[Marxism] A New Generation’s Anger Resounds From a Packed Plaza in Paris

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

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

NY Times, Apr. 30 2016
A New Generation’s Anger Resounds From a Packed Plaza in Paris
By ADAM NOSSITER

PARIS — There are denunciations of “speciesism,” of multinational 
corporations, capitalism, G.M.O.s, the police and nuclear power. There 
are pleas for Julian Assange and African workers. There are drumming, 
guitar playing, free soup and 20-somethings swigging beer.


A jolly ragged man, unsteady on his feet, takes the microphone to 
denounce “words, words, words.” Another announces, mysteriously, “We’ve 
got to be on the side of the dominated!”


This is France’s newest political movement, open every night to the 
public on a main square in Paris, the Place de la République, which has 
been transformed into a giant outdoor sit-in recalling the 
demonstrations of May 1968 in multicultural form.


The plaza has been packed with young people every night for nearly a 
month, venting their anger — at just about everything. The news media 
here cannot seem to get enough of the movement, which calls itself Nuit 
Debout — or “Night, Standing Up” — a phrase some in the movement say is 
inspired by the 16th-century writer Étienne de La Boétie’s line, “They 
are only tall because we are on our knees.” Others say it comes from the 
“Internationale,” the hymn of the 19th-century revolutionary left.


But the movement is more than just a freewheeling free-for-all of 
inchoate frustration.


On Thursday night, the protest at the Place de République took a violent 
turn as police arrested several dozen demonstrators when they refused to 
disperse at midnight. Some of the protesters threw blocks of concrete 
and glass bottles at the police, who responded with tear gas. At other 
protests across France, 24 police officers were injured, three seriously.


At a moment when disgust with mainstream parties is high, the movement 
is also being observed warily by the country’s politicians, who recall 
how such citizen protests led to potent political parties in Spain and 
Italy.


The French movement was born in anger at the government’s attempt to 
overhaul France’s ponderous labor code, in hopes of making it easier for 
employers to hire and provide jobs for just the kinds of young people 
who have now occupied the square. But the government’s proposals also 
made it easier to fire.


To say that the plan backfired is an understatement. The answer from the 
younger generation trying to elbow its way into the work force was 
simple: We don’t want what you are offering; we want what our parents 
have, and then some.


All through March students and unions took to the streets to 
demonstrate. The protests spread to the provinces. The government 
quickly backed down, gutting its own plan.


“Our youth feel neglected by society,” Prime Minister Manuel Valls mused 
carefully in an interview with the newspaper Libération. “Nuit Debout is 
expressing this, in its own way.”


The concessions were quick in coming. Fearful of an unbudging 25 percent 
youth unemployment and a permanent mobilization in the streets, the 
government two weeks ago called in student union leaders and agreed to 
spend upward of 400 million euros (about $450 million) in subsidies, 
taxes and allowances aimed at helping young people find work.


High school graduates looking for work will now get government help for 
four months. Temporary work contracts — the bane of new entrants to the 
job market, since they represent most hires — will be taxed, to 
encourage more employers to hire people permanently. (The effect so far 
has been the opposite: Employer associations are infuriated.)


Dissatisfaction with the government, a hit film with a French super-boss 
as its target that was inspired by the American documentary maker 
Michael Moore, and the capital’s floating cast of permanent protest 
organizers helped congeal the new movement.


Nuit Debout’s organizers say they are not organizers, and the man 
anointed its “master thinker” in the French news media — Frédéric 
Lordon, a left-leaning economist at France’s National Center for 
Scientific Research — scoffs at the idea.


“It would be claiming a position of authority, and that’s ridiculous,” 
he said in an interview. “They don’t need a ‘master thinker.’ They are 
producing ideas in every direction. They don’t have a leader or a 
spokesman.” Nuit Debout, he added, was practicing “horizontal democracy.”


Among the rank and file, that sentiment is shared. Andrea, 27, who was 
working in the “Logistics” tent at the Place de la République, refused 
to give her last name — in the style of Nuit Debout’s organizers — 
because she said she did not want to be singled out as a leader.


But she 

[Marxism] Daniel J. Berrigan, Defiant Priest Who Preached Pacifism, Dies at 94

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

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

NY Times, Apr. 30 2016
Daniel J. Berrigan, Defiant Priest Who Preached Pacifism, Dies at 94
By DANIEL LEWIS

Rev. Daniel J. Berrigan gave an anti-war sermon at St. Patrick’s 
Cathedral in New York, 1972. Credit William E. Sauro/The New York Times
The Rev. Daniel J. Berrigan, a Jesuit priest and poet whose defiant 
protests helped shape the tactics of opposition to the Vietnam War and 
landed him in prison, died on Saturday in New York City. He was 94.


His death was confirmed by the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and 
editor at large at American magazine, a national Catholic magazine 
published by Jesuits. Father Berrigan died at Murray-Weigel Hall, the 
Jesuit infirmary at Fordham University in the Bronx.


The United States was tearing itself apart over civil rights and the war 
in Southeast Asia when Father Berrigan emerged in the 1960s as an 
intellectual star of the Roman Catholic “new left,” articulating a view 
that racism and poverty, militarism and capitalist greed were 
interconnected pieces of the same big problem: an unjust society.


