last week,
> Gaddafi exceeded his conservative instincts when he stated before a
> group of young students that Nigeria should be split in two. Instead
> of motivating the students to work for the transformation and
> unification of the peoples of Nigeria as one prerequisite for the
> unification of Africa, Gaddafi called for the country to be divided on
> religious grounds.
It should also be added that Qaddafi put Libya's considerable money
where his mouth was and Nigeria and many other places in Africa are
feeling the effects today. I surveyed

Qaddafi's racist history of dealings in Africa, a history many on the
"Left" were willing to overlook, but when it came to the revolutionary
forces, they were quick to use charges of racism to attack the
revolution. For example, here's some Lenin Tomb quotes I couldn't use
earlier:
>
> the unfounded rumours that "African" mercenaries acted as Qadhafi's
> fifth column.
>
Do tell the people of Mali, Chad and Niger that Qaddafi had no African
mercenaries, and they are just wrong to think those mercenaries returned
home with Qaddafi's weapons after he was defeated. Of course it was said
that the revolutionaries were making this "false" claim for racist reasons.
>
> A painted slogan of the rebels in Misrata read, "the brigade for
> purging slaves, black skin".
>
And this was the universal "anti-imperialist" proof of the racism of the
revolution. But if Qaddafi agents painted it and photographed it what
does it prove?
>
> If racism was never the dominant motive in the rebellion, it was
> nonetheless a motive of those dominant in the rebellion. The prisons
> of Benghazi and elsewhere would not have filled with black and
> immigrant workers without the approval of the rebel leadership. The
> coming days will tell whether this barbarism is to last.
>
Black and immigrant workers weren't the only ones in rebel prisons. nor
was it mentioned that blacks participated in the revolution at every
stage and every level. This was just an attempt to hang the "racist"
label on the Libyan revolution by those that opposed it. They used
racism to oppose the revolution and they never addressed the question of
how to oppose racism within the revolution, as I did
. This
is the central task of Marxists on the question of racism and
revolution, and it is a task in all revolutions in countries were racism
has played a historic role.

Clay

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza

[Clay Claiborne via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


LT,

I really had nothing to add to the original subject of how many civilians
NATO killed in Libya. The most anybody has counted is 72, we both agree
there may be more, you cling to the notion that there are a lot more but
feel no responsibility to say who they were and where they died.

I think you take this stand because you still need to believe in a set of
"facts" that support the conclusions you made about NATO's war over Libya
even before it began. My longer response was designed to explore the range
of wrong opinions about Libya that you are still trying to defend when you
should be trying to help the Libyan people succeed.

I hope that chapter you are re-writing is about Libya.

Clay


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

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Libya

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 7/26/14 8:35 PM, michael yates via Marxism wrote:

As I was reading it, I thought to myself that Louis Proyect would not agree 
with any of it.


In our email exchanges, Horace emphasized that he was no fan of Gaddafi, 
an impression that might have been gleaned from his condemnation of 
NATO. This is what he wrote in 2010:


Muammar al-Gaddafi has established himself as an enemy of the 
unification of the peoples of Africa for over 40 years. Last week, 
Gaddafi exceeded his conservative instincts when he stated before a 
group of young students that Nigeria should be split in two. Instead of 
motivating the students to work for the transformation and unification 
of the peoples of Nigeria as one prerequisite for the unification of 
Africa, Gaddafi called for the country to be divided on religious 
grounds. He exposed his ignorance of African religious and spiritual 
traditions because there was no room for followers of African religious 
beliefs in his call for the division of this society. This call for the 
division of Nigeria is one more effort to break up Nigerian society so 
that this society is weakened and its people subjected to more 
exploitation and manipulation. For 40 years Gaddafi had supported the 
butchers and dictators in Africa. Starting with his military support for 
Idi Amin of Uganda and other murderers such as Foday Sankoh and Charles 
Taylor, this militarist in Libya was an obstacle to African liberation. 
For a short while after Nelson Mandela rescued him from obscurity, 
Gaddafi had sought to use his wealth to buy the leadership of the 
African Union (AU). He was made to understand that the unity of Africa 
was more profound than the meeting of leaders of states. The statements 
of Gadafi on Nigeria must be condemned in the strongest terms and it is 
time to strip away the fallacy that Gaddafi stood in the ranks of 
African revolutionary leadership.


full: http://pambazuka.org/en/category/panafrican/63299


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza

[Andrew Pollack via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


I just read Michael K.'s contribution and am really glad I did.
On the other hand I skipped about 20 messages in this thread once it
degenerated into a flame war.


On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Michael Karadjis via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ==
>
>
> -Original Message- From: Clay Claiborne via Marxism
>
>
>  and while, as their narrative makes clear, every
>>
> death is an individual tragedy, I still have seen no facts that back up
> a claim that NATO caused massive civilian deaths in Sirte.
>
> The problem with this discussion when it comes to Sirte is that, even if
> you convinced yourself that not many civilians were killed there (an
> unlikely proposition) and that these deaths were "accidental", surely the
> issue is whether NATO had any right whatsoever (I don't mean "legal" right
> but ethical or any way you look at it) to be bombing the hell out of this
> city.
>
> Obviously, most in this discussion, other than Clay, have said that it's
> not a great idea to call on NATO to intervene even in exceptional
> circumstances.
>
> But even if we were to concede, for argument's sake, that there was a case
> to support NATO defending Benghazi from an immanent massacre by Gaddafi
> (I'd prefer to say, "difficult in practice to oppose, and that was
> Gaddafi's fault, and who can blame the Libyans in Benghazi for calling for
> it") then surely such "support" or toleration should only be for the most
> minimum time necessary. In fact even Gilbert Achcar, who was essentially
> misquoted as "supporting" (rather than not opposing) the initial
> intervention to protect Benghazi, said within a couple of weeks of that
> event, that once that was done, if NATO settles in for a more prolonged
> involvement, we should vigorously demand NATO out. Whatever Gaddafi was, I
> don' think socialists should have supported a 6-month NATO intervention
> fighting on the side of the NTC to help bring it to power in Libya.
>
> But again for argument's sake, even if one really did think that was a
> good idea, how can one possibly justify a continued NATO intervention
> *after Gaddafi had been ousted from power*? Gaddafi fell in August, yet the
> bloody sieges of Sirte and Bani Walid continued for another two full
> months. As NATO bombed these cities from the sky (allegedly trying to avoid
> "accidents"), the ex-rebels besieged them on the ground. Thus whatever
> one's view on the previous engagement, surely the roles by now were
> completely reversed: NATO was by then launching an air war against two
> population centres on behalf of a new regime; the populations of these two
> cities were now the "rebels" because they didn't support the new regime;
> however, they were not launching a rebellion to take power, merely to keep
> the new NTC/Misrata militia goons out.
>
> Why was it necessary for NATO and the NTC to bomb these cities into
> submission for two months? Obviously not to "protect civilians" a la
> Benghazi 8 months earlier. I suggest to consolidate the process of turning
> what had begun as a liberation movement into its opposite, turning former
> rebel militias into repressive bodies of the new state. In the process,
> demolishing Sirte, making it look like the cities and towns all over Syria
> that have been demolished by Assad, as abundant photographic evidence will
> show. An epic war crime.
> 
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/
> options/marxism/acpollack2%40gmail.com
>

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza

[Michael Karadjis via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


-Original Message- 
From: Clay Claiborne via Marxism



and while, as their narrative makes clear, every

death is an individual tragedy, I still have seen no facts that back up
a claim that NATO caused massive civilian deaths in Sirte.

