Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[Carl G. Estabrook 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.
*

Your argument is unassailable…

I’m "pro-Stein,” not "pro-Trump"; but I am "anti-war" and "anti-Clinton."

And I’m Marxist the way Chomsky is (although I think he’s wrong about Clinton): 

"I think that the libertarian socialist concepts - and by that I mean a range 
of thinking that extends from left-wing Marxism through anarchism - are 
fundamentally correct and that they are the proper and natural extension of 
classical liberalism into the era of advanced industrial society.” ['Government 
in the Future,' 1970]

—CGE


> On Aug 31, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Mark Lause  wrote:
> 
> You don't buy the standard repackaged Democratic horsecrap and you are 
> "pro-Trump."
> 
> What utter stupidity passes for Marxism
> 
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Marxism 
> > wrote:

> I assume you mean Glen Ford’s piece on Black Agenda Report, which I suggest 
> people read for themselves:
> 
>  
>   >>.
> 
> An appropriate companion piece is 
>  
>  
>  >>.
> 
> —CGE
> 
> 
> > On Aug 31, 2016, at 9:11 PM, A.R. G  > > wrote:
> >
> > Carl,
> >
> > The piece you cited does not make a whole lot of sense. The first argument 
> > is his position on military bases. Outside of this being an incomparably 
> > small token of "isolationism" alongside threats to nuke people, send in 
> > ground troops, drones, and his use of torture, all he said was that he 
> > would reverse the arrangement such that those countries would be expected 
> > to pay the United States, rather than vice versa. He has taken a similar 
> > line with NATO. The second argument is that he does not accept the 
> > "rhetoric" of nation-building and so on; but even president-elect George W. 
> > Bush rejected such rationales during the 2000 election. This only means he 
> > is not as interested in sugar-coating such policies with the rhetoric of 
> > democracy and universalism. The last line was his "neutrality" rhetoric 
> > about Palestine. Even assuming we give that any credibility (one might note 
> > that even at the time, Trump combined his statements about "neutrality" 
> > with his affirmation that he was pro-Israel, meaning that he simply 
> > re-defined "neutral" to mean support for Israel), it has long since been 
> > surpassed by his adamant and aggressive support for Israel.
> >
> > It is an incredibly weak piece. The only part of it that even remotely 
> > speaks to what is "anti-empire" about Trump's policies is the isolationist 
> > rhetoric about US bases in Asia. Given the totality of the policies Trump 
> > has elaborated on, from nukes to torture to drones to ground troops, I'm 
> > not sure how anyone can see this as proof of any sort of "anti-imperialist" 
> > leanings.
> >
> > The Davis piece that I sent out goes into much greater depth about the 
> > policies that Trump has actually advocated for. He is as violent as they 
> > come.
> >
> > - 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] NFL star Colin Kaepernick is right — how the US anthem celebrates slavery

[Stuart Munckton 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.
*

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/62564
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Mark Lause 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.
*

You don't buy the standard repackaged Democratic horsecrap and you are
"pro-Trump."

What utter stupidity passes for Marxism

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Carl G. Estabrook 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.
> *
>
> I assume you mean Glen Ford’s piece on Black Agenda Report, which I
> suggest people read for themselves:
>
>  http://www.blackagendareport.com/trump_anti-empire>>.
>
> An appropriate companion piece is  2016/06/20/trump-as-the-relative-peace-candidate/ <
> https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/20/trump-as-the-
> relative-peace-candidate/>>.
>
> —CGE
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 2016, at 9:11 PM, A.R. G  wrote:
> >
> > Carl,
> >
> > The piece you cited does not make a whole lot of sense. The first
> argument is his position on military bases. Outside of this being an
> incomparably small token of "isolationism" alongside threats to nuke
> people, send in ground troops, drones, and his use of torture, all he said
> was that he would reverse the arrangement such that those countries would
> be expected to pay the United States, rather than vice versa. He has taken
> a similar line with NATO. The second argument is that he does not accept
> the "rhetoric" of nation-building and so on; but even president-elect
> George W. Bush rejected such rationales during the 2000 election. This only
> means he is not as interested in sugar-coating such policies with the
> rhetoric of democracy and universalism. The last line was his "neutrality"
> rhetoric about Palestine. Even assuming we give that any credibility (one
> might note that even at the time, Trump combined his statements about
> "neutrality" with his affirmation that he was pro-Israel, meaning that he
> simply re-defined "neutral" to mean support for Israel), it has long since
> been surpassed by his adamant and aggressive support for Israel.
> >
> > It is an incredibly weak piece. The only part of it that even remotely
> speaks to what is "anti-empire" about Trump's policies is the isolationist
> rhetoric about US bases in Asia. Given the totality of the policies Trump
> has elaborated on, from nukes to torture to drones to ground troops, I'm
> not sure how anyone can see this as proof of any sort of "anti-imperialist"
> leanings.
> >
> > The Davis piece that I sent out goes into much greater depth about the
> policies that Trump has actually advocated for. He is as violent as they
> come.
> >
> > - Amith
> >
>
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/
> options/marxism/markalause%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] Fwd: A Bad Defense for a Mistaken Policy

[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.
*

This may be the best thing I have ever heard on Democracy Now:
http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2016/08/amy-goodman-should-adress-this.html

*DR. ZAHER SAHLOUL:* I met with him in July 2013. There was a reception in
> the White House, and I had 30 seconds to talk with him. I delivered a
> letter on behalf of the Syrian American Medical Society and Syrian
> physicians, asking him to protect hospitals and protect civilians, the same
> way that we provided protection to Bosnia during the conflict. *I told
> him that his legacy will be determined by what he does and what he does not
> do in Syria. He laughed, and he said that, "But my legacy will be
> determined by other things." I told him, "Mr. President, your legacy will
> be determined—the most important factor will be Syria." I still believe
> that Syria will determine his legacy.* And the fact that President Obama
> did not follow on his pledges when he had these red lines and did not
> enforce it, I think this is what is causing the chaos and the extremism and
> the refugee crisis that we are facing right now*.*
>

So he can never say he wasn't warned.

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

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 


On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Louis Proyect via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>
> More than half of Syria's pre-war population now falls into one of the
> following categories: dead; dying; disabled; tortured; terrorized;
> traumatized; sick; hungry; homeless. The regime of Bashar al-Assad is
> responsible for the bulk of this rampant, remorseless criminality. The
> administration of Barack Obama, if it stays on its present course, will
> make it through noon, January 20, 2017, without having defended a single
> Syrian civilian from the Assad-Russia-Iran onslaught.