It was an essentially religious position, based on a stringent reading 
of the Scriptures that some called pure and others radical. But it would 
have explosive political consequences as Father Berrigan; his brother 
Philip, a Josephite priest; and their allies took their case to the 
streets with rising disregard for the law or their personal fortunes.


A defining point was the burning of Selective Service draft records in 
Catonsville, Md., and the subsequent trial of the so-called Catonsville 
Nine, a sequence of events that inspired an escalation of protests 
across the country; there were marches, sit-ins, the public burning of 
draft cards and other acts of civil disobedience.


The catalyzing episode occurred on May 17, 1968, six weeks after the 
murder of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the outbreak of new 
riots in dozens of cities. Nine Catholic activists, led by Daniel and 
Philip Berrigan, entered a Knights of Columbus building in Catonsville 
and went up to the second floor, where the local draft board had 
offices. In front of astonished clerks, they seized hundreds of draft 
records, carried them down to the parking lot and set them on fire with 
homemade napalm.


Some reporters had been told of the raid in advance. They were given a 
statement that said in part, “We destroy these draft records not only 
because they exploit our young men but because they represent misplaced 
power concentrated in the ruling class of America.” It added, “We 
confront the Catholic Church, other Christian bodies and the synagogues 
of America with their silence and cowardice in the face of our country’s 
crimes.”


In a year sick with images of destruction, from the Tet offensive in 
Vietnam to the murder of Dr. King, a scene was recorded that had been 
contrived to shock people to attention, and did so. When the police 
came, the trespassers were praying in the parking lot, led by two 
middle-aged men in clerical collars: the big, craggy Philip, a decorated 
hero of World War II, and the ascetic Daniel, waiting peacefully to be 
led into the van.


Protests and Arrests

In the years to come, well into his 80s, Daniel Berrigan was arrested 
time and again, for greater or lesser offenses: in 1980, for taking part 
in the Plowshares raid on a General Electric missile plant in King of 
Prussia, Pa., where the Berrigan brothers and others rained hammer blows 
on missile warheads; in 2006, for blocking the entrance to the Intrepid 
naval museum in Manhattan.


“The day after I’m embalmed,” he said in 2001, on his 80th birthday, 
“that’s when I’ll give it up.”


It was not for lack of other things to do. In his long career of writing 
and teaching at Fordham and other universities, Father Berrigan 
published a torrent of essays and broadsides and, on average, a book a 
year, almost to the time of his death.


Among the more than 50 books were 15 volumes of poetry — the first of 
which, “Time Without Number,” won the prestigious Lamont Poetry Prize, 
given by the Academy of American Poets, in 1957 — as well as 
autobiography, social criticism, commentaries on the Old Testament 
prophets and indictments of the established order, both secular and 
ecclesiastic.


While he was known for his wry wit, there was a darkness in much of what 
Father Berrigan wrote and said, the burden of which was that one had to 
keep trying to do the right thing regardless of the near certainty that 
it would make no difference. In the withering of the pacifist movement 
and the country’s general support for the fighting in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, he saw proof that it 

[Marxism] Fwd: East of Salinas | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

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

A documentary about undocumented farmworkers.

https://louisproyect.org/2016/04/30/east-of-salinas/
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Fwd: Let's Get Serious About Inequality and Socialism

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

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

By Michael Yates.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35841-let-s-get-serious-about-inequality-and-socialism
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Fwd: Bike Couriers Call for Critical Mass Rolling Picket of S.F. Delivery Companies

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

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



http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=12533
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Moderator's note -- final

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

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

It is 4:42pm in NYC. At midnight EST time, the Allison Weir thread is 
terminated. Frankly, it is nothing except a repeat of the same arguments 
I heard on the first go-round and I can kick my ass for even saying a 
single word about it this time.


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

Re: [Marxism] The LIES about Stanford SJP

[A.R. G via Marxism]

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

Sorry, my last post wasn't sent out to the entire list:

I'd suggest you look at what the Palestinian refugee herself had to say as
well as the multiple Facebook posts from Stanford SJP effectively
validating the refugee's statements. Their own explanation is absurd.

For reference, here is where you can find those items.

1) Palestinian refugee Amena El-Ashkar explaining, in depth, why *she* --
not the Stanford SJP organizers -- felt compelled to call off the event.
She explicitly points out that the reason was when organizers told her that
the issue was Alison Weir's alleged rejection of Israel's right to exist,
prompting El-Ashkar to agree with Alison. Amena did not take the request
not to mention Israel's "right to exist" during the talk very nicely:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKqkm5j7qd4

2) Here is a second statement from Stanford SJP admitting that they asked
Amena El-Ashkar not to question Israel's right to exist, citing
administrative pressure:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/stanford-students-for-justice-in-palestine/on-the-events-of-april-6th-2016/1019432714815563

3) Here is Stanford SJP's original statement, mentioning that Weir complied
with requests not to sell her personal literature:
https://www.facebook.com/StanfordSJP/posts/1015517068540461

The central claim is that Weir refused to leave when asked. Even if it is
reasonable to comb through an audience to find problem people and ask them
to leave, they did not call security. Instead, the entire event was
cancelled (?). it's worth noting Weir also denies that anyone asked her to
leave at all:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10153546910184632=32975139631_index=0

That would be consistent with the fact that it was the Palestinian refugee
who called off the event because the organizers tried to censor her, rather
than the organizers shutting down the event because Weir wouldn't leave.

