[Marxism] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[Hans G Ehrbar 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.
*


David Walters writes:

> Hans in a previous response argues that the carbon is still put into the
> environment. I argue "yes, but it's returned". Thus cattle raising this way
> is what is called carbon-neutral.

and David Riley writes:

> our agricultural systems ... are potentially one of the best tools we have
> on hand to CONSCIOUSLY reverse some of the climate consequences that
> have already registered

This reversal allegedly happens by taking carbon out of the atmosphere.
But empirically there is no reversal of prior damage.  The concentration
of CO2 in the atmosphere is accelerating.  The Mauna Loa CO2
concentration rose by 2.27 ppm from July 2014 to July 2015, and by 3.08
ppm from July 2015 to July 2016.  See
https://www.co2.earth/keeling-curve-monthly

This email is an attempt to explain why I don't think this so-called
"return" of the carbon into the top soil is satisfactory.  It cannot be
considered a reversal of the damage done by digging up fossil fuels.

I am going to start with Adam and Eve.  The most important step
necessary to prevent dangerous climate change is the de-carbonization of
the world economy.  This means the extraction of additional fossil fuels
out of the ground must be stopped as quickly as possible.

The right way to do this is to do the research which tells us the upper
limit of fossil fuels that can still be burned, establish a schedule
when to phase out which power plants and refineries, replace the phased
out fossil power plants as quickly as possible with renewable power
generation, and re-build the transportation system so that it can run on
electricity or renewable fuels.  Since renewables cannot be scaled up
quickly enough to replace the fossil fueled power plants, and since also
the re-building of the transportation system takes time, this requires
that people in the rich countries must use much less energy and travel
less.  The poor countries must leapfrog fossil fuels and give their
populations access to renewable energy and sustainable transportation
and communication systems from the start.


This is the simple remedy to climate change which ecosocialists should
promote.  It is a prudent retreat from the overconsumption in the rich
countries.  I deliberately left out two things:

(1) Nuclear Energy should not be used but should also phased out despite
its low carbon footprint.

(2) Extraction of carbon out of the air and putting it deep underground
as well as other geo-engineering methods should also not be relied on.

Why should they be left out?  Because our goal must be to live more in
harmony in nature instead of trying to subjugate nature even more.


The Kyoto Protocol negotiated the first phase of this world wide
de-carbonization.  They did not pursue the simple and "right" way which
I just described, but diluted it by several "flexible mechanisms" as
sweeteners in order to get buy-in from profit-seeking capitalists.  One
of these flexible mechanisms, which certain countries insisted on, was
that extraction of fossil fuels could be balanced by afforestation and
other land use changes.  This was a diplomatic concession which has no
basis in science.  Carbon in the top soil is part of the fast carbon
cycle, while fossil fuels are part of the slow carbon cycle.  Changes in
the fast cycle cannot undo the damage caused by the man-made injection
of carbon from the slow cycle into the atmosphere.  Other flexible
mechanisms are cap and trade, Clean Development Mechanisms, and Joint
Implementation.  All of them are different ways to avoid phasing out
fossil fuels under different pretexts.

My advice to ecosocialists is to reject all these flexible mechanisms,
because they try to conserve capitalism at the expense of the ecological
basis of human life.  Ecosocialists are materialists.  Our goal is to
get enough control of our social relations that we can do certain things
which capitalists don't like.  We are not going to to follow the growth
imperative until the basis for human civilization is destroyed, and we
also have to replace a very dysfunctional industrial agricultural
system.  Etc.  And we do not use land use improvements as an excuse for
not phasing out fossil fuels.

P.S. I am not opposed to afforestation and agricultural practices which
keep as much carbon as possible in the top soil.  This is called REDD++
or REALU or AFOLU, and something along these lines certainly must be
done.  But it should not be tied to the phasing out of fossil fuels.
These are two different things which should not be thrown into the same
pot.  Both of them must be done.  Dave Riley tries to trade them off
against each other.  This is a category error, it is a 

Re: [Marxism] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[Ratbag Media 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'm not saying eat chicken rather than beef or beef rather than
pork..or animals rather than beans. I'm not talking about consumption
so much as ecology.