I should be added that this was the demand of the majority of Green Party
voters, who probably voted for Obama in '08 [ I didn't - I voted for
Cynthia McKinney who went on to promote Qaddafi's rape victims as examples
of revolutionary women ] and now will vote to put Trump in the WH. [They
won't vote for Trump, they will in effect abstain.]
_
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: Colin Kaepernick criticizes Clinton and Trump, says he will keep sitting during anthem - 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.
*

Near the end of the media scrum, Kaepernick was asked if the pending 
presidential election had anything to do with the timing of his actions. 
He replied that “the two presidential candidates that we currently have 
also represent the issue that we have in this country right now.” When 
asked to expound, he said, “I mean, you have Hillary [Clinton] who’s 
called black teens or black kids super-predators. You have Donald Trump 
who’s openly racist. I mean, we have a presidential candidate who’s 
deleted emails and done things illegally and is a presidential 
candidate. That doesn’t make sense to me, because if that was any other 
person, you’d be in prison. So what is this country really standing for?”


full: 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/08/28/colin-kaepernick-criticizes-hillary-clinton-and-donald-trump-says-he-will-keep-sitting-during-national-anthem/

_
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 politics that led to the mass uprising against the Ba'ath dictatorship

[Joseph Green 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.
*

The civil war in Syria
Part 1: the policies that led to it 
by Frank Arango, Seattle Communist Study Group
(From the Detroit Workers' Voice list for August 31, 2016)

"War is a continuation of policy by other means. All wars are inseparable 
from the political systems that engender them. The policy which a given 
state, a given class within that state, pursued for a long time before the 
war is inevitably continued by that same class during the war, the form of 
action alone being changed."

A mass uprising against a more than 40-year-old dictatorship that has 
developed into civil war. More than five years of it. Over 400,000 people 
killed and nearly half the population turned into refugees. Regional and 
world imperialist powers intervening to bail out the dictatorship. But also a 
fight in which great mass heroism is taking place each and every day.

Such is the struggle of the Syrian people to free themselves from tyranny.

Themselves oppressed, the working people of the world naturally sympathize 
with and support this great struggle. But a whole section of the left does 
demoralized propaganda opposing such a stand. According to them, the Syrian 
uprising is an U.S.-organized "regime change" operation. And that's 
interesting. After five years of war, these supposed anti-imperialists cannot 
explain why in two years of U.S.-imperialist bombings in Syria, the U.S. and 
allies have only targeted ISIS, and never the regime and its foreign props. 
They can't explain why the U.S. "boots on the ground" in Syria are not there 
to help the rebels overthrow the Assadist dictatorship, but only to assist 
various Kurdish groups and others in the fight against ISIS. They can't 
explain why the U.S. has made Syrians sign contracts saying they would NOT 
fight Assad, only ISIS, before training or arming them. And these fraudulent 
anti-imperialists cannot explain why the U.S. and Russia closely coordinate 
their imperialist air wars, with the U.S. bombing ISIS, and Russia focused on 
bombing hell out of the rebel-controlled areas the U.S. supposedly supports!

Today, the World "Socialist" Website, UNAC and others continue to absurdly 
call this a "US-initiated war for regime change." But it has never been that. 
That's why rather than use the Assad regime's August, 2013 murder of some 
1400 people with nerve gas as an excuse to launch military strikes against 
the regime, Obama made a deal with Assad and Russia to remove sarin from 
Syria, while essentially giving Assad the green light to continue using every 
other barbarous means to suppress the uprising. But that time the leaders of 
WSWS, PSL, WWP, ANSWER and others had an answer: demonstrations of scores of 
peope in various cities, and maybe 200 in NYC, had stayed the hands of U.S. 
imperialism! That was lying by scoundrels who know that when U.S. imperialism 
really wanted a war for regime change, as it did in Iraq in 2003-04, it 
ignored the repeated protests of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people 
in this country, and tens of millions globally.

99 years ago Lenin wrote something our sham socialists, sham 
anti-imperialists, Assad-prettifying pacifists and others would rather hide 
or not think about:

"War is a continuation of policy by other means. All wars are inseparable 
from the political systems that engender them. The policy which a given 
state, a given class within that state, pursued for a long time before the 
war is inevitably continued by that same class during the war, the form of 
action alone being changed."

But I think this is a correct approach to looking at a war, including the 
Syrian civil war.

So what was the policy of the Syrian capitalist rulers before the mass 
uprising?

Domestically: Neo-liberalism, which impoverished the masses and fattened the 
pocket-books of the rich with a vengeance. All-encompassing police-state 
tyranny enforced under a 48-year-old "emergency decree." Internationally: 
Establishment of closer ties with the United States, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and 
others.

And what was U.S. imperialism's policy?

Establishing closer ties with the Assad dictatorship.

Hafez al-Assad (the father) had shown his loyalty to U.S. imperialism by 
sending troops to fight on its side in the 1990-91 Gulf War. Bashar al-Assad 
continued on this path by opening his dungeons to be a favorite place the CIA 
delivered people for torture under Bush's "extraordinary rendition" program. 
That relationship did grow bumpy when Assad refused to close the Syrian 
border during the U.S. imperialist occupation of Iraq, and over the 
assassination of Rafik Hariri in Lebanon. But with the Iraq war winding down, 
the new 

Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[Carl G. Estabrook 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 assume you mean Glen Ford’s piece on Black Agenda Report, which I suggest 
people read for themselves: 

>.

An appropriate companion piece is 
>.

—CGE


> On Aug 31, 2016, at 9:11 PM, A.R. G  wrote:
> 
> Carl,
> 
> The piece you cited does not make a whole lot of sense. The first argument is 
> his position on military bases. Outside of this being an incomparably small 
> token of "isolationism" alongside threats to nuke people, send in ground 
> troops, drones, and his use of torture, all he said was that he would reverse 
> the arrangement such that those countries would be expected to pay the United 
> States, rather than vice versa. He has taken a similar line with NATO. The 
> second argument is that he does not accept the "rhetoric" of nation-building 
> and so on; but even president-elect George W. Bush rejected such rationales 
> during the 2000 election. This only means he is not as interested in 
> sugar-coating such policies with the rhetoric of democracy and universalism. 
> The last line was his "neutrality" rhetoric about Palestine. Even assuming we 
> give that any credibility (one might note that even at the time, Trump 
> combined his statements about "neutrality" with his affirmation that he was 
> pro-Israel, meaning that he simply re-defined "neutral" to mean support for 
> Israel), it has long since been surpassed by his adamant and aggressive 
> support for Israel. 
> 
> It is an incredibly weak piece. The only part of it that even remotely speaks 
> to what is "anti-empire" about Trump's policies is the isolationist rhetoric 
> about US bases in Asia. Given the totality of the policies Trump has 
> elaborated on, from nukes to torture to drones to ground troops, I'm not sure 
> how anyone can see this as proof of any sort of "anti-imperialist" leanings. 
> 
> The Davis piece that I sent out goes into much greater depth about the 
> policies that Trump has actually advocated for. He is as violent as they 
> come. 
> 
> - 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] Fwd: A Bad Defense for a Mistaken Policy

[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.
*

More than half of Syria's pre-war population now falls into one of the 
following categories: dead; dying; disabled; tortured; terrorized; 
traumatized; sick; hungry; homeless. The regime of Bashar al-Assad is 
responsible for the bulk of this rampant, remorseless criminality. The 
administration of Barack Obama, if it stays on its present course, will 
make it through noon, January 20, 2017, without having defended a single 
Syrian civilian from the Assad-Russia-Iran onslaught. This thoroughly 
avoidable result may well serve to define Mr. Obama—accomplishments at 
home and abroad notwithstanding—as a failed president.


full: 
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/syriasource/a-bad-defense-for-a-mistaken-policy

_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Carl G. Estabrook 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.
*

Here’s someone who recognizes that Clinton is wrapping herself in duplicitous 
identity politics, in order to avoid the issues of class politics raised by the 
Trump campaign (and he isn’t white):

>.