4) Here is a press release from the tour organizers outlining what role, if
any, Weir had at the event:
http://freepalestinemovement.org/2016/04/13/palestinian-refugee-stanford-students-censored-me/

Weir gave Amena, the refugee speaker, public speaking advice and brought
generic informational materials, one of which questioned Israel's right to
exist, prompting this circus.

5) Also worth noting, Stanford SJP's own website features Alison Weir's
website, "If Americans Knew": http://sjp.stanford.edu/resources/websites/

We are now expected to pick between explanations. Either the Palestinian
refugee called off the event when, as both sides agree, she was asked not
to challenge Israel's right to exist. Or, we can buy the explanation that
an entire event was shut down because allegations against one person -- who
was in the audience, had provided some generic materials, who had complied
with requests not to sell her own wares, and whose only connection with the
speaker was giving her some public speaking advice -- required preventing a
rare opportunity to hear from members of a Palestinian community that is
widely ignored in America as it is in Lebanon.

Quite frankly, at this point, the refusal to admit wrongdoing and the
continued, almost uncritical support for a liberal student organization
over the words of a Palestinian refugee -- especially when the issue is an
extremely tenuous allegation of anti-Semitism (she's been accused, she was
in the audience) -- is revealing on its own. The simple fact is that a
significant number of people on the Left put organizations ahead of people,
even when those organizations begin literally adopting the racism that
they've been tasked with fighting.









- Amith

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 12:57 PM, A.R. G  wrote:

> Our guts are full of shit, just like Jeff. I posted several items about
> this scandal previously (Jeff ignored it). I'd suggest you look at what the
> Palestinian refugee herself had to say as well as the multiple Facebook
> posts from Stanford SJP effectively validating the refugee's statements.
> Their own explanation is absurd.
>
>
> On Saturday, April 30, 2016, Sheldon Ranz  wrote:
>
>> It's not trolling if it's true.  And given my own clashes with you on
>> this list, my gut tells me Jeff is right on this issue.
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 10:32 AM, A.R. G via Marxism <
>> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
>>> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
>>> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
>>> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
>>> 

Re: [Marxism] Nada Elia: Time to Stop Celebrating Jewish Dissent in Palestine Solidarity Mvmt

[Sheldon Ranz via Marxism]

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

Amith: "You appear at this point to be insisting that your own opinion is
simply a matter of fact, so I guess we're at an impasse."

Well, pardon me, but aren't you doing the EXACT same thing that you accused
me of doing?  Your characterization of the "flip" side for American Muslims
is just you passing off your own opinion as fact.

Your position doesn't even make sense, since, for example, Muslims who
voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries will certainly have
more credibility in the eyes of progressive outsiders when critiquing other
Muslims. It has become useful in undermining Islamaphobic propaganda.


On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 4:20 PM, A.R. G  wrote:

> *I'd note, however, Sheldon, that you made this argument for ANY ETHNIC
> GROUP, not just your own, and you did not even appear to limit it to race
> related issues.
>
> Take the flip side for American Muslims. Not only are they seen as less
> sincere and credible when they criticize Islamic extremist groups, the
> insinuation that President Obama is a Muslim is used precisely to discredit
> his (so-called) counter-terrorism policies. It is almost the exact
> opposite: being Muslim does not give you greater credibility when
> criticizing other people who are namesake Muslims (i.e. ISIS), it
> undermines it.
>
> You appear at this point to be insisting that your own opinion is simply a
> matter of fact, so I guess we're at an impasse.
>
> - Amith
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Sheldon Ranz  wrote:
>
>> "Already one poster has suggested that it is simply
>> common sense that members of the same ethnic group are taken more
>> seriously
>> by outsiders. That is, factually speaking, not true, "
>>
>> Actually, quite true.  The most recent example of this is Bernie Sanders
>> publicly criticizing Netanyahu and not going to the AIPAC conference.  Even
>> the mainstream media made note as to how his dissent, as the Jewish
>> presidential contender, made Jewish voices opposed to Israel's government
>> more respectable.
>>
>> In addition, in my own liefetime experience as an American Jew, the same
>> has applied.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:58 PM, A.R. G via Marxism <
>> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
>>> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
>>> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
>>> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
>>> *
>>>
>>> @DW
>>>
>>> Listen, I agree with you that this is a "minefield". That is why I think
>>> we
>>> should be careful. Already one poster has suggested that it is simply
>>> common sense that members of the same ethnic group are taken more
>>> seriously
>>> by outsiders. That is, factually speaking, not true, and it is also
>>> loaded
>>> in that we often define race/ethnic group depending on what the subject
>>> matter is. I.e. a black Jewish guy and a white Jewish guy would not be
>>> understood to be members of the same ethnic group if they are talking
>>> about
>>> race relations in America, or race relations *domestically* within the
>>> Israeli Jewish community, but they would be seen as the same race in
>>> discussing, say, Israel's "return" laws.
>>>
>>> "I'm not sure what Nada Elia complaining about. Quite honestly she put a
>>> lot
>>> of good brain power into this essay and proposes absolutely zip with
>>> regards to addressing "Jewish privilege". Nothing. And, she's wrong, at
>>> least as far as I can interpret it. She praises anti-Zionist Jews for
>>> their solidarity and then condemn's them for doing it. She's all over the
>>> map on this and leaves me totally bewildered as to what she is afraid
>>> of."
>>>
>>> Is that really what you got? She didn't say Jews should stop being
>>> anti-Zionist. She is talking about whether or not their being
>>> anti-Zionist *as
>>> Jews* is a helpful form of advocacy. One can be Jewish but identify their
>>>
>>> allegiance with the Palestinian cause for a number of reasons (out of
>>> political conviction; out of anti-colonial solidarity; out of some other
>>> thing). It does not have to be a framework in which one's "Jewishness" is
>>> the (or even a) defining feature of what legitimates a person's voice.
>>> Her
>>> argument about Chabon was on that point: Why were other activists
>>> identifying him as a Jewish-American when it had no apparent relevance to
>>> the arguments he was making? And in so far as it is relevant, what makes
>>> it
>>> relevant other than Israel's stranglehold over 