If you review the carbon farming figures they are impressive as
regards drawing down atmospheric carbon. And given that even if we
ceased the output of most of our carbon emissions today we'd still be
stuck with the ever rising impact of those that have been  pumped out
so much over the last 200 years.

That's the nub of the issue. Not only are our agricultural systems
unsustainable but they are potentially one of the best tools we have
on hand to CONSCIOUSLY reverse some of the climate consequences that
have already registered.

What that means for CONSUMPTION is an open question...but we really do
need to begin the transition NOW.

Simple measures are things like moving livestock back into
horticultural areas  to feed on crop residues and adjusting grazing
habitats in line with rotational protocols. This latter aspect is
taking off in Australia, North America and parts of Africa. the added
advantage is that grasses survive droughts better because the elevated
SOC and aquifers hold more water.

Crucial to that is the business of what's called 'rewilding'  -- where
sections of farms are returned to ungrazed native vegetation cover.
This can  also be akin to the various agroforestry approaches like
Silvopasture. However, the main rationale is to sustain diversity and
reverse species loss while fostering habitats and species that service
productive agriculture and grazing.



dave riley
_
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] An Open Letter From Mr. Trump

[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.
*

(If there is anything good coming out of this rancid campaign, it is 
that it has inspired Maureen Dowd to write some memorable columns.)


NY Times Op-Ed, August 21 2016
An Open Letter From Mr. Trump
by Maureen Dowd

To Whom It May Concern:

Trump is sorry. Trump is humble. Trump is scared. Trump doesn’t want to 
get crushed.


So if I have offended anyone, or because I have offended everyone, I’m 
sorry.


I’m sorry that I realized too late that all the great put-downs that 
helped me put away the 16 dwarfs don’t translate well to the general 
election.


I’m sorry that I’m causing the Republicans to lose control of the Senate 
and I’m sorry they wish I’d never been born.


I’m really not that sorry to be causing trouble for Paul Ryan, who’s 
going to lose seats in the House. He’s a prig and I wish he had lost his 
primary to that tattooed guy who likes me.


I’m sorry I pretended I was going to release my tax returns. Of course I 
didn’t pay any taxes. I have the all-time greatest real estate 
deductions and depreciations.


I’m sorry I asked African-Americans “What do you have to lose by 
supporting me?” in front of a crowd of white people. I’m sorry I can 
never find my African-American.


I’m sorry I continue lying about my wild gesticulations mocking a 
disabled reporter at the failing New York Times. And I’m really sorry 
that Hillary’s super PAC used it in an ad and made me look like an oaf.


I’m sorry I have to sacrifice so much to make America great again. No 
one would believe the hatred spewed at me on Twitter. It’s amazing how 
much super-nasty stuff can be packed into 140 characters. Cyberbullying 
stinks. I’m sorry Al Gore invented the internet.


I’m sorry, given how horribly I’m doing with women, that I need Roger 
Ailes to help me with the debates and my post-campaign media company. 
Many people are saying we should call it the “We Only Hire Foxes” network.


I’m sorry I didn’t google Paul Manafort and see that he had more shady 
Russian connections than a James Bond villain. I’m also sorry I had to 
cut him loose. He had a lot of experience propping up dictators. But 
Paul didn’t know how to play the Trumpet. He had these old-fashioned 
ideas that when I bravely took on the Khans and that rude baby at the 
rally that I was punching below my weight. And he didn’t appreciate the 
genius of my taco bowl tweet.


Speaking of tacos, I’m sorry nobody understood why a Mexican judge could 
not be fair to me because of the wall. Isn’t it obvious why a 
Mexican-American is the same as a Mexican but a German-Scottish American 
is a pure American?