> On Aug 31, 2016, at 8:37 PM, Clay Claiborne  wrote:
> 
> Like I said, we can expect to hear more pro-Trump voices on the white Left. 
> Even on Marxist lists. How sad.
> 
> I'm listening to another one of his racist titrates now as I write this now. 
> But , hey, if I was white maybe it wouldn't bother me either.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Marxism 
> > wrote:
> 
> Clinton is both a neoliberal (more inequality) and a neocon (more war); Trump 
> isn’t:
> 
>  
>  
>  >>.
> 
> 

_
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] US backs Brazil coup, LA left gov'ts protest

[Stuart Munckton 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.
*

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/62563
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Carl G. Estabrook 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.
*

On Debs' advice, I’ll vote for the Green party candidate, Jill Stein, whose 
positions on foreign and domestic policy - to say nothing of climate 
catastrophe - are better than those of the major party candidates, but I won't 
be dissuaded by the argument that voting for a third party helps Trump: his 
positions on war and the economy are substantially better than Clinton’s.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/hillary_crusade_against_bigotry_trump 


—CGE

> On Aug 31, 2016, at 8:49 PM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism 
>  wrote:
> 
> Please listen to what Trump is demagoguing about as I speak. I hope you
> will understand why minorities will be voting against him, and not castings
> a "feel good" vote for Jill.
> 

_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[mkaradjis . 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 have to say that as much as I don't agree with everything Clay has
written, I share his frustration with this line of reasoning"

So do I. From far away, I have no intention in getting involved in the
who to vote for discussion in the US. But regarding war and global
politics, the idea that the world should feel safer and less in danger
of American warmongering under Trump is extraordinary self-delusion.
Read Charles Davis' article and then come back. And Davis doesn't even
go into the fact that Trump is way to the right of Clinton on
Palestine.


On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:43 AM, A.R. G 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.
> *
>
> You're right, Donald Trump isn't a neoliberal or a neocon like Hillary --
> he holds beliefs that are *even worse* than those two ideologies, and in
> any case, that hardly means he's not a warmonger (let alone a white
> nationalist).
>
> https://newrepublic.com/article/135775/liberals-keep-calling-donald-trump-dove
>
> I have to say that as much as I don't agree with everything Clay has
> written, I share his frustration with this line of reasoning.
>
> - Amith
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/mkaradjis%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] Vote for Clinton?

[Carl G. Estabrook 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.blackagendareport.com/trump_anti-empire 



> On Aug 31, 2016, at 8:43 PM, A.R. G via Marxism  
> wrote:
> 
> You're right, Donald Trump isn't a neoliberal or a neocon like Hillary --
> he holds beliefs that are *even worse* than those two ideologies, and in
> any case, that hardly means he's not a warmonger (let alone a white
> nationalist).
> 
> https://newrepublic.com/article/135775/liberals-keep-calling-donald-trump-dove
> 

_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[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.
*

Please listen to what Trump is demagoguing about as I speak. I hope you
will understand why minorities will be voting against him, and not castings
a "feel good" vote for Jill.

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

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 


On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:43 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.
> *
>
> You're right, Donald Trump isn't a neoliberal or a neocon like Hillary --
> he holds beliefs that are *even worse* than those two ideologies, and in
> any case, that hardly means he's not a warmonger (let alone a white
> nationalist).
>
> https://newrepublic.com/article/135775/liberals-keep-
> calling-donald-trump-dove
>
> I have to say that as much as I don't agree with everything Clay has
> written, I share his frustration with this line of reasoning.
>
> - Amith
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/clayclai%
> 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] Vote for Clinton?

[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.
*

You're right, Donald Trump isn't a neoliberal or a neocon like Hillary --
he holds beliefs that are *even worse* than those two ideologies, and in
any case, that hardly means he's not a warmonger (let alone a white
nationalist).

https://newrepublic.com/article/135775/liberals-keep-calling-donald-trump-dove

I have to say that as much as I don't agree with everything Clay has
written, I share his frustration with this line of reasoning.

- 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

Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[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.
*

Like I said, we can expect to hear more pro-Trump voices on the white Left.
Even on Marxist lists. How sad.

I'm listening to another one of his racist titrates now as I write this
now. But , hey, if I was white maybe it wouldn't bother me either.


Clay

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

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 


On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Carl G. Estabrook 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.
> *
>
> Clinton is both a neoliberal (more inequality) and a neocon (more war);
> Trump isn’t:
>
>  relative-peace-candidate/  2016/06/20/trump-as-the-relative-peace-candidate/>>.
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 2016, at 7:58 PM, A.R. G  wrote:
> >
> > How are we less likely to get war from Trump? Trump has discussed
> actually using nuclear weapons. He wants to bring back torture -- and he
> doesn't even have any qualms about calling it torture, unlike his
> Republican colleagues who purposely used euphemisms like "enhanced
> interrogation techniques" to avoid incriminating themselves. He floated
> sending tens of thousands of troops to fight in Syria, albeit on the side
> of the regime. He has threatened to tear up the diplomatic agreement
> between the US and Iran, and he wants to all abut reward the entirety of
> the West Bank to the Israeli occupiers. He's also pledged more drones.
> >
> > The CIA and the Pentagon oppose him for obvious reasons: he is a
> lunatic. There is a difference between not being pro-war and being so
> pro-war that the other pro-war institutions are afraid you will do it
> without any strategy.
> >
> > - Amith
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Carl G. Estabrook 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.
> > *
> >
> > With Clinton as president, we're certain to get more war, in the
> tradition of the last 25 years. With Trump as president, we might not. How
> can that be a difficult choice?
> >
> > “The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have
> demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather
> from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected.
> Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the
> multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains
> its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with
> China's Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world's great
> power talking peace - however unlikely - would be the blackest farce were
> the issues not so dire.” [John Pilger]
> >
> > —CGE
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 31, 2016, at 6:29 PM, Mark Lause via Marxism <
> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu > wrote:
> > >
> > > Trump is farther right than the usual Republican.  Clinton is way
> further
> > > right than the usual Democrat.  But why waste time dickering over the
> > > calipers.
> > >
> > > If Jill Stein wasn't there, I would still vote against both of them.
> Maybe
> > > I'd even vote for for the Skippy McTrotly on the Vegetarian Bolshevik
> > > Alliance.
> > >
> > > But not voting at all is better than using your ballot to sanction the
> next
> > > temporary monarch of the U.S.
> > >
> >
> >
> > _
> > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
> 3A__www.marxmail.org_sub.htm=CwMFaQ=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ=
> tfHzwZBcTLEveiewRiq0OdhFmfRmlvZjpIBS0AUJ2v0=9Jqms3ylu4sCImjNAi5oJbwicRJ-
> 4A4_CmmWC-fYsSw=bG5LZVPGx25qOEhKzVPwaF8ibcOGAXSyaVVEemHd1eE=>
> > Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/
> options/marxism/amithrgupta%40gmail.com  

Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[Carl G. Estabrook 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.
*

Clinton is both a neoliberal (more inequality) and a neocon (more war); Trump 
isn’t:

>.
 