[Marxism] The Chicago School economists on what to do with the big banks

[Shalva Eliava via Marxism]

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

I've been reading Gar Alperovitz's What Then Must We Do? and was pretty 
intrigued by his chapter on what to do with the banks. He cheekily calls upon 
the authority of the old Chicago School economists to make the case for turning 
the big banks into public utilities:

Big banks like JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and 
Goldman Sachs are simply way too powerful to be systematically regulated. For 
one thing, the amount of money they spend on lobbying and politics is 
stupendous. The year Dodd-Frank was passed, the FIRE sector (finance, 
insurance, and real estate) spent more than $475 million on lobbying. This was 
followed up the next year, 2011, with just under $480 million. That’s almost a 
billion dollars’ worth of high-priced lobbyists who do nothing but try to write 
loopholes into the law – and this is for only two years. 

Senator Dick Durbin is blunt: “The banks…are still the most powerful lobby on 
Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.” 

…So the question is this: What happens when the next big crisis explodes and we 
afgain have to face the impossibility of regularting banks that too big to fail 
– banks that, when they topple, can bring down the entire system? 

The current nostrum – partially provided for in the Dodd-Frank legislation 
under certain circumstances, and promoted generally by a wide array of 
commentators and politicians – is: “Well, let’s break them up into smaller 
banks!” 

Yet we only have to look as far as the history of banking, on the one hand, and 
of anti-trust law, on the other, to see that even when break-them-up efforts 
occur (which is rarely), the big fish tend to find a way to eat the little 
fish, and in due course we’re back where we started. 

Take a look, for instance, at how fast bank concentration developed in recent 
years. The average size of US banks increased fivefold (measured in 
inflation-adjusted total assets) between 1984 and 2008, and the number of 
banks, correspondingly, dropped by more than 50 percent – from over fourteen 
thousand to barely seven thousand. In 1984, for instance, forty-two different 
banks held 25 percent of all US deposits.  By 2012 one-tenth that number – the 
top four (Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup) – held 
far more: 36.6 percent of all deposits.  

The power of big fish in general to regroup is hardly restricted to banking. 
When Standard Oil was broken up in 1911, the immediate effect was to replace a 
national monopoly with a number of regional monopolies controlled by many of 
the same Wall Street interests. Ultimately, the regional monopolies regrouped: 
In 1999 Exxon (formerly Standard Oil Company of New Jersey) and Mobil (formerly 
Standard Oil Company of New York) reconvened in one of the largest mergers in 
US history. In 1961 Kyso (formerly Standard Oil of Kentucky) was purchased by 
Chevron (formerly Standard Oil of California); and in the 1960s and 1970s Sohio 
(formerly Standard Oil of Ohio) was bought by British Petroleum (BP), which 
then, in 1998, merged with Amoco (formerly Standard Oil of Indiana). 

The tale of AT is similar. As the result of an antitrust settlement with the 
government, on January 1, 1984, AT spun off its local operations so as to 
create seven so-called Baby Bells. But the Baby Bells quickly began to merge 
and regroup. By 2006 four of the Baby Bells were reunited with their parent 
company AT, and two others (Bell Atlantic and NYNEX) merged to form Verizon. 
So the hope that you can make a banking break up stick (even if it were to be 
achieved) flies in the face of some pretty daunting experience. 
 
...Interestingly, the conservative founders of the Chicago School of Economics 
understood better than most liberals and progressives the general logic at work 
in situations involving really large and powerful corporate institutions. Even 
as the latter kept urging regulation or breakups, leading economists like Henry 
S. Simons cut to the heart of the matter. 

For one thing, Simons and his colleagues were clear about the economics 
involved. “Few of our gigantic corporations,” he wrote, “can be defended on the 
ground that their present size is necessary to reasonably full exploitation of 
production economies.” 