I hated to ship Paul off to Siberia. But Jared and Corey told me I 
couldn’t get swept up in an international money-laundering scandal while 
I was accusing Hillary of doing favors at State for a money launderer 
and Clinton Foundation donor.


Paul will be fine. I’m sure that the $12 million he got for guiding the 
Russian puppet in Ukraine and plotting to annex Crimea — wherever that 
is — was just a taste of what’s in his offshore bank account.


I’m sorry everyone is calling my new campaign C.E.O., Steve Bannon, the 
“Most Dangerous Man in America.” That’s my job. And I’m sorry that 
everyone is disgusted that I hired the guy who made Breitbart a white 
nationalist manifesto. The website is right-wing and right: White 
European immigrants like Melania, good. Third Worlders demanding 
welfare, bad. Close the borders and expel the invaders. #WinterIsComing.


The coolest thing is, when Steve was an investment banker, he got a 
stake in “Seinfeld” and made millions. So now I have my very own soup Nazi!


People just have to get used to going from dapper Paul to stubbled 
Bannon in his wrinkled cargo shorts. He looks like he just stepped out 
of a vat of Guinness. Roger Stone was right to put him on his 
Worst-Dressed List. I’ll get him squared away with some Trump suits and 
ties from China.


Steve and I have so much in common. We both love crazy conspiracy 
theories, like the one Bannon peddles about Huma being tied to the 
Islamic group who funded 9/11. I’m sorry Huma is posing for Vogue 
instead of keeping her husband, the pervert, from sexting online again.


I’m sorry that it doesn’t matter who runs my campaign because I always 
speak with myself, No. 1, because I have a very good brain and I’m very 
rich.


I’m sorry that while I’m being too honest, Crooked Hillary is never 
really sorry for all her lies and illegal operations. She’s like Lyin’ 
Lochte, just sorry she got caught. Hearing her apologize is as likely as 
seeing those 33,000 yoga emails.


I’m sorry the Clintons didn’t realize until now how bad it was to be 
using 

[Marxism] Fwd: Exclusive: How Ukraine Wooed Conservative Websites - BuzzFeed News

[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.
*

So interesting how the Party of Regions was defended as the true leftist 
party by people on CounterPunch while at the same time it was paying off 
rightwing scumbag bloggers to boost its reputation.


https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/exclusive-how-ukraine-wooed-conservative-websites
_
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] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[DW 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.
*

Hans asks a good question, though he's unfair to Dave Riley and myself
because at no point did either Dave or say or argue that this is the end
all and be all of climate change. I posted a single link to a video that
shows a healthier way (for the soil and, consequently, for the planet) to
farm. Thats' it. It wasn't the worlds answer to climate change but only one
facet of it. And yes, if all cattle raising the world was done this way,
it's a net gain, that is, lower, not higher methane and, CO2 emissions.
And, people can still have a hamburger or steak. I call that a 'win-win'.

Hans in a previous response argues that the carbon is still put into the
environment. I argue "yes, but it's returned". Thus cattle raising this way
is what is called carbon-neutral. In fact if you read the Aussie Socialist
Alternative link Dave provided on agriculture (and I don't agree with
some/much of it) you'll see it's a serious proposal to reorganize
agricultural away from large commercialization. That's a good thing, not a
bad thing, Hans. Is it enough? No, no one thing is enough. But it's also
*rational*. It doesn't require universal buy in from everyone. Like meat
eaters (most of humanity)...it doesn't require us to become vegans (thank
the gods!). It allows for a phased change in agriculture that is both
useful, environmentally friendly and sane. It also doesn't argue that "we
use too much", the ultra position of the Western green movement. It points
to a lower carbon steady state economy. It doesn't' do another thing like
the angry gnat buzzing around our ears but is impossible to catch: it
doesn't require lowering the planet's population either. And that's just
the SA ag program!