> On Aug 31, 2016, at 7:58 PM, A.R. G  wrote:
> 
> How are we less likely to get war from Trump? Trump has discussed actually 
> using nuclear weapons. He wants to bring back torture -- and he doesn't even 
> have any qualms about calling it torture, unlike his Republican colleagues 
> who purposely used euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" to 
> avoid incriminating themselves. He floated sending tens of thousands of 
> troops to fight in Syria, albeit on the side of the regime. He has threatened 
> to tear up the diplomatic agreement between the US and Iran, and he wants to 
> all abut reward the entirety of the West Bank to the Israeli occupiers. He's 
> also pledged more drones. 
> 
> The CIA and the Pentagon oppose him for obvious reasons: he is a lunatic. 
> There is a difference between not being pro-war and being so pro-war that the 
> other pro-war institutions are afraid you will do it without any strategy. 
> 
> - Amith
> 
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Carl G. Estabrook 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.
> *
> 
> With Clinton as president, we're certain to get more war, in the tradition of 
> the last 25 years. With Trump as president, we might not. How can that be a 
> difficult choice?
> 
> “The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded 
> he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its 
> relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something 
> is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the 
> multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its 
> dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with 
> China's Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world's great power 
> talking peace - however unlikely - would be the blackest farce were the 
> issues not so dire.” [John Pilger]
> 
> —CGE
> 
> 
> > On Aug 31, 2016, at 6:29 PM, Mark Lause via Marxism 
> > > wrote:
> >
> > Trump is farther right than the usual Republican.  Clinton is way further
> > right than the usual Democrat.  But why waste time dickering over the
> > calipers.
> >
> > If Jill Stein wasn't there, I would still vote against both of them.  Maybe
> > I'd even vote for for the Skippy McTrotly on the Vegetarian Bolshevik
> > Alliance.
> >
> > But not voting at all is better than using your ballot to sanction the next
> > temporary monarch of the U.S.
> >
> 
> 
> _
> 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

Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[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 are we less likely to get war from Trump? Trump has discussed actually
using nuclear weapons. He wants to bring back torture -- and he doesn't
even have any qualms about calling it torture, unlike his Republican
colleagues who purposely used euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation
techniques" to avoid incriminating themselves. He floated sending tens of
thousands of troops to fight in Syria, albeit on the side of the regime. He
has threatened to tear up the diplomatic agreement between the US and Iran,
and he wants to all abut reward the entirety of the West Bank to the
Israeli occupiers. He's also pledged more drones.

The CIA and the Pentagon oppose him for obvious reasons: he is a lunatic.
There is a difference between not being pro-war and being so pro-war that
the other pro-war institutions are afraid you will do it without any
strategy.

- Amith

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Carl G. Estabrook 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.
> *
>
> With Clinton as president, we're certain to get more war, in the tradition
> of the last 25 years. With Trump as president, we might not. How can that
> be a difficult choice?
>
> “The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have
> demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather
> from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected.
> Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the
> multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains
> its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with
> China's Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world's great
> power talking peace - however unlikely - would be the blackest farce were
> the issues not so dire.” [John Pilger]
>
> —CGE
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 2016, at 6:29 PM, Mark Lause via Marxism <
> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Trump is farther right than the usual Republican.  Clinton is way further
> > right than the usual Democrat.  But why waste time dickering over the
> > calipers.
> >
> > If Jill Stein wasn't there, I would still vote against both of them.
> Maybe
> > I'd even vote for for the Skippy McTrotly on the Vegetarian Bolshevik
> > Alliance.
> >
> > But not voting at all is better than using your ballot to sanction the
> next
> > temporary monarch of the U.S.
> >
>
>
> _
> 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

Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[Carl G. Estabrook 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.
*

With Clinton as president, we're certain to get more war, in the tradition of 
the last 25 years. With Trump as president, we might not. How can that be a 
difficult choice?

“The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he 
is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its 
relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is 
up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the 
multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its 
dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China's 
Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world's great power talking 
peace - however unlikely - would be the blackest farce were the issues not so 
dire.” [John Pilger]

—CGE


> On Aug 31, 2016, at 6:29 PM, Mark Lause via Marxism 
>  wrote:
> 
> Trump is farther right than the usual Republican.  Clinton is way further
> right than the usual Democrat.  But why waste time dickering over the
> calipers.
> 
> If Jill Stein wasn't there, I would still vote against both of them.  Maybe
> I'd even vote for for the Skippy McTrotly on the Vegetarian Bolshevik
> Alliance.
> 
> But not voting at all is better than using your ballot to sanction the next
> temporary monarch of the U.S.
> 


_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[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.
*

I'm just amazed how the people on this thread can discussion Donald and
Hillary and say nothing about the white nationalism the distinguishes one
of them.

 Am I delusional or are you blind?

http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2016/08/why-jill-stein-should-drop-her.html

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

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 


On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Ralph Johansen 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.
> *
>
> A.R. G wrote
>
>
>Without weighing in on the merits of voting for neocon Clinton, I don't
>think that is the gist of the argument. The argument is not that she
>is the
>lesser evil. It is that she is *considerably less evil* than her
>opponent.
>The argument is that Donald Trump is far, far worse than Clinton, as
>opposed to say, Romney and Obama or McCain and Obama. In those
>years, many
>on the left foolishly backed Obama at the expense of building any
>kind of
>counterhegemonic pole by exaggerating the differences between Obama
>and his
>opponent.
> 
> Let's say we pretend for a moment. Let's say we're the egregiously
> over-paid freaks in the capital grounds who for years have honed their wits
> doing the deep thinking about these things. They might say, well, we think
> they're getting on to us. It's all becoming so transparent that even kids
> in the playground are on to it. We need a REAL obfuscation this time. We
> once had the Hollywood second-rate movie actor who though past it and well
> on the way to terminal Alzheimers could still peddle crap like he did for
> General Electric tv ads and on the silver screen for eight years, about
> welfare queens, the war on drugs and supply side economics; we have had aw
> shucks drawling Bill and welfare as we know it, NAFTA, the ending of
> fig-leaf banking regulation and the blue dress for eight years; we've had
> the snuggle bunny, befuddled George W. Bush, 'Homeland Security,' gutting
> the Bill of Rights, 'mission accomplished', failed states and concealed
> body counts for another eight years; we've had a black dude who was the
> perfect foil for another eight years, the first 'person of color' and
> Harvard Law Review editor and social worker with the comely family and no
> political tracks behind him who from the time he came out of the band box
> has been entirely in our side pocket, could be counted on to continue where
> Bush and Cheny left off, and left the voters misty-eyed - -  so that we
> could lie and cheat and steal the be jabbers out of the big fat sovereign
> entity enchilada US treasury from one friggin eight year stint to the next
> - and counting? NOW what do we do? Why, of course, the 'You're fired' guy
> on tv, he has said for years that he wanted to be president. Let's put him
> up against the Hill, fill his tender ego so full it spews from his mouth
> like three-day old vomit, Hillary, the first woman president, although
> there have been 58 female leaders of their nations elsewhere and no big
> deal by now, will surely beat the side-show joker and give us as her track
> record incontrovertibly demonstrates everything we want and more, all the
> way back to the White House laughing off the 'but-wait-a-minute,'
> incredulous, gulled voter. And we'll leave all those poor, deluded slobs
> wringing their hands, as they do every four years, over this yet even more
> impossible contest between the two most despised of two 'lesser evils', and
> pondering with great heaves and hos of thought over how they will use their
> vote, which is virtually the only remaining, pitifully small vestige of
> what may have once been slightly more credibly called a 'democracy,' and
> which in better times to come if we squint enough at the distant
> imponderables might be defined at a minimum as controlling one's own
> destiny, more accurately as moving ever closer to substantive equality And
> so we'll 9the WE that counts, that is, continue our journey with our
> paymasters and if we hedge our bets right, us, with still impossibly more
> of the swag. Of course.
>
>
> ---
> This 

Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[Ralph Johansen 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.R. G wrote


   Without weighing in on the merits of voting for neocon Clinton, I don't
   think that is the gist of the argument. The argument is not that she
   is the
   lesser evil. It is that she is *considerably less evil* than her
   opponent.
   The argument is that Donald Trump is far, far worse than Clinton, as
   opposed to say, Romney and Obama or McCain and Obama. In those
   years, many
   on the left foolishly backed Obama at the expense of building any
   kind of
   counterhegemonic pole by exaggerating the differences between Obama
   and his
   opponent. 



Let's say we pretend for a moment. Let's say we're the egregiously 
over-paid freaks in the capital grounds who for years have honed their 
wits doing the deep thinking about these things. They might say, well, 
we think they're getting on to us. It's all becoming so transparent that 
even kids in the playground are on to it. We need a REAL obfuscation 
this time. We once had the Hollywood second-rate movie actor who though 
past it and well on the way to terminal Alzheimers could still peddle 
crap like he did for General Electric tv ads and on the silver screen 
for eight years, about welfare queens, the war on drugs and supply side 
economics; we have had aw shucks drawling Bill and welfare as we know 
it, NAFTA, the ending of fig-leaf banking regulation and the blue dress 
for eight years; we've had the snuggle bunny, befuddled George W. Bush, 
'Homeland Security,' gutting the Bill of Rights, 'mission accomplished', 
failed states and concealed body counts for another eight years; we've 
had a black dude who was the perfect foil for another eight years, the 
first 'person of color' and Harvard Law Review editor and social worker 
with the comely family and no political tracks behind him who from the 
time he came out of the band box has been entirely in our side pocket, 
could be counted on to continue where Bush and Cheny left off, and left 
the voters misty-eyed - -  so that we could lie and cheat and steal the 
be jabbers out of the big fat sovereign entity enchilada US treasury 
from one friggin eight year stint to the next - and counting? NOW what 
do we do? Why, of course, the 'You're fired' guy on tv, he has said for 
years that he wanted to be president. Let's put him up against the Hill, 
fill his tender ego so full it spews from his mouth like three-day old 
vomit, Hillary, the first woman president, although there have been 58 
female leaders of their nations elsewhere and no big deal by now, will 
surely beat the side-show joker and give us as her track record 
incontrovertibly demonstrates everything we want and more, all the way 
back to the White House laughing off the 'but-wait-a-minute,' 
incredulous, gulled voter. And we'll leave all those poor, deluded slobs 
wringing their hands, as they do every four years, over this yet even 
more impossible contest between the two most despised of two 'lesser 
evils', and pondering with great heaves and hos of thought over how they 
will use their vote, which is virtually the only remaining, pitifully 
small vestige of what may have once been slightly more credibly called a 
'democracy,' and which in better times to come if we squint enough at 
the distant imponderables might be defined at a minimum as controlling 
one's own destiny, more accurately as moving ever closer to substantive 
equality And so we'll 9the WE that counts, that is, continue our journey 
with our paymasters and if we hedge our bets right, us, with still 
impossibly more of the swag. Of course.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[Mark Lause 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.
*

Trump is farther right than the usual Republican.  Clinton is way further
right than the usual Democrat.  But why waste time dickering over the
calipers.

If Jill Stein wasn't there, I would still vote against both of them.  Maybe
I'd even vote for for the Skippy McTrotly on the Vegetarian Bolshevik
Alliance.

But not voting at all is better than using your ballot to sanction the next
temporary monarch of the U.S.

ML
_
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] Vote for Clinton?

[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.
*

Without weighing in on the merits of voting for neocon Clinton, I don't
think that is the gist of the argument. The argument is not that she is the
lesser evil. It is that she is *considerably less evil* than her opponent.
The argument is that Donald Trump is far, far worse than Clinton, as
opposed to say, Romney and Obama or McCain and Obama. In those years, many
on the left foolishly backed Obama at the expense of building any kind of
counterhegemonic pole by exaggerating the differences between Obama and his
opponent.

But in this election, little exaggeration is needed by Clinton's
supporters. The other guy is so insane that his own Party leadership is
crumbling under the weight of being unable to endorse their nominee because
he's such a loony toon. In other elections, one could identify one of the
candidates or the other as a "lesser evil," but they would be hard-pressed
to establish that the differences between the two outweigh their enormous
similarities. That is not the case with this election. Trump has gone above
and beyond simply being "worse" than Clinton. He is *so much worse* that
his own Party's leadership is looking at Hillary!!!

The other difference is that, as I understand it, the Canadian system is
more friendly to smaller parties. Americans do not have that advantage.
Personally, I have always voted Green and intend to do so again during the
upcoming election. But I also live in a solidly Blue state, so I don't
think my vote has ever counted (not that it would count otherwise). If I
lived in a "swing" state I might feel forced to rethink my loyalty to the
Greens even if I would not have done so in other years.

I also think that the task of building the kind of party that you are
talking about cannot operate on the same clock as the presidential
elections. Setting up a party (even a bourgeois one, to say nothing of a
revolutionary party) takes decades, and it is a full-time project, not
something that can be done by trying to grab votes on election years.
Perhaps the Greens should consider building up their base outside of the
elections and not just during election years? They could do so by building
a grassroots base and then using it to propel candidates into local
government. From there they might have a stronger means of connecting with
the voter base during general elections in order to challenge the
Democrats.



- Amith

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 4:03 PM, 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.
> *
>
> I think I understand the argument for voting for Clinton.  In a nutshell,
> she is the lesser evil.
>
> I want to point out what I think are the shortcomings of voting for the
> lesser evil.
> Of course, you can always use your vote to choose between the two most
> likely contenders for an office.  Some people regard that as a "useful"
> vote.
> In my opinion it is much more useful to use your vote to build a left
> alternative.
> As a thought experiment, think back to the Johnson-Goldwater election of
> 1964.  Which was the more useful vote, a vote for Johnson?  Or a vote for
> the SWP or another small left party?
> I would argue that the most useful vote was for the SWP or another small
> left party.
>
> Each time you vote for the lesser evil you postpone the building of a left
> alternative.  And you arrive at the next election with the same
> alternatives, a weak left and a choice between the candidates of the
> Republican Party and the Democratic Party.
>
> The Green Party of Canada probably does not qualify as a left
> alternative.  But I think the growth of the party illustrates the point I
> am making.
> The party was launched in 1983.  They didn't get more than 1% of the vote
> until 2004.  And they didn't elect an MP until 2011.  The people who voted
> for the Greens up till that time, were they wasting their vote?  Not in my
> opinion.  The handful of people who voted for them at the beginning
> encouraged others to vote for them in subsequent elections.  And they grew
> to be a political force.
>
> If you limit yourself to the lesser evil, you will be helpless when the
> lesser evil becomes so unpopular that the greater evil wins.  What will you
> have to show for your efforts?
>
> If you want to build a left alternative, the best time to start is now.
>
> ken h
> 

[Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[Ken Hiebert 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 think I understand the argument for voting for Clinton.  In a nutshell, she 
is the lesser evil.