For another, they knew that the big fish could easily manipulate the 
regulators. Chicago School conservative and Nobel laureate George Stigler, for 
instance, demonstrated how regulation was commonly “designed and operated 
primarily for” the benefit of the industries involved. Numerous conservatives, 
including Simons, concluded that antitrust break-them-up efforts could also 
easily be managed by 

Re: [Marxism] The LIES about Stanford SJP

[Sheldon Ranz via Marxism]

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

It's not trolling if it's true.  And given my own clashes with you on this
list, my gut tells me Jeff is right on this issue.

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 10:32 AM, A.R. G via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> *
>
> How is this not trolling?
>
> On Saturday, April 30, 2016, Jeff via Marxism  >
> wrote:
>
> >   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
> > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> > *
> >
> >
>
> --
> - Amith
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/sranz18%40gmail.com
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] The LIES about Stanford SJP

[A.R. G via Marxism]

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

How is this not trolling?

On Saturday, April 30, 2016, Jeff via Marxism 
wrote:

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

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

[Marxism] The LIES about Stanford SJP

[Jeff via Marxism]

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

I wanted to address what appear to be slanders made against the Stanford
SJP chapter, and the misleading narrative regarding the conflict that arose
at the speaking event. As I said in my last post, this is only tangentially
related to Alison Weir:

At 16:23 30-04-16 +0200, Jeff wrote:
>...
>The reason Alison Weir was important in relation to the Stanford incident,
>is that her surprise appearance alerted the SJP members who invited the
>Palestinian speakers on tour to some irregularities, if you will, with the
>intentions of those hosting the tour. It might have just been a
>misunderstanding, but appears not to be, given the immediate hostile
>response by tour organizer Paul Larudee, as well as by Amith -- who wasn't
>even there! -- who jumped on it to prove some supposed political difference
>that he is trying to create. Obviously the Palestinian speakers didn't
>believe in the "legitimacy of Israel" (have you ever heard a Palestinian
>who does, excepting ones on the payroll of the PA?), and this has never
>been an issue before. I assume Stanford SJP has presented Palestinian
>speakers before, none of whom had any such belief, without problems
>arising. For a problem to arise at this incident didn't have to do with the
>Palestinian speaker and her views (who may well have been manipulated into
>a confrontation), but very well may be related to Alison Weir and the tour
>organizers. 

It appears that the conflict at the event played into, if not engineered to
bring out, existing disagreements that Amith and others have with the
mainstream Palestine solidarity movement including BDS which Amith has gone
out of his way to criticize in the past (without proposing any
alternative!). Specifically, and quoting directly, Amith claims:

>some SJPs are not anti-Zionist. Stanford SJP, for example, reaffirmed the 
>right of Israelis to self-determination and tried to distance itself from 
>the BDS movement in their divestment resolution.

So we have the following charges:

1) "Some" (e.g. Stanford) chapters of SJP are not even anti-zionist.
2) Stanford SJP support the "right of Israelis to self-determination".
3) Stanford SJP " tried to distance itself from the BDS movement" 


Alison Weir herself (see
http://www.shoah.org.uk/2016/04/16/palestinian-refugee-denied-free-speech-at
-stanford/) made an additional (though similar) statement from which I
obtain the following excerpts:

> students told her they objected to my views on “Israel’s right to exist”

>Amena questioned the Stanford students, who told her she could not give her 
> views on “Israel’s right to exist.”
 
>(By the way, it’s probably relevant to note that a committed Palestine 
>activist has written to me that this Stanford behavior seems to be part of a 
>problematic pattern with the current group, whose version of the divestment 
>resolution takes a liberal Zionist position: ignores refugees, dates the 
>injustice only from 1967, disavows BDS, and endorses Israeli 
>self-determination at the expense of Palestinians.) 

So from her we have the following additional charges:

4) "Students", presumably from the SJP, objected to the Palestinian
speaker's views (against) “Israel’s right to exist”.
 
5) Those students told the speaker she COULD NOT present those views.

6) The Stanford SJP (in their divestment resolution) "takes a liberal
Zionist position".

7) The Stanford SJP "ignores refugees".

8) The Stanford SJP "dates the injustice only from 1967".

And it "disavows BDS," similar to (3).

And it "endorses Israeli self-determination," as stated in (2)


I believe that all of these charges are LIES or extremely misleading
half-truths. I will deal with them one by one to the best of my knowledge,
but will not have time to go through all in this email.

LIE #1: The Stanford chapter of the SJP is not even anti-zionist.

That charge seems incredible. What else are they protesting when they speak
in the interests of Palestine, if not Zionism? If they weren't anti-zionist
they wouldn't have anything to do!. In their post about the event on
facebook, the Stanford SJP's statement mentions the University's
anti-semitism resolution, opposing "some other portions of the bill that
also conflate anti-Zionism and 
anti-Semitism." Now, if they were NOT anti-zionist, would they be going out
of their way to oppose the identification of anti-zionism with
anti-semitism? This charge is beyond credibility and without evidence.

LIE # 2: Stanford SJP supports the "right of Israelis to self-determination".

Again, saying that they support such a thing requires evidence. It
obviously isn't the point of the group which has to do with the
Palestinian's right to 

Re: [Marxism] Alison Weir

[Jeff via Marxism]

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

At 03:27 30-04-16 -0500, Kevin Lindemann and Cathy Campo via Marxism wrote:
>
>Yes. Omitting that part of the Stanford SJP's statement distorted the facts.