Where I likely departs from Hans and Dave Riley is over energy, since I
also note that solar/wind crazed Germany has not replaced a single coal
plant with either wind or solar but instead built up coal and, to
substitute for some nuclear (which is low carbon) they've built scads of
natural gas plants all throughout Germany. From an emissions POV, Germany
(and Denmark) are utter failures. Without a serious paradigm shift to
nuclear, zero of Han's wishes will ever come to pass, despite all the "100%
fossil/nuclear free" papers written...the proof is that not a single thing
has changed.

Hans points out that while we get better at point specific carbon emissions
(better gas mileage cars, lower CO2 output from air transport) the overall
rate goes up as more people employ these methods of transportation. I
agree, this is a problem. Gee, Hans, what do you suggest we do? I'm for
actual solutions, such as sythetic fuels made from atmospheric CO2 like DME
_
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] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[DW 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.
*

Hans asks a good question, though he's unfair to Dave Riley and myself
because at no point did either Dave or say or argue that this is the end
all and be all of climate change. I posted a single link to a video that
shows a healthier way (for the soil and, consequently, for the planet) to
farm. Thats' it. It wasn't the worlds answer to climate change but only one
facet of it. And yes, if all cattle raising the world was done this way,
it's a net gain, that is, lower, not higher methane and, CO2 emissions.
And, people can still have a hamburger or steak. I call that a 'win-win'.

Hans in a previous response argues that the carbon is still put into the
environment. I argue "yes, but it's returned". Thus cattle raising this way
is what is called carbon-neutral. In fact if you read the Aussie Socialist
Alternative link Dave provided on agriculture (and I don't agree with
some/much of it) you'll see it's a serious proposal to reorganize
agricultural away from large commercialization. That's a good thing, not a
bad thing, Hans. Is it enough? No, no one thing is enough. But it's also
*rational*. It doesn't require universal buy in from everyone. Like meat
eaters (most of humanity)...it doesn't require us to become vegans (thank
the gods!). It allows for a phased change in agriculture that is both
useful, environmentally friendly and sane. It also doesn't argue that "we
use too much", the ultra position of the Western green movement. It points
to a lower carbon steady state economy. It doesn't' do another thing like
the angry gnat buzzing around our ears but is impossible to catch: it
doesn't require lowering the planet's population either. And that's just
the SA ag program!

Where I likely departs from Hans and Dave Riley is over energy, since I
also note that solar/wind crazed Germany has not replaced a single coal
plant with either wind or solar but instead built up coal and, to
substitute for some nuclear (which is low carbon) they've built scads of
natural gas plants all throughout Germany. From an emissions POV, Germany
(and Denmark) are utter failures. Without a serious paradigm shift to
nuclear, zero of Han's wishes will ever come to pass, despite all the "100%
fossil/nuclear free" papers written...the proof is that not a single thing
has changed.

Hans points out that while we get better at point specific carbon emissions
(better gas mileage cars, lower CO2 output from air transport) the overall
rate goes up as more people employ these methods of transportation. I
agree, this is a problem. Gee, Hans, what do you suggest we do? I'm for
actual solutions, such as synthetic fuels made from atmospheric CO2 like
DME or Dimethyl Ether (http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/emerging_dme.html)
or ammonia or H2 and more importantly, electricity powered not by gas and
coal generated electricity but carbon free nuclear energy (France, not
Germany). We do have to get serious, but banning automobiles is not going
to work. It can't work, actually. Societies as a whole are not going to use
less, they are going to use more. At least most societies are. Even if
population were to drop at the rate it's increasing now, we will need a lot
more energy to produce low GHG emissions from the commodities we use today.
The left has to start understanding that or their "ecosocialism" will end
up being a sad joke and take us not to a new dawn for humanity but a sunset
followed by night time of poverty, war and scarcity.

David
_
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: Jenny Turner · Who Are They?: The Institute of Ideas · LRB 8 July 2010

[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.
*

Amusing take on the Spiked Online gang.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n13/jenny-turner/who-are-they
_
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] Red, Black, but Not Green: Green Party Challenges in the Black Community

[Clay Claiborne 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.
*

Found this while researching the Green Party. I found it a very educational
read, if somewhat dated. Has much changed since 2006?