The problem with this discussion when it comes to Sirte is that, even if 
you convinced yourself that not many civilians were killed there (an 
unlikely proposition) and that these deaths were "accidental", surely 
the issue is whether NATO had any right whatsoever (I don't mean "legal" 
right but ethical or any way you look at it) to be bombing the hell out 
of this city.


Obviously, most in this discussion, other than Clay, have said that it's 
not a great idea to call on NATO to intervene even in exceptional 
circumstances.


But even if we were to concede, for argument's sake, that there was a 
case to support NATO defending Benghazi from an immanent massacre by 
Gaddafi (I'd prefer to say, "difficult in practice to oppose, and that 
was Gaddafi's fault, and who can blame the Libyans in Benghazi for 
calling for it") then surely such "support" or toleration should only be 
for the most minimum time necessary. In fact even Gilbert Achcar, who 
was essentially misquoted as "supporting" (rather than not opposing) the 
initial intervention to protect Benghazi, said within a couple of weeks 
of that event, that once that was done, if NATO settles in for a more 
prolonged involvement, we should vigorously demand NATO out. Whatever 
Gaddafi was, I don' think socialists should have supported a 6-month 
NATO intervention fighting on the side of the NTC to help bring it to 
power in Libya.


But again for argument's sake, even if one really did think that was a 
good idea, how can one possibly justify a continued NATO intervention 
*after Gaddafi had been ousted from power*? Gaddafi fell in August, yet 
the bloody sieges of Sirte and Bani Walid continued for another two full 
months. As NATO bombed these cities from the sky (allegedly trying to 
avoid "accidents"), the ex-rebels besieged them on the ground. Thus 
whatever one's view on the previous engagement, surely the roles by now 
were completely reversed: NATO was by then launching an air war against 
two population centres on behalf of a new regime; the populations of 
these two cities were now the "rebels" because they didn't support the 
new regime; however, they were not launching a rebellion to take power, 
merely to keep the new NTC/Misrata militia goons out.


Why was it necessary for NATO and the NTC to bomb these cities into 
submission for two months? Obviously not to "protect civilians" a la 
Benghazi 8 months earlier. I suggest to consolidate the process of 
turning what had begun as a liberation movement into its opposite, 
turning former rebel militias into repressive bodies of the new state. 
In the process, demolishing Sirte, making it look like the cities and 
towns all over Syria that have been demolished by Assad, as abundant 
photographic evidence will show. An epic war crime. 



Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Libya

[michael yates via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Louis Proyect writes:

"I should mention that I have been going through the mainstream press from the 
month following the death of Qaddafi until the present moment. I was up to Feb. 
8, 2012 but had to put it on the back burner. I plan to return to my research 
this week to deal with the question of "what happened" in Libya against the 
backdrop of the problems of revolution in general, either political or social. 
I may or may not get to evaluating Horace Campbell and Maxmillian Forte's books 
on Libya as part of this analysis. I had some contact with Horace a while back 
and can state that he is a lot closer to me than Forte, who I regard as a big 
fat liar."

Funny, I edited Horace's book at the end of 2012. So much work it completely 
ruined my holidays. As I was reading it, I thought to myself that Louis Proyect 
would not agree with any of it. So it will be interesting to see what he says 
about it.  

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Libya

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 7/26/14 7:40 PM, Lenin's Tomb via Marxism wrote:


Third, I have a chapter to rewrite.  This is displacement activity.
If anyone finds Clay's case “compelling”, I’ll just have to live with
it.


I should mention that I have been going through the mainstream press 
from the month following the death of Qaddafi until the present moment. 
I was up to Feb. 8, 2012 but had to put it on the back burner. I plan to 
return to my research this week to deal with the question of "what 
happened" in Libya against the backdrop of the problems of revolution in 
general, either political or social. I may or may not get to evaluating 
Horace Campbell and Maxmillian Forte's books on Libya as part of this 
analysis. I had some contact with Horace a while back and can state that 
he is a lot closer to me than Forte, who I regard as a big fat liar.


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza

[Lenin's Tomb via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 26 Jul 2014, at 23:58, Charles Faulkner via Marxism 
 wrote:
> 
> thanks clay. 
> 
> as has been usual in the short time i have been on this listserv you are very 
> thorough and present a compelling case in this instance. i look forward to 
> the reply, which i hope is as substantive. 
> 

No, I’m afraid not.  There are three reasons for this.  First, Clay’s argument 
amounts to a huge and abrupt change of subject.  If he isn’t going to deal with 
my substantive points, I don’t see why I should deal with his.  Second, 
everything he has to say about my blog posts is either pointmissing or circular 
- but it’s pointmissing or circular in order to deflect attention from the 
original subject.  Third, I have a chapter to rewrite.  This is displacement 
activity.  If anyone finds Clay's case “compelling”, I’ll just have to live 
with it.


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza

[Charles Faulkner via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


thanks clay. 

as has been usual in the short time i have been on this listserv you are very 
thorough and present a compelling case in this instance. i look forward to the 
reply, which i hope is as substantive. 

as the contributors here are the usual suspects i think it is important for you 
to know that there are people like me who have more questions than analysis. i 
lurk more than write and try to weigh what i read against what i hear and 
against, of course, my experience and understanding. my silence here doesn't 
mean i do not pass on what i find useful to those outside this list. the 
dialogue is extremely beneficial and i can attest that the true word does get 
out. it helps clarify in this era of wild and uninhibited propaganda when i 
find it has never been more difficult for the average person to understand the 
world. 

so thank you (and louis and andrew) who have helped me more to understand 
contemporary events than anyone since andrew cockburn. 

p.s. as an aside i found your blog on benghazi to be the best single source of 
information on the events leading up to that unfortunate event. i shared it 
broadly. 

- Original Message -

From: "Serve, Marxism"  
To: "Faulkner, Charles"  
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 2:38:28 PM 
Subject: Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza 

== 
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. 
== 


On 07/26/2014 04:20 AM, Lenin's Tomb wrote: 
> So, to be clear: 
> 
> I point out that the “studies” you are citing /neither attempt nor 
> claim/ to be comprehensive estimates of civilian deaths arising from 
> NATO’s bombing campaign. 
> 
> And your response is to demand of me that I supplement their data by 
> providing documented instances of civilian casualties not counted by 
> them. 
> 
> I’m afraid you’re simply not thinking. 

Lenin's Tomb examples the Left's main error on Libya, which is its 
failure to learn from its mistakes. Lenin's Tomb has now demonstratively 
been wrong on Libya but rather than examining its past analysis for 
errors, it ignores them and doubles down on its generally negative 
assessment of the Libyan Revolution. Let's examine the record: 

In March 2011 
 this 
was its best-case scenario for the Libyan revolution, which it thought 
unlikely: 

The best-case scenario is that people are killed to little avail, 
and the former regime elements in the transitional leadership have 
just diverted energies and initiative down a blind alley. I suppose 
you might object that the best-case scenario is that the air strikes 
exclusively kill the bad guys, turning the initiative in favour of 
the revolutionaries, allowing them to sieze power, build a liberal 
democratic state, and the cavalry heads home. And the band played, 
'Believe it if you like'. 