Thank you Kevin VERY MUCH for this more complete round-up of the issues
involving the division between the Palestine solidarity movement and the
anti-Israel right-wing, which underlie the conflict at the Stanford event!

I hadn't yet gotten around to it, but I will now start a new thread
challenging what I see as slanders against the Stanford SJP. I guess I need
to do that right now since it might be construed as another post about
Alison Weir (over whom discussion is cut-off), though mainly it isn't about
her or even the two organizations she leads. It is about the slander
campaign that appears to be led by Amith.

The reason Alison Weir was important in relation to the Stanford incident,
is that her surprise appearance alerted the SJP members who invited the
Palestinian speakers on tour to some irregularities, if you will, with the
intentions of those hosting the tour. It might have just been a
misunderstanding, but appears not to be, given the immediate hostile
response by tour organizer Paul Larudee, as well as by Amith -- who wasn't
even there! -- who jumped on it to prove some supposed political difference
that he is trying to create. Obviously the Palestinian speakers didn't
believe in the "legitimacy of Israel" (have you ever heard a Palestinian
who does, excepting ones on the payroll of the PA?), and this has never
been an issue before. I assume Stanford SJP has presented Palestinian
speakers before, none of whom had any such belief, without problems
arising. For a problem to arise at this incident didn't have to do with the
Palestinian speaker and her views (who may well have been manipulated into
a confrontation), but very well may be related to Alison Weir and the tour
organizers. 

Please refer to my next post.

- Jeff


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

[Marxism] Battle at Big Brown-Joe Allen's The Package King-review

[Ron Jacobs via Marxism]

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

http://stillhomeron.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-battle-at-big-brown-joe-allens.html

-- 
Check out my newest books , Daydream Sunset:60s Counterculture in the 70s
 and Can We Escape the Eternal Flame?

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

[Marxism] Fwd: Why a British Fight Over Israel and Anti-Semitism Matters to the Rest of Us

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

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

I haven't been paying close attention to this controversy but this 
article provides useful background.


https://theintercept.com/2016/04/29/british-fight-critics-israel-anti-semitism-matters-rest-us/
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Fwd: Visualizing inequality - bookforum.com / omnivore

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

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

Multiple links.

http://www.bookforum.com/blog/15986
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Fwd: Interview With João Pedro Stédile: “Dilma’s mistake was to promote class conciliation” – The Dawn

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

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

As an economist, apart of a leader to the peasants, could you explain 
how much the current economic crisis weighed in the current political 
crisis of Brazil?


The economic crisis is the reason why the class conciliation ceased to 
be possible, because when Lula was President, he designed a conciliation 
that was based on three pillars: firstly, to make the economy grow 
through industry (which he accomplished), secondly, to recover the role 
of the state of making productive investments such as education and 
health, to better the living conditions of the population and thirdly, 
to distribute the income through an increase in the minimum wage. What 
happened? With the international crisis of capitalism the economy of 
Brazil, as a country in the periphery of capitalism, suffered greatly, 
and for three years the economy hasn’t grown.


Twenty years ago industry represented 50 percent of our GNP and now, due 
to deindustrialization and the arrival of Chinese and US companies, 
national industry is only 9 percent of the GFP, and there’s a deep 
economic crisis that can only be solved by recovering, again, the role 
of the state, controlling financial capital so that instead of 
accumulating wealth through speculation, the state can use that money to 
make productive investments in the industry and agriculture, oriented 
towards the internal market. With that, the economy would grow again, 
and we’d have a new role for the workforce (because nowadays we have an 
unemployment rate of 10 percent) and we could have social programs again.


The political crisis we’re going through is a consequence of the elites 
trying to get back the state and restore neoliberalism, but the working 
class isn’t going to accept that. It’s going to take years to get out of 
this, because the only way out of a crisis of this magnitude is through 
an agreement between social classes —not just parties— over a new model 
of the country, that can be hegemonic in most of society.


And now, in this moment, there’s no project being discussed in the 
country, not even within any of the classes —neither the bourgeoisie nor 
the petite bourgeoisie, nor the working class have a clear project for 
the country, and that’s why we’re in this confusion and why the 
bourgeoisie is stupid enough —because they’re subordinated to the 
interests of imperialism— to think it’s enough to change the President 
of the Republic to magically solve the problems of the economy, but 
that’s not true. On the contrary, that would deepen the contradictions 
of inequality, deepen the institutional crisis and, hopefully, send the 
masses back on the streets so that they, with their political force, 
debate a new project for the country.


full: 
http://www.thedawn-news.org/2016/04/26/interview-with-joao-pedro-stedile-dilmas-mistake-was-to-promote-class-conciliation/

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

[Marxism] Ilya Budraitskis: Putrefaction as the Laboratory of Life (The 2016 Elections)

[Thomas Campbell via Marxism]

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

A compelling analysis by Ilya Budraitskis of the Russian parliamentary
elections in September:

"Marx said that putrefaction is the laboratory of life. Now we see how
Putinist capitalism has embarked on a process of gradual self-destruction.
The upcoming elections provide a clear picture of how this has been
facilitated by two opposing rationales, the political rationale (Volodin
and the presidential administration) and the law enforcement rationale.
Thus, the first rationale, in order to generate the necessary momentum and
expand the range of opinions, must respond to social discontent by
providing United Russia’s managed opponents with greater freedom to
criticize. Restoring the internal political balance will inevitably lead to
the fact that topics related to the crisis and the government’s anti-social
policies will become the centerpiece of the entire election campaign. On
the other hand, the security forces will destabilize the situation outside
parliament. Together, they will do much more to undermine an already-flawed
system than the long-term, deliberate efforts of any western intelligence
agency."