I want to point out what I think are the shortcomings of voting for the lesser 
evil.
Of course, you can always use your vote to choose between the two most likely 
contenders for an office.  Some people regard that as a "useful" vote.
In my opinion it is much more useful to use your vote to build a left 
alternative.
As a thought experiment, think back to the Johnson-Goldwater election of 1964.  
Which was the more useful vote, a vote for Johnson?  Or a vote for the SWP or 
another small left party?
I would argue that the most useful vote was for the SWP or another small left 
party.

Each time you vote for the lesser evil you postpone the building of a left 
alternative.  And you arrive at the next election with the same alternatives, a 
weak left and a choice between the candidates of the Republican Party and the 
Democratic Party.

The Green Party of Canada probably does not qualify as a left alternative.  But 
I think the growth of the party illustrates the point I am making.
The party was launched in 1983.  They didn't get more than 1% of the vote until 
2004.  And they didn't elect an MP until 2011.  The people who voted for the 
Greens up till that time, were they wasting their vote?  Not in my opinion.  
The handful of people who voted for them at the beginning encouraged others to 
vote for them in subsequent elections.  And they grew to be a political force.

If you limit yourself to the lesser evil, you will be helpless when the lesser 
evil becomes so unpopular that the greater evil wins.  What will you have to 
show for your efforts?

If you want to build a left alternative, the best time to start is now.

ken h
_
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] Their Soil Toxic, 1, 100 Indiana Residents Scramble to Find New Homes

[Dennis Brasky 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.
*

To those on this list who seek to warn the Left against the coming racist
pogroms if Trump gets elected, Black America is being poisoned by lead and
murdered by KKKers with badges and guns, and eight years of "lesser evil"
Obama hasn't done a goddamn thing to stop it!

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Louis Proyect via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>
> NY Times, August 31 2016
> Their Soil Toxic, 1,100 Indiana Residents Scramble to Find New Homes
>
>
>
_
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] [UCE] Fwd: The Decay of the Syrian Regime is Much Worse Than You Think

[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://warontherocks.com/2016/08/the-decay-of-the-syrian-regime-is-much-worse-than-you-think/
_
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] Their Soil Toxic, 1, 100 Indiana Residents Scramble to Find New Homes

[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, August 31 2016
Their Soil Toxic, 1,100 Indiana Residents Scramble to Find New Homes
By ABBY GOODNOUGH

Stephanie King with her daughter Ivianna Prater, 8, at their home in the 
West Calumet Housing Complex in East Chicago, Ind. Soil at the complex 
has been found to contain high levels of lead, and Ms. King’s 3-year-old 
son, Josiah, has a worrisome amount of lead in his blood, test results 
show. Credit Alyssa Schukar for The New York Times
EAST CHICAGO, Ind. — Stephanie King, a single mother of five, has 
adopted a grim routine over the past month: mopping with bleach twice a 
day and sweeping even more often to remove any dirt her family might 
have tracked inside. She has a haunted look, and for good reason.


Ms. King and other residents of the West Calumet Housing Complex here 
learned recently that much of the soil outside their homes contained 
staggering levels of lead, one of the worst threats to children’s health.


Ms. King’s 3-year-old son, Josiah, has a worrisome amount of lead in his 
blood, according to test results she received last week. Like about 
1,100 other poor, largely black residents of West Calumet, including 670 
children, she is scrambling to find a new home after Mayor Anthony 
Copeland of East Chicago announced last month that the residents had to 
move out and that the complex would be demolished.


“If I’d have known the dirt had lead, he wouldn’t have been out there 
playing in it,” Ms. King, 35, said a few nights ago as Josiah begged to 
follow his older brothers outside. “Oh, my God, I’m ready to go.”


The extent of the contamination came as a shock to residents of the 
complex, even though it is just north of a huge former U.S.S. Lead 
smelting plant and on top of a smaller former smelting operation, in an 
area that was designated a Superfund site in 2009. Now, in a situation 
that many fearful residents are comparing to the water crisis in Flint, 
Mich., they are asking why neither the state nor the Environmental 
Protection Agency told them just how toxic their soil was much sooner, 
and a timeline is emerging that suggests a painfully slow government 
process of confronting the problem.


The mayor’s sudden decision to raze the complex, which is run by the 
East Chicago Housing Authority, and close an adjacent elementary school 
turns on its head a plan the E.P.A. has had since 2012 to remove the 
contaminated soil without displacing residents.


People in this heavily industrialized city just south of Chicago are 
also asking why their governor, Mike Pence, the Republican 
vice-presidential nominee, visited flood victims in Baton Rouge, La., 
this month while campaigning with Donald J. Trump, but has not found 
time to come to East Chicago. Kara Brooks, a spokeswoman for Mr. Pence, 
wrote in an email that he had “directed his staff and cabinet to provide 
support to the federal government” there, and that some of his staff and 
cabinet members visited the area last week.


But the most pressing question for residents is why they were not 
informed until last month that even the top six inches of soil in their 
yards had up to 30 times more lead than the level considered safe for 
children to play in, and that it also had hazardous levels of arsenic. 
Farther down, the contamination is much worse.


There have been no satisfactory answers. A spokeswoman for the Indiana 
Department of Environmental Management said the E.P.A. was “the lead 
agency with the authority and responsibility for this site.”


Robert A. Kaplan, the E.P.A.’s acting regional administrator for the 
Great Lakes region, said that for many years, cleanup efforts focused on 
the former smelting plant and not on nearby neighborhoods. In 2008, as 
the E.P.A. sought Superfund status for the plant and the surrounding 
area, tests of several dozen yards at and near the housing complex found 
some “hot spots,” Mr. Kaplan said, but also soil with lead “under the 
level we’d be concerned about.”


The E.P.A. removed soil from the hot-spot areas, he said, and did so 
again in 2011 after another round of limited testing.


The E.P.A. began suing the companies responsible for the contamination 
in 2009, and by 2012 had a cleanup plan that involved removing all lead- 
and arsenic-contaminated soil from the housing complex.