My assessment of what did happen is that the air strikes killed 90-95% 
"bad guys," did turn the initiative in favor of the revolutionaries 
allowing them to seize power and then the cavalry flew home. Process of 
rebuilding the state virtually from scratch, and not in the way Lenin's 
Tomb envisioned, is on going and continues to be the center of political 
struggle. 

In April 2011 
, 
Lenin's Tomb offered the opinion that after NATO intervention only a 
puppet government could emerge: 

Can I just risk a modest proposition? NATO, the CIA and the special 
forces belonging to the world's imperialist states are not forces of 
progress in this world. Does anyone disagree with that? If not, then 
it follows as surely as night follows day that the successful 
cooptation of the Libyan revolution by NATO, the CIA and special 
forces is a victory for reaction. It's no good hoping that the 
small, poorly armed, poorly trained militias of the east of Libya, 
who are now utterly dependent on external support, will somehow 
shake themselves free of such constraints once - if - they take power. 

LT thought the most likely outcome would be a deal brokered by NATO that 
left the Qaddafi state machinery in place: 

they [NATO] offer a prolonged civil war at best culminating in a 
settlement with Saif and his sibling. 

Given events in Syria, I wouldn't call Libya's civil war "prolonged" and 
Saif's relation to state power is detention awaking trial. LT elaborates: 

Yes, I know. A negotiated settlement would be a step back from 
outright victory for the rebels. But that is an increasingly 
improbable outcome anyway, and I thought we were trying to save 
lives here? And as it happe

Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza

[Clay Claiborne via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 07/26/2014 08:38 AM, Marv Gandall via Marxism wrote:
> the US and EU have arguably done more to provoke the crisis than has Russia. 
Russia side of ledger:

Thousands of "unmarked" Russia troops occupying Crimea.
The annexation of Crimea by Russia
The infiltration of thousands of Russian agents in east Ukraine to build
a "separatist" movement.
Providing armor and advanced anti-aircraft weapons to its military
forces fighting in Ukraine.
Filling its media with lies and fabrications about Ukraine
http://www.stopfake.org/en/russia-s-top-lies-about-ukraine-part-1/
http://www.stopfake.org/en/russia-s-top-lies-about-ukraine-part-2/
Using the Russian air force against Ukraine
Firing artillery into Ukraine.

And on the US & EU side of the ledger we have what exactly?

And why are we even having this conversation? Is it your job, Marv, to
distract us from discussing the real world?

Clay


 


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza

[Marv Gandall via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



On Jul 26, 2014, at 7:59 AM, Joseph Catron via Marxism 
 wrote:

> Oh, FFS. It's more than one thousand times Libya's. Sorry, guys. I promise
> you don’t want to know how little sleep I've been getting lately. :-D

We can guess. Glad to hear you’re all right, especially after the hospital 
shelling. Kudos for your exemplary first-hand reporting to EI and other news 
outlets.



Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Israel is being defeated in Gaza as it was in Lebanon

[Ken Hiebert via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


For what it's worth, this analysis appears in the Globe & Mail, the most 
authoritative English language paper in Canada.
ken h

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/why-hamas-is-winning-the-war/article19791458/

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza

[Clay Claiborne via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 07/26/2014 04:20 AM, Lenin's Tomb wrote:
> So, to be clear: 
>
> I point out that the “studies” you are citing /neither attempt nor
> claim/ to be comprehensive estimates of civilian deaths arising from
> NATO’s bombing campaign.
>
> And your response is to demand of me that I supplement their data by
> providing documented instances of civilian casualties not counted by
> them.  
>
> I’m afraid you’re simply not thinking.

Lenin's Tomb examples the Left's main error on Libya, which is its
failure to learn from its mistakes. Lenin's Tomb has now demonstratively
been wrong on Libya but rather than examining its past analysis for
errors, it ignores them and doubles down on its generally negative
assessment of the Libyan Revolution. Let's examine the record:

In March 2011
 this
was its best-case scenario for the Libyan revolution, which it thought
unlikely:

The best-case scenario is that people are killed to little avail,
and the former regime elements in the transitional leadership have
just diverted energies and initiative down a blind alley. I suppose
you might object that the best-case scenario is that the air strikes
exclusively kill the bad guys, turning the initiative in favour of
the revolutionaries, allowing them to sieze power, build a liberal
democratic state, and the cavalry heads home. And the band played,
'Believe it if you like'.

My assessment of what did happen is that the air strikes killed 90-95%
"bad guys," did turn the initiative in favor of the revolutionaries
allowing them to seize power and then the cavalry flew home. Process of
rebuilding the state virtually from scratch, and not in the way Lenin's
Tomb envisioned, is on going and continues to be the center of political
struggle.

In April 2011
,
Lenin's Tomb offered the opinion that after NATO intervention only a
puppet government could emerge:

Can I just risk a modest proposition? NATO, the CIA and the special
forces belonging to the world's imperialist states are not forces of
progress in this world. Does anyone disagree with that? If not, then
it follows as surely as night follows day that the successful
cooptation of the Libyan revolution by NATO, the CIA and special
forces is a victory for reaction. It's no good hoping that the
small, poorly armed, poorly trained militias of the east of Libya,
who are now utterly dependent on external support, will somehow
shake themselves free of such constraints once - if - they take power.

LT thought the most likely outcome would be a deal brokered by NATO that
left the Qaddafi state machinery in place:

they [NATO] offer a prolonged civil war at best culminating in a
settlement with Saif and his sibling.

Given events in Syria, I wouldn't call Libya's civil war "prolonged" and
Saif's relation to state power is detention awaking trial. LT elaborates:

Yes, I know. A negotiated settlement would be a step back from
outright victory for the rebels. But that is an increasingly
improbable outcome anyway, and I thought we were trying to save
lives here? And as it happens, a diplomatic solution seems to be
exactly what is on the cards now.

LT came to the conclusion early that the Libyan Revolution had been
converted into the US War on Libya:

The opposition leaders are now adjuncts to a NATO strategy which may
not even have been disclosed to them. Let's at least give credit
where it's due. This is NATO's war. And that means, this is
Washington's war.

As things developed, the US never flew more than about 17% of the strike
missions in what LT had called "Washington's war," so LT changed its
position accordingly, in April

predicting a Qaddafi victory unless NATO put in troops:

The US is pulling out of the air war, amid divisions and
recriminations, and is saying that it will not engage in the
training or arming of the rebels. In short, it is retreating from
any explicit military involvement in the Libyan revolt. This may
amount to an admission of failure.

Qadhafi's recent recovery in some parts of the country may be
reversed, but he is unlikely to lose the core western territories
that he now commands. Is this the kind of stability that is sought?
A constant war of attrition between two slightly better matched
forces? What's the alternative, apart from a land invasion?

LT thought 
"Washington's war" would ultimately result in a re-constituted Qaddafi
regime. 