Also I found it most interesting that in 2004 the Green Party pursued a
"safe-states" strategy to keep Bush, who was not openly aligned with the
the KKK and didn't have black people thrown out of his events,  from
winning, but in 2016 when all that and more applies to Trump, they have
shifted to a pro-Trump oppose Clinton everywhere strategy.

http://www.leftturn.org/red-black-not-green-green-party-challenges-black-community

a few excerpts:

By:
>  Roger White
> Date Published:
>  October 01, 2006
>
> Black voters in the US are like all other voters here with one exception.
> Many of our ancestors had to die for the right to vote for the lesser of
> two evils. Naturally, we want our votes not only to count (no slam dunk) we
> want them to make a difference. Because Blacks are not an electoral
> majority in any state or nationally, maximizing the worth of our choices by
> being a part of an electoral coalition that has a real chance to win power
> is a priority.
>
> Black voters tend to register their anger and frustration at the political
> status quo simply by not voting, not by supporting third parties.
>
> This wasn’t always the case. 100 years ago over one million Blacks,
> primarily from the south and west, played a critical role in the rise of
> the Populist Party—a mass based third-party movement that sought to hold
> the northern industrialist establishment politically accountable for
> dropping crop prices and predatory monetary practices. At first white
> populist leaders like Tom Watson from Georgia advocated for racial unity in
> the struggle against the railroads and the banks. But after a populist
> split in 1896, Watson and other white party functionaries betrayed Black
> Populists and either defected to the Democrats or sat silent as they and
> white southern vigilantes reimposed white supremacy through
> disenfranchisement and mob violence. Black populist leaders and supporters
> were killed. We learned our lesson. This was the last time any multiracial
> third party enjoyed support by the masses of Blacks.
>
The environmental, peace, and third world solidarity movements from the
> 1970s and 80s, the grassroots of the US Green Party, has always represented
> a policy majority and a cultural minority—a minority that Black activists
> found it difficult to relate to.
>

What do white activists do when there aren’t enough dark people in the
> room? Outreach.
>
> Set up a table at the public university in town. Pass out fliers for the
> next meeting at the Saturday morning flea market. E-mail blasts to
> activist- of -color list-serves. Whatever works. Problem is—that shit don’t
> work. Moreover, white activists know that shit don’t work. But they get a
> double bonus. They can pretend to be doing something “pro-active” to bring
> in colored folks with the knowledge that few if any colored folks are
> coming in—at least not to stay (they’ve been known to slip out right before
> the vegan pot-luck). Multiracial organizing is not easy. Doing it in bad
> faith makes it harder.
>
> Another problem is proximity. The Green Party is heavily influenced by
> three main demographics—educated, urban, nonprofit activists; educated,
> university town professionals; and well-to-do hippies in the exurbs. All
> three bases of support have organizations and social networks that provide
> the party with multiple, reinforcing contacts with potential recruits,
> volunteers and leaders very few of whom happen to be Black. Although
> environmental justice organizations like Project Underground and Green
> Action have been doing great work in Black communities, the Green Party has
> little institutional infrastructure there. The DC Statehood Green Party is
> one of a few exceptions.
>
Furthermore, the party’s ties with the Black church, the hub of Black
> political and social activity, are non-existent. Whether this is because of
> old style party defense of political turf on the part of the Democrats or
> the subtle contempt that some green progressives have towards religion, the
> failure of the Party to build relations to this central Black institution
> is at the heart of its failure to reach the Black electorate.
>
> Organizational inclusiveness can not be achieved by reaching out. It can
> only be achieved by getting up, going to where the struggles for human
> dignity and justice are being waged and fighting with the marginalized.
>

Clay Claiborne, Director
Vietnam: American Holocaust 
Linux Beach Productions
Venice, CA 90291

[Marxism] Haaretz: 'Why Jewish Conservatives Fear Donald Trump'

[Paul Flewers 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 received the article below via Moshé Machover, it's behind the Haaretz
pay-wall. An exchange between Moshé and I follows on from it.

