[Marxism] Venezuela's people and government need international solidarity

[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.
*

The statement below was released by the Philippines-Venezuela Solidarity
Network (PhilVenSol) on august 31. It comes after calls from Venezuela for
international solidarity against new US-backed destabilisation against the
elected government and revolutionary movement.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/62570
_
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?

[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.
*

On 9/1/16 10:38 PM, Clay Claiborne wrote:


Again, this is treacherous talk designed to deceive people so that they
are more likely to do what you want.

The problem for Leftists who peddle this line is if Trump wins and their
treachery is exposed - and hated - as with the Brexit regrets.


I haven't been called treacherous since the days of the Marxism list 
that preceded Marxmail that had Shining Path subscribers. It almost 
makes me feel nostalgic.

_
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.
*

Louis,

Remember a couple of weeks ago when you said:

Finally, isn't it time to recognize that the Trump campaign is toast? The
> numbers are devastating:


The Brexit vote was toast too, down 34% in the polls.

Again, this is treacherous talk designed to deceive people so that they are
more likely to do what you want.

The problem for Leftists who peddle this line is if Trump wins and their
treachery is exposed - and hated - as with the Brexit regrets.

Clay


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

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 

_
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?

[Andrew Stewart 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'd like to interject here something Mumia himself said in a recent column:

If Trump is the price we have to pay to defeat Clintonian neoliberalism –
so be it.

*
(http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/19/the-time-is-now-to-defeat-both-trump-and-clintonian-neoliberalism/
)
  *
In other words, Clay, get over yourself. Mumia has been what I view as the
greatest revolutionary thinker in America for decades. If he says it, I'm
more inclined to take his judgments more seriously than this Chicken Little
act. All Trump has done is show the world how awful white Americans
actually are and always were. It is painful and awful to see the violence
he inspires. But that white trash was going to do that anyways without
Trump, all he did was give them a new Tea Partier figurehead, before him it
was Sarah Palin and Glen Beck. Further, I would argue that a) denying that
the fascists in this country are police is itself racist and b) pissing off
his followers by giving Clinton a victory is a very bad idea.

https://rimediacoop.org/2016/07/27/andrew-stewart-if-trump-loses/



Message: 11
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 19:54:24 -0400
From: Louis Proyect 
To: Clay Claiborne ,Activists and scholars in
Marxist tradition 
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?
Message-ID: <9406f1fc-8b80-a64f-d596-59423c977...@panix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

On 9/1/16 7:44 PM, Clay Claiborne wrote:
>
> Are you now ready to revise your estimate of Trump's chances?

Clay, let me repeat what I have already said. My political orientation
was based on what I learned from Peter Camejo in the early 80s. I took
an interest in the Greens after attending a standing room only for Ralph
Nader in 2000 and it deepened after Peter became his running mate in
2004. Nader was not running as a Green that year because "Demogreens"
were afraid that he would steal votes from John Kerry.

In other words, I am a strong supporter of the Green Party (even though
I am not a member). I always vote Green, including for Howie Hawkins who
is on Marxmail. Half the editorial board of the North Star website are
involved with the Greens either as candidates (Brandy Baker and Jim
Brash) or as frustrated members (Mark Lause).

I have political principles that I am strongly committed to. One of them
is total opposition to both the Democrats and Republicans. In the best
of all possible worlds, the Labor Party that some leftish AFL-CIO
bureaucrats formed back in the 1980s would have taken off but they
lacked the nerve, just like the Demogreens.

I don't think that the Greens will lead a revolution in the USA that is
so desperately needed but it is a way-station on that path. If something
better came along, I'd hook up with that in a heartbeat. But surely you
must understand by now that I would rather be waterboarded than vote for
Hillary Clinton.
-- 
Best regards,

Andrew Stewart
_
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?

[Thomas 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.
*


For a different opinion, see:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/its-time-for-black-people-to-break-the-two-party-system/