Re: [Marxism] Fwd: The Kill Team | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 7/26/14 3:29 PM, Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote:

Arguably, the only good things to come out of the war in Afghanistan are
the more than 30 documentaries depicting the American role as nothing
less than heinous. Joining “Restrepo” and “The Tillman Story” in the top
ranks is “The Kill Team”, which opened yesterday at Lincoln Center (full
schedule information, including a nationwide rollout is here:
http://killteammovie.com/see-the-film).

full: http://louisproyect.org/2014/07/26/the-kill-team/



Just heard from Alan Wald on this:

Ralph Levitt, one of your greatest fans, just sent me your review.

Dan Krauss is my nephew--oldest son of my older sister. He previously 
made an Oscar-nominated documentary about radical photographers against 
S. African apartheid, "The Bang Bang Club."


I just forward the review to him, which he will appreciate as he was 
dismayed by yesterday's N.Y. Times piece by Manola D..



Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 7/26/14 1:52 PM, Marv Gandall wrote:

For these reasons it is not deserving of the kind of uncritical and 
unconditional support you and others have extended to it.


Actually most of what I write has little to do with "support" of any 
kind. As has been the case since the Arab Spring began, I am much more 
interested in cutting through the bullshit I keep seeing over and over 
again, much of it inspired by Russian and Iranian TV that the left in 
Britain and the USA sucks up to.


When a thousand articles were written to praise Qaddafi's resistance to 
AFRICOM, I took the trouble to go to the AFRICOM website and find 
documentation on the Libyan military's bromance with AFRICOM.


When the left jumped on board the Baathist express, I made a point of 
tracking down all the articles that showed the mutual interests the 
White House and Syria had, starting with the CIA rendition program that 
landed men (sometimes innocent) in Syrian dungeons to be tortured for 
months on end.


After going through 4 years of wading through the latrines on Libya and 
Syria, I was all set to be on the lookout for the same sorts of things 
going on with Ukraine. It staggers the mind to see the pure crap that 
gets written by Kagarlitsky, Stephen F. Cohen, and Robert Parry. I feel 
like the guy in coveralls with a broom following the elephants in the 
parade.


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Fwd: The Kill Team | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Arguably, the only good things to come out of the war in Afghanistan are 
the more than 30 documentaries depicting the American role as nothing 
less than heinous. Joining “Restrepo” and “The Tillman Story” in the top 
ranks is “The Kill Team”, which opened yesterday at Lincoln Center (full 
schedule information, including a nationwide rollout is here: 
http://killteammovie.com/see-the-film).


full: http://louisproyect.org/2014/07/26/the-kill-team/

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Oxymoron alerty! (was Re: NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza)

[michael yates via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



Just my opinion, but I find Clay Claiborne's posts unremarkable. I notice no 
one is taking on Richard Seymour's devastating critique of Clay's "analysis" of 
the bombing of Libya. Why not? Clay's allies never hesitate to trash anyone 
else who points out the errors in Clay's ways. Of course, it could be that 
Seymour has exposed a naked emperor. 
And if Clay writes 10,000 more words about this, will our knowledge increase? I 
doubt it. And now we are hearing that short comments just won't do. Well, it 
was Clay, wasn't it, who referenced for us all to marvel at, his ten most 
important tweets of 2013. This really too my breath away when I read it. 
My division chair was once going on about how the IT revolution had doubled his 
productivity. I said, well, two times zero is zero. 
We all have a way of defending those we like and trashing those we do not. And 
using guilt by association whenever possible. And to see the world in black and 
white terms. The problem arises when we convince ourselves that these are 
virtues. 
Here's a question for all you serial, logorrheic  bloggers out there: has 
anything you have ever written saved a life, paid someone's rent, stopped a 
war, built a movement, fed the hungry, raised a child, or, for that matter, 
given anyone a moment's pleasure or made someone laugh? 


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Oxymoron alerty! (was Re: NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza)

[Shane Mage via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



On Jul 26, 2014, at 11:05 AM, Louis Proyect wrote:


On 7/26/14 10:33 AM, Shane Mage via Marxism wrote:

On Jul 26, 2014, at 9:16 AM, Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote:
...a blogger who has made his positions clear in hundreds of  
thousands

of words...




Shane, when is the last time you wrote anything longer than 500 words?


Long ago I realized the truth of the popular expression "brevity is  
the soul of wit." But the maxim can be taken to extremes, as typified  
by the number of relevant words (zero!) that typically are to be found  
in LP's snarking responses to coherently expressed arguments.


Of course, there are complex theoretical topics that demand extended  
discussion. Last year on the MR website, and on this list, I published  
a substantial "Defense of Marx's Law" in refutation of M. Heinrich.  
LP, from his question, seems not to have noticed.  It's true, my  
length didn't quite reach the hundreds of thousands of words he needs  
to make something clear to him.




Shane Mage

"scientific discovery is basically recognition of obvious realities
that self-interest or ideology have kept everybody from paying  
attention to"



Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] [Sanhati Newsletter] Shankar Guha Niyogi and CMM Archives Update

[Sanhati Newsletter via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


The Shankar Guha Niyogi and CMM Archive
(http://sanhati.com/shankar-guha-niyogi-archives/) has been updated on 15
July 2014 with the following entries compiled by the archiving team:

Archive Entry: 2014-07-15:

“Shankar Guha Niyogi La Bhaiya Karthon Meha Lal Salam”: A song dedicated
to the life and struggle of Shankar Guha Niyogi by Faguram Yadav.
Published: February 14th, 1992

This is a song written in the memory of the life of Guha Niyogi as it
commemorates his struggles for and with the people that led to the unison
of workers under him. He begins by expressing solidarity with Niyogi and
says that his blood and sacrifice has further cemented the workers
together in their struggle, under the red flag. He praises his initiatives
towards fighting for the worker’s right of 8 hours of work and
distribution of bonus to the workers as well as the managers. The
challenges Niyogi undertook and united the workers against the politicians
and the industrialists.

_

“Lahuluhan Nazaron Se Uthte Sawal” Questions arising from blood drenched
scenes

This report was prepared by Rakesh Diwan to delineate the events leading
up to the police–led open firing on public and workers of the CMM in
Bhilai, on July 1st, 1992, during the Bhilai movement. The workers had
blocked the Howrah- Bombay railway line, under the supervision of CMM
leaders, holding a peaceful demonstration. However, no government agency
or official paid any heed to their request for holding a joint meeting
with the industrialists or management to reach a mutual agreement.
Instead, the demonstrators were surrounded by the police force, with a
large number of armed police officers in the presence of the police
superintendent of Durg, by the afternoon. Failed attempts to disseminate
the demonstration were made using tear gas and violent attacks on the
workers, including women, with rocks and ‘lathi-charge’. Using the excuse
of increasing anger of the surrounding crowd (witnessing the violent
attacks on the workers) towards the force, the police started firing
indiscriminately and without a warning. CMM members and many other
bystanders were grievously injured in the incident, with the death toll
reported to be about 15-30. In the report Diwan cites examples from the
past where worker demonstrations have been met with similar police
atrocity, citing the events prior to the assassination of Com. Niyogi as
well. He cites the half-hearted attempts and false promises propagated by
the government that underhandedly sides with the industrialists by virtue
of inaction. No real attempts are made to provide workers with basic
rights, legal minimum wage or being hired in permanent positions instead
of as daily laborers, while, demonstrations are curbed violently.