Read the entire article at:
https://therussianreader.wordpress.com/2016/04/30/budraitskis-putrefaction-2016-elections/
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Fwd: 'Neo-Maoist' higher ed is gaining ground in China

[Gary MacLennan via Marxism]

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

As someone who has taught at a tertiary Institution in China (admittedly a
provincial and not very prestigious one!) I find  this extremely
interesting.  I was in China for all of 1990.  The climate was marked by
post Tienanmen Square tension, and the prestige of the Communist Party and
Marxist ideas  was very low indeed.  There was also a very dominant
rejection of Maoist type aesthetics among the students.  Both staff and
students placed emphasis on the formal features of poetry such as meter and
rhyme. These are of course the features that most people find boring or
uninteresting.  But my students had had enough of social content and
context. So my lectures on the sociology of poetry were regarded as a great
disappointment.

I did though score heavily with my rendering of Blake's Tyger. when asked
to do a guest lecture on a course on English poetry.  I had been told that
Ginsberg had a triumph with his reading of this in his visit to Beijing. He
did not understand though the source of the triumph and in his following
lectures he brought up the subject of homosexuality and even I was told
drew diagrams.  His audience were suitably shocked.  My informant who had
been there did not elaborate on the content of the drawings and I was
afraid to inquire.

In any case I did what I thought was an imitation of Ginsberg reading
Tyger, Tyger. I have since had the occasion to listen to a tape of Ginsberg
reading Blake and I doubt very much if there was any similarity at all
between our renderings of the great poem. But we take our triumphs where we
find them and my version of the poem did to some extent make up for the
abysmal flop of my lecture series.

comradely

Gary

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Louis Proyect via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> *
>
> “Over the past decade or so, there’s been a push on the part of the
> Chinese Communist Party to retell its origin story, its founding myths,”
> Blanchette says.
>
> One plank of this plan has been an effort to revive the study of Marxism,
> partly to counter the spread of liberal and religious thought. Last year,
> Peking University began the construction of a new building to house its
> Marxism department -- ironically funded by a bank.
>
> full:
> https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/29/neo-maoist-higher-ed-gaining-ground-china
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/gary.maclennan1%40gmail.com
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Alison Weir

[Kevin Lindemann and Cathy Campo via Marxism]

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

Kevin Lindemann wrote

> Others, like Paul Stewart

I meant Andrew Stewart.

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

[Marxism] New Swedish Realism

[Daniel Lindvall via Marxism]

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

This is a short piece about how a series of first time directors have renewed 
Swedish cinema during the last decade, and come to dominate the ”Swedish 
Oscars” in a rather extraordinary manner, with films that have renewed the 
social realist tradition, while often drawing on the rapidly growing class 
divide in my native country. It might be interesting for anyone wishing to 
catch up with the best of the last decade’s Swedish cinema (which is not, in my 
opinion, the internationally acclaimed films of Roy Andersson or Ruben Östlund, 
that the cineastes among you might be aware of).

http://www.versopolis.com/review/59/new-swedish-realism




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

Re: [Marxism] Alison Weir

[Kevin Lindemann and Cathy Campo via Marxism]

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

Ken Hiebert wrote:

> We now have a more accurate statement 
> of the facts. According to SJP, "...
> it is important to note that Ms. Weir did 
> nothing to challenge these assertions by Mr. 
> Douglas and has in fact repeatedly stated her 
> belief that Mr. Douglas is not racist, violent, 
> or anti-Semitic."

Yes. Omitting that part of the Stanford SJP's statement distorted the facts. I 
will let others decide whether the distortion was deliberate. The point is, as 
DW said, Weir "refuses to take up blatant anti-Jewish bigotry when it's thrown 
in her face on the many right-wing, tea-party like radio stations she appears 
onShe simply sits there and avoids confronting such bigotry." I would add, 
though, that it is not not only a matter of "blatant anti-Jewish bigotry." Weir 
generally doesn't challenge racism of any kind. The most charitable thing one 
can say about that is perhaps she sees that as the price she has to pay to get 
appearances on white supremacist and anti-Semitic talk shows.

Some of Weir's defenders, e.g., Paul Larudee, deny that, insisting that Weir is 
an "antiracist writer, speaker, and activist." Others, like Paul Stewart, 
defend her as "a single-issue policy advocate" whose role "requires...one 
speaks with parties on both sides of the aisle to make any real headway in 
their efforts." He likens it to Ralph Nader making a speech at the Chamber of 
Commerce.

But Weir's appearances on racist and anti-Semitic radio programs are not like 
Nader speaking before the Chamber of Commerce. Alison Weir and If Americans 
Knew believe that the "Israel Lobby" and "Zionists" control the US 
government--not the capitalist ruling class who support Israel as its proxy and 
gendarme--and fascists and anti-Semites agree with her. That is not speaking 
"on both side of the aisle." That is preaching to the choir.