T


-Original Message-
>From: Clay Claiborne via Marxism 
>Sent: Sep 1, 2016 1:20 AM
>To: Thomas F Barton 
>Subject: Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?
>
>
>
>Clay Claiborne, Director
>Vietnam: American Holocaust 
>Linux Beach Productions
>Venice, CA 90291
>(310) 581-1536
>
>On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Marxism <
>marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
>Clinton is both a neoliberal (more inequality) and a neocon (more war);
>> Trump isn’t:
>>
>> Trump is a fascist and a white supremacists. He just finished the most
>racist speech I've ever heard from a major candidate, His campaign manager
>is tied to what has been called an evangelistic coup in the military and
>breaks bread with elements that think pogroms will be necessary to create
>the [white] America they want, and you want to argue Clinton is worst?
>
>You want to try putting that in terms that will win colored people to your
>position or don't you care?
>
>
>Jill Stein got ZERO bounce from her CNN appearance. How come? She appeals
>to no one outside of a self-isolated Left.
>
>Here's the latest Fox News Poll 2-way Clinton beats Trump by 6% down from
>10% earlier. 4-way Trump 39% Clinton 41% Johnson 12% Stein 4%
>
>Clearly she is within closing distance, not of winning - her scheme to turn
>out 43 million new college votes before 11/8 is truly delusional, but of
>negating enough progressive votes, to hand the white house to the white
>nationalists that she is so fucking quiet about.
>
>Yes , emotions are involved. I just watched a hate filled speech from Trump
>and then a fb post of Jill Stein's LA talk [had to work - boss would let me
>off] SHE SAY NOTHING ABOUT TRUMP'S RACISM. Her fire is directed at Clinton.
>So excuse me if I don't suddenly get stupid and forget why I've been saying
>that "Leftists" who only criticize Assad's opposition while being silent on
>his crimes are objectively pro-Assad, and apply the same logic come away
>from Stein's talk concluding that she is objectively pro-Trump.
>
>Because - NEWS FLASH (break it to her gently) Jill Stein has NO CHANCE of
>being our next president. Trump or Clinton will be.
>
>Why would you expect or want working people to follow someone so
>delusional? [no wonder she got no CNN bounce]
>
>Basically, It doesn't seem like you don't feel the same hate coming from
>the Trump campaign that I do.  You say Trump is not a neoliberal or a
>neocon, but what is he. Why exactly do you not feel as threatened by him as
>most black, Muslim and Latin people do?
>
>Clay
>_
>Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
>Set your options at: 
>http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/thomasfbarton%40earthlink.net

_
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.
*

Eminent sense.

> On Sep 1, 2016, at 7:38 PM, Dennis Brasky via Marxism 
>  wrote:
> 
>   ...let's 
> say [Trump] makes
> it close by November. If the Left follows the path of capitulation to
> hysteria and supports Clinton and she wins and gives us four more years of
> Bill and Barack's neoliberal economic policies and neoconservative foreign
> policies, then what? Another Trump runs against her in 2020 and what does
> the Left have to offer - four more years of arsenic instead of cyanide?
> Millions of people, angry with the way things are will have no Left to turn
> to since we were so busy stifling our views in favor of protection from the
> lesser evil that we neglected to set up our own independent presence with
> our own voice. Those millions - not just diehard racists and xenophobes -
> will have nowhere else to turn to but the far right. What will we have
> accomplished except to further put off the task of building a Left that has
> some resonance with our natural constituency?


_
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?

[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.
*

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:44 PM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>
> Louis,
>
> Remember a couple of weeks ago when you said:
>
> Finally, isn't it time to recognize that the Trump campaign is toast? The
> > numbers are devastating:
>
> Well, now most polls  show Clinton's lead cut in half. Reuters has them
> neck-in-neck. Any honest stock broker would be issuing a revised estimate
> by now. Will you?
>
>
Unless some major scandal breaks out a few weeks before the election
concerning the sleazy Clinton Foundation or her emails as Secretary of
State, I can't believe that Trump, with so many Republicans bailing out on
him and the Big $ not going his way, can win. But let's say that he makes
it close by November. If the Left follows the path of capitulation to
hysteria and supports Clinton and she wins and gives us four more years of
Bill and Barack's neoliberal economic policies and neoconservative foreign
policies, then what? Another Trump runs against her in 2020 and what does
the Left have to offer - four more years of arsenic instead of cyanide?
Millions of people, angry with the way things are will have no Left to turn
to since we were so busy stifling our views in favor of protection from the
lesser evil that we neglected to set up our own independent presence with
our own voice. Those millions - not just diehard racists and xenophobes -
will have nowhere else to turn to but the far right. What will we have
accomplished except to further put off the task of building a Left that has
some resonance with our natural constituency?
_
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?

[Sheldon Ranz via Marxism]

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

Amith: “Is there any serious case that can be made that that resistance --
and our connection
with those communities that will lead it -- would be stronger under
Donald Trump than under Hillary Clinton?”


Yes.  Hillary would get the benefit of the doubt from many progressives
because she would be the first woman President, and many male progressives
in particular would be inhibited from criticizing her for fear of being
labeled sexist.  This will dampen resistance to her Kissinger-style foreign
policies, for example.  On the other hand, what progressives would be
intimidated going after Trump?  As a white male heterosexual Christian
Republican, he’s the perfect storm for the oppressed.


Economist Michael Hudson wrote on Counterpunch recently that Hillary is the
greater evil precisely because she is more organized, intellectually
capable and has better connections to the Establishment.