_


The “Other” Peasant Rally

This article taken from Misereor’s publication, The Great Concern, Volume
2, 1990, originally appeared in The Economic and Political Weekly,
December 2nd, 1989.

The author juxtaposes two major agrarian mobilisations of 2nd October
1980—one is a popular mobilization of rich peasants and capitalist farmers
of Uttar Pradesh led by Mahendra Singh Tikait and Sharad Josy while the
other, is a lesser known movement of and by the agrarian laborers and
industrial workers of Chhattisgarh region of the then Madhya Pradesh
state. While the former poses itself as a “victim of unequal exchange” yet
goes onto promote revisionist policy changes, the latter, the Chhattisgarh
Mukti Moorcha, radically questions “self-seeking power politics” and the
destructive development model of the state. The CMM’s 15 point charter of
demands as reproduced here illustrates the agrarian-industrial labor
concern characteristic of the union and their two pronged line of struggle
and constructive works.

_

Peoples’ Health Movement in India: Looking Back at Dalli Rajahara –
Achievements and Problems
By Dr. Punyabrata Gun

(The original bengali article by Dr. Gun, first translated into Hindi by
Satya Sagar published in Sehat Aur Samaj vol. 1, June-August 2011, was
later translated to English by Rakesh Ranjan for Sanhati)

Shaheed Hospital at Dalli Rajhara, which was in headlines following the
murder of Shankar Guha Niyogi in 1991, caught the attention of the media
once again in 2010 when doctor and human rights activist Dr. Binayak Sen
was convicted for life. The author, Punyabrata Gun, narrates the genesis
of this hospital in this article. The author traces the construction of
this hospital as a part of the movement on the issue of public health
which was core to the policy of “struggle and creation” adopted by
Chhattisgarh Mines Shramik Sangh (CMSS). The author identifies and
explains the major achievements of this health awareness movement as

Re: [Marxism] Oxymoron alerty! (was Re: NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza)

[Joseph Green via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



> 
> Unfortunately, this list for most users is useful only because of the 
> occasionally linked articles with a few words of comment. 
> 
> Hundred of thousands of words aren't so useful. 
> 
 Clay Claiborne, Louis Proyect, Sergii Kutnii and others have posted a lot of 
material about the facts about what is going on in Ukraine, Syria, Libya, 
etc., and refuting the incredible stream of lies from the revisionist world. 
I don't agree with all of CC or LP's analysis, but I think the material they 
have posted  is extremely valuable, and I hope they continue to post more. 
Not everyone has the time to go through all the ins and outs of every claim, 
or the connections to find the statements from the more serious sources. 

For myself, I don't find it especially useful when people repeat a "few 
words" of condemnation of the masses who have risen against backward forces 
which the revisionists embrace. One can find that anywhere, from RT to 
Workers World to certain bourgeois liberals. Well, those words are useful 
here, but only insofar as they inspire others to refute them.

Since the crisis in Ukraine began, I have looked for sources on what's going 
on. I have read much material from various sources. The material from various 
Ukrainian trends which are independent of the revisionists has been quite 
valuable, although these trends have had a hard time developing an adequate 
political stand. (For example, the material from the Autonomous Workers Union 
is quite significant, and one sees the dedicated efforts of activists to move 
Ukraine forward, but their anarchist stand blocks them from figuring out what 
to do in a complicated situation since as that of Maidan and anti-Maidan.)

It is said by some that there are many divisions among Ukrainians, and even 
among Ukrainian workers, coal miners, etc. It's true that there are 
divisions. But the history since independence shows that a certain slow, 
zigzag progress takes place. And without Russian interference, the present 
complicated political situation would not have given rise to armed conflict. 
Independence in 1991 did not bring utopia to Ukraine, and Ukraine has 
suffered immensely from the economic miseries of modern capitalism. But there 
has been slow political progress among the Ukrainian masses; the situation is 
still freer in Ukraine than in Russia; and the political progress is 
important for preparing the masses for something better. The overthrow of 
Yanukovych was a typical Ukrainian political event, a bit of progress and a 
lot of complication. (That's actually how things move forward everywhere, 
insofar as they do sometimes move forward, in the present situation in which 
the workers movement and the left are disorganized and in crisis everywhere.) 
 But it took Russian government interference to turn this into mass 
bloodshed, and it takes revisionist blindness to fail to see the important of 
the masses having risen up against Yanukovych, and having risen up despite 
the lack of a mass political force that could represent their interests. And 
it takes revisionist blindness to judge things solely from the standpoint of 
the rivalry of the EU or Eurasian Union capitalists.

It's no secret that the Russian government and Russian chauvinists don't 
accept the right to self-determination of Ukraine and other former regions of 
the USSR. It's not secret that Putin acted punitively, even while Yanukovych 
was still president, out of fear that Ukraine wouldn't take part in 
Eurasianism. The Russian government and the revisionists are ready to fight 
to the last  Ukrainian (whether Russian ethnic Ukrainian or not) to force 
Ukraine to do what they want. This is a crime against both the people of 
Russia as well as those of Ukraine, and those who close their eyes to what's 
going on are harming the interests of the Russian working class (in Russia) 
as well as those of Ukrainian working people (including Russophones and 
Russian ethnic Ukrainians).

-- Joseph Green
> 
> 
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/jgreen%40communistvoice.org


---
Joseph Green
m...@communistvoice.org




Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Oxymoron alerty! (was Re: NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza)

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 7/26/14 12:01 PM, Vladimiro Giacche' wrote:



Unfortunately, this list for most users is useful only because of the 
occasionally linked articles with a few words of comment.

Hundred of thousands of words aren't so useful.

Particularly when they are mostly devoted, as unfortunately often occurs also 
in this list, not to theoretically relevant questions, but on geopolitical 
issues and - which is worst - are aimed to explain that Ghaddafi, Assad, now 
perhaps Putin are to overthrown.
Without caring of what really happened in Libya (where a state was simply destroyed by 
NATO), in Syria (where the same is happening thanks to the "insurgents" paid 
from US and the notoriously marxists in power in Saudi Arabia), and in Kiew (Nazis in 
power, massacre in odessa, bombing of civilians in the east, illegalisation of the 
communist party  and so on, the treaty  with the UE that split the country [the former 
president of the European Commission Prodi - not a marxist indeed - admitted and 
reproached it!], the NATO continuing expansion toward the East in a Wehrmacht-like 
strategy, etc etc). Only about Gaza I recently read more equilibrated views.

And now I read that someone should write more...



Of course they should write more. You just attempted to analyze global 
conflicts in 50 words. I would be embarrassed to make such an attempt. 
But I imagine that it must be tough for you to be subbed here when your 
sympathies are obviously with Stalinism. In a way, it is too bad that 
the A-List disappeared (at least I think it did) when servers got 
switched at the U. of Utah. It was a place where you could read 35 
messages a day about how evil NATO was and how beneficent China was, 
especially through its lifting up the Dark Continent. I imagine that it 
must be tough for Stalinists to start something up on the Internet. 
That's the price of 90 years of ideological conformity, I suppose. It is 
much easier to rely on what party bosses told you was right



Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Oxymoron alerty! (was Re: NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza)

[Vladimiro Giacche' via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==




Unfortunately, this list for most users is useful only because of the 
occasionally linked articles with a few words of comment. 