Paul F

* * *

Peter Beinart, 'Why Jewish Conservatives Fear Donald Trump: Because he
represents a brand of nationalism that doesn’t really include them'

George Will once wrote that Barry Goldwater actually won the 1964 presidential
election. It just “took 16 years” — until the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980
— “to count the votes.” It’s time to update that line. Pat Buchanan actually won
the Republican nomination in 1996. It just took 20 years — until the nomination
of Donald Trump — to count the votes.

Although it’s been largely forgotten, the early 1990s were a period of
intellectual crisis inside the GOP. For much of the 20th century, conservatives
had urged “the West” to resist Soviet communism. But when Soviet communism
collapsed, two different groups of conservatives realized that they meant two
different things by “the West.” The party’s “neoconservative” intellectuals —
many of them Jews — defined the West ideologically: as the bastion of democratic
capitalism. Buchanan, by contrast, along with many rank and file conservatives,
defined the West ethnically: as the bastion of white Christianity.

These two different interpretations led to radically different foreign policies.
The “neocons” wanted take advantage of the USSR’s collapse to spread democracy
and free markets, if necessary by force. The Buchananites, quoting John Quincy
Adams, wondered why Americans should go overseas “in search of monsters to
destroy.” And they wondered whether global capitalism really benefitted ordinary
Americans anyway. The neocons defended the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA); the Buchananites denounced it. Neocons like William Kristol and Robert
Kagan urged the United States to take up arms to defend Bosnia and Kosovo
against Serbian aggression. The Buchananites asked why, exactly, the United
States should wage war for Muslims fighting Christians.

The divide culminated in 1996, when Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary. GOP
elites, he gleefully declared, “are in a terminal panic. They hear the shouts of
the peasants from over the hill. All the knights and barons will be riding into
the castle pulling up the drawbridge in a minute. All the peasants are coming
with pitchforks.” The knights and barons counterattacked, and managed to
nominate Bob Dole. Then, in the years that followed, Republicans papered over
their differences. They united in an attempt to impeach Bill Clinton. They
united in vengeance after the September 11 attacks. They united to oppose Barack
Obama.  

But below the surface, the balance inside the party shifted. After 2000, wages
stagnated, which led more Republicans to doubt the benefits of global trade. The
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan became quagmires, which led more Republicans to
doubt the benefits of foreign war. And Barack Obama’s election induced a panic
about America’s changing demographic character. All these factors strengthened
the Buchananites, even as Buchanan himself faded into obscurity.

Which brings us to Trump and the Jews. Name the conservative movement’s most
passionate Trump opponents, and you’ll notice that Jews — Bill Kristol, David
Brooks, David Frum, Robert Kagan, Jonah Goldberg, Max Boot, Bret Stephens, Dan
Senor, Jennifer Rubin — are heavily overrepresented. The primary reason is that
most Jewish conservatives find Trump’s brand of nationalism alarming. Trump
doesn’t see the “West” as worth defending on ideological grounds. Like Buchanan,
he thinks America’s key allies rip us off. He can’t see any reason why America
should spend money and risk lives defending the Baltic States — just because
they’re democracies — against Russia. For Trump, like Buchanan, the West matters
only as a religious and racial entity. Muslim immigration, Trump claims, is
“destroying Europe” and “I’m not going to let that happen to the United States.”
Jewish conservatives want to expand the West’s frontiers in the name of
prosperity, security and freedom. Trump, by contrast, wants the West to close
its doors to keep the Muslim hordes out. 