Extensive testing to figure out which soil needed to be removed did not 
begin until November 2014, Mr. Kaplan said. And the E.P.A. did not 
receive the final results showing “exactly where” the contamination was, 
he said, until this May. The delay, he said, was due to problems with 
the contractor the agency hired to tabulate the data and concerns about 
the 

[Marxism] Israel Quietly Legalizes Pirate Outposts in the West Bank

[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, August 31 2016
Israel Quietly Legalizes Pirate Outposts in the West Bank
By ISABEL KERSHNERAUG. 30, 2016

MITZPE DANNY, West Bank — One night in the fall of 1998, a 
self-professed “outpost entrepreneur” brought three trailers to a rugged 
hilltop in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and established his first 
pirate settlement.


Dozens of youthful supporters came to cheer on the entrepreneur, Shimon 
Riklin, whose wife, newborn and toddler joined him a few days later. A 
second family also moved in. To their initial surprise, nobody from the 
military or government came to remove them. “After six months,” Mr. 
Riklin said in a recent interview, “I understood it was a done deal.”


They named their outpost Mitzpe Danny, after a British immigrant stabbed 
to death by a Palestinian at the settlement across the highway, and went 
on over the next few months to help establish Mitzpe Hagit and then Neve 
Erez a short drive away. “I jumped from hill to hill,” Mr. Riklin said.


Today, more than 40 Orthodox Jewish families live in Mitzpe Danny, one 
of a string of outposts on a strategic ridge with breathtaking views 
southwest to Jerusalem’s Mount of Olives and east all the way to Jordan. 
They are part of an expansive network of about 100 outposts established 
mostly over the past two decades without government authorization.


At least one-third of these have either been retroactively legalized or 
— like Mitzpe Danny — are on their way, in what anti-settlement groups 
that track the process see as a quiet but methodical effort by the 
government to change the map of the West Bank, now in its 50th year 
under Israeli occupation, by entrenching the outposts that spread like 
fingers across it.


With the Israeli-Palestinian peace process dormant and the international 
community increasingly suspicious of the right-wing Israeli government’s 
commitment to the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state, the 
outposts are being seized on as evidence that the conflict may be 
impossible to unwind. In its July report, the so-called Quartet of 
Middle East peacemakers — made up of the United States, the European 
Union, the United Nations and Russia — listed it as a trend “imperiling 
the viability of the two-state solution.”


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was in his first term when Mitzpe 
Danny was founded, has since endorsed the idea of a Palestinian state 
alongside Israel, and said that his government would not build new 
settlements or expropriate land for existing ones. But Ziv Stahl, the 
research director at Yesh Din, one of the left-wing advocacy groups, 
said “they are authorizing them in disguise.”


Israel, Ms. Stahl said, has tried to avoid international censure by 
registering outposts like Mitzpe Danny as “neighborhoods” of established 
settlements, though some are far apart and function as separate communities.


Pointing to other Israeli measures, including the demolitions of 
unauthorized Palestinian structures in the West Bank, she added, “We see 
it as a very gradual move toward annexation.”


Asked about the legalization of outposts — and the international 
criticism — Mr. Netanyahu’s spokesman, David Keyes, did not respond 
directly, but instead turned the question to the Palestinian leaders’ 
stance that no settlements could remain in the West Bank under a future 
deal.


“The frequently echoed Palestinian demand to ethnically cleanse their 
future state of Jews,” Mr. Keyes said via email, “is outrageous, immoral 
and antithetical to peace.”


Illegal, Then Legal

The outposts are strategically located alongside more than 120 
settlements that were formally approved by Israel, and are home to a 
fraction of the West Bank’s 350,000 Jewish settlers.


One group stretches east of Shilo, like beads on a chain: Shvut Rahel, 
Adei Ad, Ahiya, Kida, Esh Kodesh. These outposts command the hilltops 
between Palestinian villages like Qusra, Jalud, Al-Mughayyer and Duma, 
the scene of last year’s deadly arson attack in which one young Israeli 
has been charged with murder and another with conspiracy.


Rabbah Hazameh, a Palestinian whose family owns olive orchards and 
agricultural fields in the area, said that settlers prevented him and 
his relatives from working their land close to Adei Ad, and that trees 
had been damaged and poisoned. He said that his uncle had submitted 86 
complaints to the Israeli police over the years, but “nothing happened.”


While most of the world considers all of these settlements a violation 
of international law, Israel itself makes distinctions, including 
whether they sit on privately owned Palestinian land and whether they 
had 

[Marxism] Beyond the Ballot Box

[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.
*

LRB, Vol. 38 No. 17 · 8 September 2016
Beyond the Ballot Box
Tim Barker

Necessary Trouble: Americans in Revolt by Sarah Jaffe
Nation, 352 pp, £20.00, August, ISBN 978 1 56858 536 9

Commenting on Occupy Wall Street in late 2011, Barney Frank, then a 
Democratic congressman for Massachusetts, voiced a common complaint: ‘I 
don’t understand why people think that simply being in a physical place 
does much.’ Nearly five years later, it isn’t easy to decide whether 
Frank was right. Part of the puzzle is that the Occupy movement had a 
strange double character, both tactic (something to be done) and 
discourse (something to talk about). The tactic involved illegal 
occupation of public space and abstention from electoral politics. 
‘Occupy’ was a verb, and occupiers defied the restrictive policing that 
normally kept city centre areas clean for white-collar workers and 
tourists. Inside the space, people made decisions on a directly 
democratic basis, gathering in general assemblies where consensus was 
supposed to substitute for majority rule, and demands to existing 
authorities were explicitly forsworn. The occupiers confronted other 
people, on their small patch of land, without the mediations of market 
and parliament.


But the movement was also based on a set of grievances and slogans: 
collusion between finance and the state (‘Banks got bailed out, we got 
sold out!’), staggering income and wealth inequality (‘We are the 99 per 
cent’), a representative democracy that scarcely deserved the name (‘Get 
money out of politics’). Not only did these not depend on the tactic of 
occupation, but they often seemed aimed at engaging with and improving 
the existing system. There were frequent discussions of Citizens United, 
the 2010 Supreme Court case removing limits on corporate campaign 
donations, and of Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era banking regulation 
whose repeal in 1999 is sometimes blamed for the 2008 crisis. If the 
poisoned fruit had been eaten so recently, maybe there was no need to 
start from scratch.


The tactic of occupation has left little trace. After protesters set up 
camp in Zuccotti Park in New York’s financial district on 17 September 
2011, there were further occupations in hundreds of other cities and 
towns. Always dependent on official forbearance, the encampments were 
evicted in a string of police raids between 25 October (Oakland) and 15 
November (Manhattan). Even before the cops came, these societies in 
miniature had run up against internal limits, including the difficulty 
of accommodating a growing number of homeless residents. The attempt at 
direct democracy gave way to bitter arguments: some complained that a de 
facto leadership had emerged, while others argued for the necessity of 
delegating power. After the crackdown, many hoped the movement would 
live on in new forms of direct action, including Occupy Sandy – to help 
the victims of Hurricane Sandy – and the Occupy Homes movement to stop 
foreclosures and move homeless families into empty houses. But these 
proved short-lived, leaving the discourse of inequality, rather than the 
tactic of occupation, as the most visible legacy.