Hundred of thousands of words aren't so useful. 

Particularly when they are mostly devoted, as unfortunately often occurs also 
in this list, not to theoretically relevant questions, but on geopolitical 
issues and - which is worst - are aimed to explain that Ghaddafi, Assad, now 
perhaps Putin are to overthrown. 
Without caring of what really happened in Libya (where a state was simply 
destroyed by NATO), in Syria (where the same is happening thanks to the 
"insurgents" paid from US and the notoriously marxists in power in Saudi 
Arabia), and in Kiew (Nazis in power, massacre in odessa, bombing of civilians 
in the east, illegalisation of the communist party  and so on, the treaty  with 
the UE that split the country [the former president of the European Commission 
Prodi - not a marxist indeed - admitted and reproached it!], the NATO 
continuing expansion toward the East in a Wehrmacht-like strategy, etc etc). 
Only about Gaza I recently read more equilibrated views. 

And now I read that someone should write more... 

I would on the contrary say: write better if you can. If you can't, write less.

> 
> On 7/26/14 10:33 AM, Shane Mage via Marxism wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 2014, at 9:16 AM, Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote:
>>> ...a blogger who has made his positions clear in hundreds of thousands
>>> of words...
>> 
> 
> Shane, when is the last time you wrote anything longer than 500 words?




Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 7/26/14 11:38 AM, Marv Gandall via Marxism wrote:

The country is sharply divided along ethnic, religious, political, and to some 
extent class lines, and the US and EU have arguably done more to provoke the 
crisis than has Russia.


No, Marvin. The crisis has existed ever Catherine the Great. It is a 
crisis first and foremost over Ukraine's status as an oppressed nation. 
It matters little that the Kyiv government is run by pro-EU oligarchs 
who have appointed Svoboda or Right Sector members to one or another 
post. The ordinary people who took to the streets in November 2013 were 
opposing oligarchic rule. They were smart enough to know that Tymoshenko 
et al did not represent them any more than Yanukovych did. Despite your 
fancy footwork to prove that you were opposed to both the EU and Russia, 
it is obvious to anybody who follows your interventions here that you 
were on the side of Kagarlitsky et al.


Marvin Gandall: "Kagarlitsky's continuing analysis of the contending 
forces has been superb." 
(http://article.gmane.org/gmane.politics.marxism.marxmail/176678/)


What a disgrace.

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Oxymoron alerty! (was Re: NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza)

[Marv Gandall via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



On Jul 26, 2014, at 11:05 AM, Louis Proyect via Marxism 
 wrote:

> Shane, when is the last time you wrote anything longer than 500 words? When 
> you were a member of the Robertson-Wolforth faction in the SWP? Your PhD 
> thesis on the FROP? Don't you realize what a waste of time and bandwidth your 
> sniping is? What accounts for your attention deficit disorder? Too many LSD 
> trips?


Oh yeah, I’m trigger, trigger happy
Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy
Oh baby, I’m trigger, trigger happy
Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy
Oh I’m so trigger, trigger happy
Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy
Better watch out, punk, or I'm gonna have to blow you away

-Weird Al Yankovic
“Trigger Happy”

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza

[Marv Gandall via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



On Jul 26, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Jeff via Marxism  
wrote:

> But you can't demand from me a list of countries that do or don't deserve
> sanctions. And although Russia's interference in Ukraine is contrary to the
> interests and rights of Ukranians, no one has to decide whether sanctions
> are “right" or "wrong," whatever those terms might mean.

Your analysis is faulty, and frankly I think you’re being evasive on the issue 
of sanctions because you are uneasy about finding yourself in the same camp as 
the EU and the US. 

Re: your analysis. Both Russia and the NATO powers - not Russia alone - are 
intervening in a civil war to respectively support the predominantly ethnic 
Russian and ethnic Ukrainian regions of the country respectively. This has been 
occuring within the more general context of Russian defensiveness about NATO 
expansion since the end of the Cold War, including into former Soviet republics 
like Ukraine. It is not, as has been simplistically portrayed here, a case of 
Russian aggression against “all” Ukrainians. The country is sharply divided 
along ethnic, religious, political, and to some extent class lines, and the US 
and EU have arguably done more to provoke the crisis than has Russia. That 
Louis thinks Putin is a nasty fellow is quite beside the point. 

Re: sanctions. If I believed, as you do, that the issue truly is Russian 
aggression against all Ukrainians, then I would support tougher US and EU 
sanctions against Russia and more military assistance to the Kiev regime. It 
would be inconsistent - some would say politically cowardly - not to openly 
join with Western politicians, political parties, and much mass opinion in 
advocating for such assistance. So why the hesitation?

> The main thing I
> notice about sanctions against Russia, considering all that has transpired,
> is that the EU countries in particular are rather reluctant to implement
> very serious sanctions, because their economic interests (particularly
> dependence on Russian gas/oil) are at odds with their geopolitical concerns
> (losing influence in East Europe). That is a more pertinent discussion than
> whether sanctions will do more harm than good, or which capitalist has the
> right or moral authority to implement punishments against a different
> capitalist country.

It’s true that the EU countries have more at stake because of their economic 
ties to Russia, but they are gradually being pushed into compliance with the 
tough sanctions regime being proposed by the US, primarily because their banks 
are dependent on the US dollar clearing system controlled by the Federal 
Reserve. That is why, whatever their own reservations and interests, the 
Europeans have also had to fall in line with the sanctions policy. It was much 
the same in relation to Iran. The next stage of “tier three” sanctions, if 
implemented, are widely expected to plunge Russia into recession.

I very much agree with you that sanctions should not be considered as moral 
issues. They are political, designed to accomplish a political end. In this 
case, the sanctions are designed to force the Russian government to abandon its 
political and military support of the east Ukraine masses who are seeking more 
autonomy - in some cases, outright independence - from the Ukraine regime which 
is based on the right-wing parties in the regions to the west. Whether you 
think the effect of such sanctions “will do more harm than good” depends, of 
course, on whether you think they will accomplish their objective, and that 
their objective is worth supporting. 



Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] in Belfast

[Gary MacLennan via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Outside the City Hall there was a demonstration, about 200 people. They
were waving Union Jacks. I suspect they were part of the movement to potect
the "right" to fly the Union Jack -  anyway, any time, anywhere. In the
middle of the demonstration were two people holding an Israeli flag. The
Irish have a proverb which says  'One black beetle recognizes another', and
so it was no surprize to see tbe Ultra right supporting the killing in Gaza.
Round the corner at the Catholic pub there were posters calling for the
slaughter to be stopped.

It is at times like these that one realises that Israel is doomed. When
your only supporters are the far right fringe, then your cause is truly
lost.

comradely

Gary

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Oxymoron alerty! (was Re: NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza)

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 7/26/14 10:33 AM, Shane Mage via Marxism wrote:

On Jul 26, 2014, at 9:16 AM, Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote:

...a blogger who has made his positions clear in hundreds of thousands
of words...




Shane, when is the last time you wrote anything longer than 500 words? 
When you were a member of the Robertson-Wolforth faction in the SWP? 
Your PhD thesis on the FROP? Don't you realize what a waste of time and 
bandwidth your sniping is? What accounts for your attention deficit 
disorder? Too many LSD trips?



Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Oxymoron alerty! (was Re: NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza)

[Shane Mage via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



On Jul 26, 2014, at 9:16 AM, Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote:
...a blogger who has made his positions clear in hundreds of  
thousands of words...



Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza

[Jeff via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


At 21:48 24-07-14 -0400, Marv Gandall via Marxism wrote:
>
>The NATO countries, of course, do not presently have the power to bring
the Russian leaders to trial.
>
>Instead, the US and its allies are trying to bring pressure to bear
through their control of the global financial system. The EU today adopted
tougher sanctions in line with those adopted earlier by the Obama
administration as part of a staged program designed to progressively
squeeze the Russian financial system and cripple the economy. 
>
>Do you support these efforts?

I think that is a really unfair question, because either answer is wrong.
When there is a dispute between capitalists, with no overriding principle
involved, then if you support one side you are supporting one group of
capitalists. Forcing someone to support one or the other is a trap and a
diversion from any valid issues which might be tangentially involved.
Because one country (or usually both countries) in a dispute deserves to be
punished, doesn't mean you need to endorse some particular sort of action.

And of course even our own boycott actions are just tactical, such the BDS
campaign against Israel. We don't have to answer every question about "Why
pick on Israel when this other country is doing something awful too?"
Likewise with economic sanctions which are just a tactic and don't have to
be either supported or opposed in every case. But what does become an issue
is when they go out of their way NOT to implement sanctions, such as when
Reagan came to the aid of South African apartheid by saying that sanctions
wouldn't help etc. It's clear why he was against sanctions, and that we
surely denounce.

But you can't demand from me a list of countries that do or don't deserve
sanctions. And although Russia's interference in Ukraine is contrary to the
interests and rights of Ukranians, no one has to decide whether sanctions
are "right" or "wrong," whatever those terms might mean. The main thing I
notice about sanctions against Russia, considering all that has transpired,
is that the EU countries in particular are rather reluctant to implement
very serious sanctions, because their economic interests (particularly
dependence on Russian gas/oil) are at odds with their geopolitical concerns
(losing influence in East Europe). That is a more pertinent discussion than
whether sanctions will do more harm than good, or which capitalist has the
right or moral authority to implement punishments against a different
capitalist country.

- Jeff

>
>Besides military assistance to its proxies, I assume doing the right thing
in Clay’s view also includes economic sanctions, US imperialism’s weapon of
choice for exercising control. I asked Clay about this a couple of days ago
- no response as yet - and Louis, Andy, and others who broadly agree with
Clay’s characterization of the civil war within Ukraine as “Russian
aggression” might also want to have a stab at it:


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 7/26/14 9:02 AM, Marv Gandall via Marxism wrote:


On Jul 25, 2014, at 9:03 PM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism 
 wrote:


I have never felt a particular ownership or
responsibility for the actions of “our” imperialists….I will always praise imperialists, 
even "our own" on the rare
occasions when they do the right thing.


Besides military assistance to its proxies, I assume doing the right thing in 
Clay’s view also includes economic sanctions, US imperialism’s weapon of choice 
for exercising control. I asked Clay about this a couple of days ago - no 
response as yet - and Louis, Andy, and others who broadly agree with Clay’s 
characterization of the civil war within Ukraine as “Russian aggression” might 
also want to have a stab at it:

http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2014-July/254181.html



What the hell is this, a trial of Clay and you as District Attorney?

Clay is a blogger who has made his positions clear in hundreds of 
thousands of words. You, by contrast, do nothing except post newspaper 
or magazine articles prefaced with a 2 or 3 sentence analysis.


Leaving aside the question of who is right or wrong about Ukraine, I 
wish to god that more people would take their politics seriously and 
defend their politics in a serious manner. It is impossible to have a 
genuine debate when some seem addicted to Twitter's 140 character means 
of communication.



Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza

[Marv Gandall via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



On Jul 25, 2014, at 9:03 PM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism 
 wrote:

> I have never felt a particular ownership or
> responsibility for the actions of “our” imperialists….I will always praise 
> imperialists, even "our own" on the rare
> occasions when they do the right thing.

Besides military assistance to its proxies, I assume doing the right thing in 
Clay’s view also includes economic sanctions, US imperialism’s weapon of choice 
for exercising control. I asked Clay about this a couple of days ago - no 
response as yet - and Louis, Andy, and others who broadly agree with Clay’s 
characterization of the civil war within Ukraine as “Russian aggression” might 
also want to have a stab at it:

http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2014-July/254181.html





Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] PETITION: Jews Say: End the War on Gaza — No Aid to Apartheid Israel! BDS!

[RKOB via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



PETITION: Jews Say: End the War on Gaza — No Aid to Apartheid Israel! BDS!

Jews for Palestinian Right of Return, July 22, 2014,
https://www.change.org/de/Petitionen/benjamin-netanyahu-jews-say-end-the-war-on-gaza-no-aid-to-apartheid-israel-bds-with-200-initial-signers

 


* * *


Introduction by the RCIT and the ISL:

 


Below we reprint a very progressive statement initiated by the Jews for
Palestinian Right of Return. Our comrade Yossi Schwartz, a well-know,
lifelong communist and Anti-Zionist, and key representative of the
Internationalist Socialist League (RCIT-Section in Israel/Occupied
Palestine), was among the initial signers of this petition. The
statement justly condemns the reactionary Israeli war against the
Palestinian people in Gaza as well as the Apartheid regime in the whole
of historic Palestine. In addition, the signers of the petition support
the international boycott campaign against Israel. As the statement is
limited to radical democratic demands, it does not include the goal for
which the RCIT and the ISL are fighting: a Democratic, Palestinian,
Multinational and Socialist Workers and Fallahin Republic from the River
to the Sea; in other words, a Free, Red Palestine. Nevertheless, this
limitation does not negate the very progressive nature of this petition
which constitutes a powerful tool against the reactionary myth spread by
the Israeli state and its international supporters, i.e., that Israel
represents the interests of all Jews and all who oppose the Israeli
state are therefore “Anti-Semites.” The RCIT and the ISL urge Jews
in Israel / Occupied Palestine and around the world to sign this
petition.

Note: The statement was initially signed by 200 individuals and received
more than 1,500 additional signatures in only two day!

Read more at
http://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/jews-against-apartheid/






--
Revolutionär-Kommunistische Organisation BEFREIUNG
ak...@rkob.net
www.rkob.net
+43-650-4068314


Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Fwd: Israel-Palestine: The History Behind their New War | New Republic

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


This is a good article by John Judis, who was a supporter of contra 
funding in Nicaragua in the 1980s. This doesn't quite make up for his 
sordid past but it is a solid analysis.


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118846/israel-palestine-history-behind-their-new-war

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Fwd: Five Israeli Talking Points on Gaza—Debunked

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==




http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/18674/five-israeli-talking-points-on-gaza-debunked

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Fwd: Putin sends a message? Opposition leaders get prison for staging riots (+video) - CSMonitor.com

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


By Fred Weir, author of "Revolution from Above: The Demise of the Soviet 
System":


http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2014/0725/Putin-sends-a-message-Opposition-leaders-get-prison-for-staging-riots-video

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Professor Noura Erakat: debunking Israeli lies.