Yes, Weir's line appeals to some Palestinians. Why? I think what Joseph Massad 
wrote about Mearsheimer and Walt is relevant here:

"In the last 25 years, many Palestinians and other Arabs, in the United States 
and in the Arab world, have been so awed by the power of the US pro-Israel 
lobby that any study, book, or journalistic article that exposes the inner 
workings, the substantial influence, and the financial and political power of 
this lobby have been greeted with ecstatic sighs of relief that Americans 
finally can see the 'truth' and the 'error' of their ways. 

"The underlying argument has been simple and has been told time and again by 
Washington's regime allies in the Arab world, pro-US liberal and Arab 
intellectuals, conservative and liberal US intellectuals and former 
politicians, and even leftist Arab and American activists who support 
Palestinian rights, namely, that absent the pro- Israel lobby, America would at 
worst no longer contribute to the oppression of Arabs and Palestinians and at 
best it would be the Arabs' and the Palestinians' best ally and friend."

As Massad says, that "gives false hope to many Arabs and Palestinians who wish 
America would be on their side instead of on the side of their enemies." That 
is the role that Alison Weir and If Americans Knew play in the Palestine 
solidarity movement. Does one have to be a Marxist to see that their influence 
is pernicious? I don't think so.

A.R. G. wants us to believe that the Stanford JVP's concerns about Weir were 
"very vague, very dishonest, and very attenuated, *audience-related* (A.R.G.'s 
emphasis). That is false. She didn't just happen to be in the audience. One of 
Weir's defenders, the tour coordinator, Paul Larudee, asked her to bring her 
"excellent written materials" and coach one of the speakers on "reaching 
American audiences." In other words, he invited her to participate in the event 
and help shape its content.

Larudee wants to believe that he and the other organizers of the tour "had no 
idea that [Weir] would turn out to be an issue." As I said before, that defies 
credulity. Given the controversy surrounding Weir and given Larudee's past 
support for her, it is hard not to see his invitation to Weir as a deliberate 
provocation.

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

Re: [Marxism] Assessing the work of Palestine solidarity acivists

[A.R. G via Marxism]

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

First let's define success. It's worth noting that virtually all of the
divestment resolutions have been symbolic, and quite a few have even
explicitly disowned BDS. Stanford SJP is holding up the torch of corruption
yet again:

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/02/stanford-divestment-landslide/

"The resolution states that the Undergraduate Senate is* not connected to
the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement* and *affirms both
Israelis and Palestinians’ rights to life, safety, and self-determination.*"

Worth noting that the actual text of the resolution also begins the
entirety of the conflict in 1967, throwing Palestinian refugees (like the
ones they silenced) under the bus.

A recent NYU Grad Student Union resolution was actually much better and
actually endorsed BDS and the rights of refugees:
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/nyu-and-umass-graduate-employee-unions-vote-to-divest-from-israeli-apartheid/

But none of these actually move money. In fact the companies that have
actually pulled investments out of settlements and the like are facing
financial penalties and legislative attacks.

BDS is raising awareness and political consciousness but there is no actual
follow-through as of yet. In the time that BDS has exploded, US support for
Israel has increased. Politically, Israel has less popular support and is
more subject to criticism (we saw that from both Bernie and to a much
smaller extent, Trump), but it isn't having any meaningful political
consequences on the ground in Palestine as of yet.

In my view many of the Western activists have made this into a livelihood
rather than a moral calling. As a result, Palestine solidarity activist
groups are highly averse to taking meaningful risks and very unlikely to
meaningfully challenge entrenched racism out of fear, cowardice, reputation
concerns, and of course, donor pressure. The answer in my view is to have
greater working class and migrant involvement in the Palestinian cause.
Right now it's almost entirely ritzy university students and NGOs.

In my experience the people from those backgrounds (working class
immigrants, particularly Muslim-Americans and/or African-Americans) are
less likely to have the same kind of garbage politics that you have seen
corrupting the liberal Palestine solidarity circles. While none of these
communities are anti-Semitic (despite the incessant slurs against them)
most of them are genuinely concerned about racism and in my experience very
few of them go around witch-hunting for Jew-hatred. They are not trying to
pander to the media or to what liberal white/Jewish people want to hear.
And yet they have significant numbers and organizational potential. I think
a successful Palestine solidarity movement would function around organizing
members of those communities and the org that I am currently working with
is trying to do just that.

But ultimately I think it will ultimately matter very little what Palestine
solidarity activists in the West do. They/we are not as important as
they/we think.

I also think this article sums up some of the most important
contradictions:
http://www.warscapes.com/opinion/bds-10-years-anti-colonial-demands-liberal-framework







- Amith

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 2:06 AM, Ken Hiebert via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> *
>
> From the outside it appears to me that the Palestine solidarity movement
> in the U. S. is weak and fragmented.   The situation in Canada is not much
> different.
> Nevertheless, there have been some small successes for Palestine
> solidarity work in the US.
> These include endorsements of BDS by student associations, academic groups
> and even some small union groups.
> Which groups can take responsibility for these successes?  What can we
> learn from them?
> ken h
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/amithrgupta%40gmail.com
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com