This influence is almost always referred to as ‘changing the 
conversation’, a locution suggesting a conception of politics as a 
cocktail party. But it is true that after Occupy, US politicians spoke 
somewhat less cautiously about the wealthy. Barack Obama’s 2012 
re-election campaign targeted Mitt Romney’s background in private 
equity, while Bill de Blasio came from behind to become the first 
Democratic mayor of New York in two decades running against the legacy 
of the three-term mayor, the billionaire Michael Bloomberg. Thomas 
Piketty’s unexpected blockbuster made talk of class conflict safe for 
polite company, while trend pieces heralded ‘the new socialist 
wunderkinds of America’ gathered around magazines like the New Inquiry 
(several of its editors were arrested during the protests) and Jacobin 
(whose breakthrough moment, according to the New York Times, was 
sponsoring a well-attended public debate about Occupy’s tactics).


The greatest achievement of the post-Occupy conversation may be the 
unexpected success of Bernie Sanders. Running in a Democratic primary 
ran counter to the basic ideas of OWS, and at first Sanders wasn’t 
identified with the movement. By all accounts, he expected to run a 
protest campaign, a shoestring operation that would enable him to 
publicise a social democratic alternative to Clintonism during the 
televised debates. The extent of the support he drew – large enough that 
it could plausibly be called a movement – took him 

[Marxism] Letter from Oz Katerji to Electronic Intifada

[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.
*

No one is asking you to adopt our language, but you are constantly 
calling for balance and looking for neutrality, Explaining that all 
sides are bad, that Assad is popular, that nothing can be done. These 
tactics are the exact same things liberal Zionists do, it's the exact 
same thing you criticise people for.


The point is, if you aren't going to explicitly side with Syrians 
fighting for their civil liberties and democratic freedoms then anything 
else you say is a sounding rod for the status quo and your calls for 
balance on the US and Russia are equally as bad. Russia's MO in Syria 
has been the extermination of civilians and civilian infrastructure. 
Anything that does not explicitly condemn that without looking for 
whatabouttery is simply doing a propaganda job for the Russians. Your 
talk of a negotiated solution adds to the fantasy, the only negotiated 
solution Assad accepts is surrender, same for Iran.
You call for disarmament and not justice and accountability, you want to 
negotiate with the side winning the war with all carrot and no stick, 
logically it's a fallacy. Furthermore, some of your colleagues have said 
poisonous, disgusting things. Asa Winstanley refers to all anti-Assad 
Syrians, ie the majority of the population, as "moderate al-Qaeda", that 
is the exact same language employed by Likudniks to discuss Gazans. 
Furthermore he has consistently shared articles and expressed doubts 
about regime culpability for the Ghouta chemical massacre. This is the 
whitewashing of war crimes. He does this while he continues to publish 
in the pro-regime al-Akhbar.


As a collective your tweets and statements generally do one thing, 
appeal for neutrality. Assad has killed civilians at a ratio of more 
than 10:1 compared to rebels. He has used rape, starvation and nerve gas 
as a weapon of war, he has deliberately targeted schools and hospitals 
as a means of depopulation. Every time you do not explicitly mention 
this in your analysis all it does is muddy the waters and confuse people 
as to who is the largest killer in the region
This isn't an ultimatum, either you guys change your rhetoric or we will 
continue to campaign against you, we aren't telling lies, I will send 
you screenshots to back up every accusation I've made, quite honestly 
you would be shocked at how many people have contacted us in private to 
agree, Palestinian leftists, people you would consider your target 
audience.


Most of us grew up idolising Electronic Intifada, now we see it as 
morally compromised. I'm appealing to you as a human being.
There are implications to your words. The term Assadist should not be 
thrown around to describe you lot and I have never done so, but I will 
keep insisting that your political position strengthens the regime 
narrative in the same way whatabouttery strengthens the status quo in 
Palestine. Please listen Rania, please. Please help us, please show your 
solidarity and come out strongly against the regime. It will change 
nothing on the ground but it would genuinely mean something to Syrians.

_
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: A foreign academic briefly detained in Turkey tells his story

[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.
*



https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/08/31/foreign-academic-briefly-detained-turkey-tells-his-story
_
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 Tragedy of Daraya

[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 Robin Yassin-Kassab.

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/2016/8/27/the-tragedy-of-daraya
_
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] A "Nazi" party as an Assad ally

[Michael Karadjis 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.
*

-Original Message- 
From: Tristan Sloughter via Marxism



And neo-Nazis of the West also support Assad.



Andrew Auernheimer (weev) for example: http://i.imgur.com/xNeNcfk.jpg

..

All Nazi, far-right, ultra-nationalist organisations in Europe and US 
support Assad.


On the (appropriately named) Syrian Social Nationalist Party, the party 
whose symbol is a swastika:


This political party was founded by Antun Khalil Saʿada in Lebanon in 
1932 and it reflected his fascist sympathies in many ways, such as his 
cult-of-personality style leadership, the way the party was organized 
and its emphasis on blood lines and mystical nationalism. The party used 
the European fascists and Nazis as a template for its rituals and 
symbolism from the Hitler-like salute, to setting their anthem to 
“Deutschland, Deutschland über alles”, to the use of a Swastika-like 
symbol, the “Red Hurricane”, on its flag.
In the thirties many fascist and Nazi sympathizers flocked to the SSNP 
but these days it can also count on the support of many European extreme 
rightwing groups who express their interest in forums on the web.

--> Is fascism infiltrating our rallies?
http://therawrreport.net/…/17/fascism-infiltrating-our-rall…

- Antun Saadeh was a Lebanese Christian who founded the Syrian Socialist 
Nationalist Party (SSNP) in 1932. He was an unabashed Germanophile and 
made no secret of his admiration for Hitler while teaching German at the 
American University of Beirut. The expansionist polices of Nazi Germany 
touched him the most. The “Syrian” in SSNP refers to the idea of a 
“Greater Syria” on steroids; it would encapsulate the lands of 
Palestine, the Sinai, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and the island of Cyprus 
along with modern-day Syria.
Saadeh’s organization is a literal copy of the German NSAP, including 
doctrines of racist pseudo-science, a personality cult, and a 
Swastika-like flag.

--> Syrian Fascism and the Western Left:
http://therawrreport.net/…/…/syrian-fascism-and-western-left

Syrian Girl/Partisan Girl, who many may know from her voluminous defence 
of Assad for years, is a SSNP supporter. This probably accounts for her 
anti-Arab views (she is Syrian, but that doesn;t stop her being 
anti-Arab):


Syrians are ‘Aramaics’; those barbaric Arabs came and forced them to 
speak Arabic. Similar to the 'Phoenician' identity long proposed by the 
Lebanese Phalange, this position has a logic for those justifying 
support for a gigantic Nakbah aimed at keeping the Assad regime in power 
which has gained much global ultra-right support; yet would contradict 
the "leftist" pro-Arab pretensions of some of those they aim to 
influence.


“East Africa and Syria share something in common, we were both invaded 
by the arabs from the gulf and forced to speak Arabic”

https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/752239263077445632

“When East Africa reject arabism they're applauded for embracing being 
black, but when Syrians reject arabism, no no no. Why is that?”

https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/752240475755515904

Syrian Arab Army anyone? Maybe being honest now about the lack of Syrian 
Arabs doing any of their fighting? 


_
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] Almost a third of Cuba is forest thanks to program

[Stuart Munckton 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.
*

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/62548
_
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