[En Passant with John Passant via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Sit down for a few minutes and read how Professor Noura Erakat one by one 
dismantles the lies and exposes the moral and intellectual depravity of Zionist 
propaganda.

http://enpassant.com.au/2014/07/26/professor-noura-erakat-debunking-israels-lies/

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza

[Joseph Catron via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Oh, FFS. It's more than one thousand times Libya's. Sorry, guys. I promise
you don't want to know how little sleep I've been getting lately. :-D


On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Joseph Catron  wrote:

> Sorry, that should of course be "literally *more *than one-thousandth
> Libya's."
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Joseph Catron  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism <
>> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Over a 7 month period, NATO carried out thousands of strike
>>> sorties over Libya, killed thousands of Qaddafi's soldiers, hundreds of
>>> tanks and other vehicles, took out his air power and pretty much took
>>> away
>>> his military advantage.
>>
>>
>> This is a dumb comparison, for some pretty obvious reasons.
>>
>> One is that Gaza doesn't have any of that stuff to target. The occupation
>> is fighting sophisticated guerrilla forces here, not a national army a few
>> decades behind the times and best suited for military parades.
>>
>> Another is that its population density is literally less than
>> one-thousandth Libya's.
>>
>> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934666.html
>>
>> --
>> "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen
>> lytlað."
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen
> lytlað."
>



-- 
"Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen
lytlað."

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza

[Joseph Catron via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Sorry, that should of course be "literally *more *than one-thousandth
Libya's."


On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Joseph Catron  wrote:

>
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism <
> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
> Over a 7 month period, NATO carried out thousands of strike
>> sorties over Libya, killed thousands of Qaddafi's soldiers, hundreds of
>> tanks and other vehicles, took out his air power and pretty much took away
>> his military advantage.
>
>
> This is a dumb comparison, for some pretty obvious reasons.
>
> One is that Gaza doesn't have any of that stuff to target. The occupation
> is fighting sophisticated guerrilla forces here, not a national army a few
> decades behind the times and best suited for military parades.
>
> Another is that its population density is literally less than
> one-thousandth Libya's.
>
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934666.html
>
> --
> "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen
> lytlað."
>



-- 
"Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen
lytlað."

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza

[Joseph Catron via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

Over a 7 month period, NATO carried out thousands of strike
> sorties over Libya, killed thousands of Qaddafi's soldiers, hundreds of
> tanks and other vehicles, took out his air power and pretty much took away
> his military advantage.


This is a dumb comparison, for some pretty obvious reasons.

One is that Gaza doesn't have any of that stuff to target. The occupation
is fighting sophisticated guerrilla forces here, not a national army a few
decades behind the times and best suited for military parades.

Another is that its population density is literally less than
one-thousandth Libya's.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934666.html

-- 
"Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen
lytlað."

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza

[Lenin's Tomb via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



> ... Lenin's Tomb is implying that HRW was doing some sort of
> sampling, whereas HRW says "This report documents civilian casualties in
> the air campaign by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Libya
> in 2011." They reported on eight incidents including all reported to them
> by the Qaddafi regime. …
> 
> All they have to do, and they've now had several years and a relatively
> free [from the investigative standpoint] Libya to do it in, is document one
> or more civilian deaths not named in the HRW or even more limited UN
> report.

> This also applies to the claims of civilian deaths caused by NATO
> in Sirte. All those who want to overthrow the NYTimes, UN & HRW studies
> that put unintended NATO civilian deaths at ~72 just need to document a
> significant number of such civilian deaths not counted by them. Babbling on
> about how there must be more deaths because they believe there must be
> doesn't cut it, whereas names and numbers will blow them out of the water.


So, to be clear: 

I point out that the “studies” you are citing neither attempt nor claim to be 
comprehensive estimates of civilian deaths arising from NATO’s bombing campaign.

And your response is to demand of me that I supplement their data by providing 
documented instances of civilian casualties not counted by them.  

I’m afraid you’re simply not thinking.

You claim that I imply that “HRW was doing some sort of sampling”.  Supposing I 
did claim that, the sentence you quote from the HRW report would be a 
non-sequitur.  No one denies that the "report documents civilian casualties”.  
What is contested is your claim, which is not made in any of the reports, that 
they document *all* civilian casualties (or even *most* civilian casualties).  
However, in fact I do not claim that HRW engaged in sampling; I claim precisely 
the opposite.  I claim that HRW does not attempt a representative sample either 
of air strikes, or of the civilian population of Libya.

Sampling is a statistical survey technique.  It involves defining a population 
to be studied, selecting a representative subset and pro-actively measuring 
characteristics of that subset.  The point of sampling is to enable one to 
estimate characteristics within the whole population.  It is what Roberts et al 
did for Iraq (and also for the DRC); or what Benini & Moulton, using figures 
collected by the Mine Clearance Planning Agency, did for Afghanistan.

No such study has been carried out for Libya.  The Commission of Inquiry, HRW 
and the New York Times all investigate specific allegations of human rights 
abuses: that is all.  (Indeed, it is stretching a definition to refer to the 
NYT report as a “study”.  It is a work of investigative journalism, and makes 
no attempt to have the rigour of a study.  It does, however, have the honesty 
to point out that it is “not a complete accounting”.)  

There is thus no need to “overthrow” the existing “studies” since, as I have 
stated, there are no “studies” of total civilian casualties arising from the 
bombing campaign.

In claiming that such exist, you are mis-citing the figures in support of a 
pro-imperialist position.


> Ditto the question what deaths were 'accidental.' Since there were
> civilians NATO considered legitimate targets we are talking about the
> number of civilians they killed that they did not target. Two questions
> arise from this 1) What makes a person a legit civilian target in their
> eyes? 2) Are they killing large numbers of civilians by using a very loose
> definition of 1? Since we are talking about battles already fought, again
> this simply requires the submission of names and numbers not already on the
> list. General speculation won't do.


There is no need to speculate.  Simply read the reports which you mis-cite.  
Looking at all three of the reports, they each provide details of specific 
incidents where civilians were killed at civilian sites.  

NATO of course claimed that they were also being used for military purposes by 
Qadhafi supporters.  This may or may not be true.  The reports cited find no 
evidence for it, but let’s suppose it is.  

Since NATO targeted these known civilian sites and since the deaths of 
civilians at them was predictable, it is an obscene and Regevian standard of 
apologia to characterise such deaths as ‘accidental’.


> As to the Hitchens analogy. The one who made that comment apparently is
> ignorant of my analysis of why NATO was willing to extend a helping hand to
> the Libyan revolutionaries. It has everything to do with the need for
> Libya's light sweet crude and European economic crisis and nothing to do
> with "imperialist enlightenment." I simply disagree they those that think
> the revolutionaries should have turned down that he

[Marxism] A lesson from the Warsaw Ghetto: it is right to resist your oppressor

[En Passant with John Passant via Marxism]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


What courage, what humanity the Warsaw Ghetto Jews showed in resisting the 
monolith of Nazism. There is a universal message here. It was right then to 
fight back against the Nazi occupiers. It is right now, even in the face of 
overwhelming force, to resist your oppressors, their invasions and occupation.

http://enpassant.com.au/2014/07/26/a-lesson-from-the-warsaw-ghetto-it-is-right-to-resist/

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com