Jewish conservatives don’t only find this frightening because they fear what may
happen overseas if the U.S. withdraws. They also fear what may happen at home.
For many American Jews, the isolationism of the 1930s connotes anti-Semitism. It
evokes figures like Charles Lindbergh, Joseph Kennedy Sr. and Father Coughlin,
all of whom used Jew-hatred to justify appeasing Hitler. Trump, by resurrecting
the slogan of Lindbergh’s America First Committee, which opposed U.S. entry into
World War II, plays 

[Marxism] Article on US Right-Wing Intellectuals

[Paul Flewers 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 article on US right-wing intellectuals appeared in the Guardian this week <
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/aug/16/secret-history-trumpism-donald-trump
>.

Below are some lines I wrote to a pal in New York when she asked me about the
possibilities for this political trend:

'I think that conservatism, not least of this brand, could make a revival. We
are seeing a reaction against neo-liberalism in the form of the reassertion of
the nation-state: calls for immigration controls, import substitution through
the defence of indigenous industry, etc. That's what's behind Trumpery and the
various right-wing nationalist forces across Europe. It was to a large degree
the push behind the anti-EU vote here. These forces have no answer, there is no
national solution to the crisis, but that will not prevent them from making a
lot of noise and winning elections. Trump probably won't get elected, but Mrs Le
Pen might in France. And even if they don't, they still represent large numbers
of angry people looking for a way out.

'Is there a future for right-wing conservative intellectuals? Almost certainly:
we've seen right through the last decades more than traces of calls for
traditional mores, etc, and opposition to 'cosmopolitan', 'politically correct'
liberalism. That liberalism is in part the ideological reflection of neo-liberal
economic policies; nationalist economic policies will necessarily be reflected
ideologically in patriotism and all the rest. How far all the old right-wing
prejudices will bubble up -- that I don't know, but I'm afraid that it will to
some degree or another.

'What I do feel is that the rise of Trumpery and similar things in Europe will
encourage old-style conservatism to come increasingly into the open. These guys
will never form a mass movement, but they will gain confidence with the rise of
Trumpery, they will form some sort of symbiotic relationship with it. I don't
think that Trumpery is a flash in the pan, even if Trump is: there is a real
basis for angry nationalism as neo-liberalism continues to bite hard on many
people. The German right-wing conservative thinkers did not have an easy
relationship with the Nazis; they did not like the rowdy, uncultured,
lower-class aspects of the Nazis. But in the run-up to 1933 they fed off each
other. So I think there will be a relationship, symbiotic but uneasy, between
Trumpery and conservatism; the latter giving theoretical shape to the former,
the former giving confidence to the latter, encouraging it to be more bold in
opposing liberal norms.'
_
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] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[Hans G Ehrbar 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.
*


After a link to statistics which say that

> beef consumption has been pretty stable in countries like the US
> but it is chicken that has really grown in patronage

Dave Riley asks:

> Do we all eat too much meat?

Behind the rhetoric which switches from beef to meat and from growth
rates to averages, I think Dave's point is that it is better to eat
chicken than beef.  Yes it is a good thing, just as it is a good thing
that the carbon footprint of air travel has been falling by 1% per year
for many years now, and that electricity generation in the US is
switching from coal to natural gas.  Each of these is good, but they do
not add up.  For instance. the volume of air travel has been increasing
by 3% per year, oustripping the efficiency improvements.  Natural gas is
still a fossil fuel, and some of the coal not burned in the US is being
exported.  We are not in a negotiation with nature where we do part of
what nature demands and then expect nature to meet us half way.  The
laws of nature are un-negotiable.  The relevant reality check on the
improvements adduced by David Riley and David Walters is whether they
add up.  They don't.

Hans G Ehrbar

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

[Marxism] Fwd: The inside story of how billionaires are racing to take you to outer space - The Washington Post

[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.
*

Nothing convinces me that we are in the most degenerate phase of 
capitalism more than this.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-billionaire-space-barons-and-the-next-giant-leap/2016/08/19/795a4012-6307-11e6-8b27-bb8ba39497a2_story.html
_
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