On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:00 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.
> *
>
> Well said.
>
> > On Sep 1, 2016, at 6:54 PM, Louis Proyect via Marxism <
> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
> >
> > ...let me repeat what I have already said. My political orientation was
> based on what I learned from Peter Camejo in the early 80s. I took an
> interest in the Greens after attending a standing room only for Ralph Nader
> in 2000 and it deepened after Peter became his running mate in 2004. Nader
> was not running as a Green that year because "Demogreens" were afraid that
> he would steal votes from John Kerry.
> >
> > In other words, I am a strong supporter of the Green Party (even though
> I am not a member). I always vote Green, including for Howie Hawkins who is
> on Marxmail. Half the editorial board of the North Star website are
> involved with the Greens either as candidates (Brandy Baker and Jim Brash)
> or as frustrated members (Mark Lause).
> >
> > I have political principles that I am strongly committed to. One of them
> is total opposition to both the Democrats and Republicans. In the best of
> all possible worlds, the Labor Party that some leftish AFL-CIO bureaucrats
> formed back in the 1980s would have taken off but they lacked the nerve,
> just like the Demogreens.
> >
> > I don't think that the Greens will lead a revolution in the USA that is
> so desperately needed but it is a way-station on that path. If something
> better came along, I'd hook up with that in a heartbeat. But surely you
> must understand by now that I would rather be waterboarded than vote for
> Hillary Clinton.
>
>
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/sranz18%
> 40gmail.com
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] 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.
*

Well said.

> On Sep 1, 2016, at 6:54 PM, Louis Proyect via Marxism 
>  wrote:
> 
> ...let me repeat what I have already said. My political orientation was based 
> on what I learned from Peter Camejo in the early 80s. I took an interest in 
> the Greens after attending a standing room only for Ralph Nader in 2000 and 
> it deepened after Peter became his running mate in 2004. Nader was not 
> running as a Green that year because "Demogreens" were afraid that he would 
> steal votes from John Kerry.
> 
> In other words, I am a strong supporter of the Green Party (even though I am 
> not a member). I always vote Green, including for Howie Hawkins who is on 
> Marxmail. Half the editorial board of the North Star website are involved 
> with the Greens either as candidates (Brandy Baker and Jim Brash) or as 
> frustrated members (Mark Lause).
> 
> I have political principles that I am strongly committed to. One of them is 
> total opposition to both the Democrats and Republicans. In the best of all 
> possible worlds, the Labor Party that some leftish AFL-CIO bureaucrats formed 
> back in the 1980s would have taken off but they lacked the nerve, just like 
> the Demogreens.
> 
> I don't think that the Greens will lead a revolution in the USA that is so 
> desperately needed but it is a way-station on that path. If something better 
> came along, I'd hook up with that in a heartbeat. But surely you must 
> understand by now that I would rather be waterboarded than vote for Hillary 
> Clinton.


_
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.
*

Why Trump will probably be elected:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/09/01/retirement/sIRT23m4MHGkEwXaP8YB9H/story.html
 


—CGE


> On Sep 1, 2016, at 6:44 PM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism 
>  wrote:
> 
> Louis,
> 
> Remember a couple of weeks ago when you said:
> 
> Finally, isn't it time to recognize that the Trump campaign is toast? The
>> numbers are devastating:
> 
> 
> Well, now most polls  show Clinton's lead cut in half. Reuters has them
> neck-in-neck. Any honest stock broker would be issuing a revised estimate
> by now. Will you?
> 
> As I said, I think talk like that is treacherous and I don't say that light
> because I have a great deal of respect for you, but I have to call them
> like I see them.
> 
> It is only being put forward that Trump will surely lose to calm the fears
> of voters who are convinced he is a much greater evil, so that they won't
> worry so much and won't feel the need to vote for Clinton who they rightly
> detest.
> 
> The question of whether he may win or not is something quite separate an
> evaluation of his politics, which I want to get into with your Goldwater
> quote but I see my lunch hr is drawing to a close so that will have tu wait.
> 
> So just on this question: I thought your estimate that the Trump campaign
> was toast when you said it. I've laid out all the things that could happen
> before 8 Nov. other places, there are many.
> 
> Are you now ready to revise your estimate of Trump's chances?
> 
> More, later
> 
> Clay

_
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?

[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.
*

On 9/1/16 7:44 PM, Clay Claiborne wrote:


Are you now ready to revise your estimate of Trump's chances?


Clay, let me repeat what I have already said. My political orientation 
was based on what I learned from Peter Camejo in the early 80s. I took 
an interest in the Greens after attending a standing room only for Ralph 
Nader in 2000 and it deepened after Peter became his running mate in 
2004. Nader was not running as a Green that year because "Demogreens" 
were afraid that he would steal votes from John Kerry.


In other words, I am a strong supporter of the Green Party (even though 
I am not a member). I always vote Green, including for Howie Hawkins who 
is on Marxmail. Half the editorial board of the North Star website are 
involved with the Greens either as candidates (Brandy Baker and Jim 
Brash) or as frustrated members (Mark Lause).


I have political principles that I am strongly committed to. One of them 
is total opposition to both the Democrats and Republicans. In the best 
of all possible worlds, the Labor Party that some leftish AFL-CIO 
bureaucrats formed back in the 1980s would have taken off but they 
lacked the nerve, just like the Demogreens.


I don't think that the Greens will lead a revolution in the USA that is 
so desperately needed but it is a way-station on that path. If something 
better came along, I'd hook up with that in a heartbeat. But surely you 
must understand by now that I would rather be waterboarded than vote for 
Hillary Clinton.

_
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.
*

Louis,

Remember a couple of weeks ago when you said:

Finally, isn't it time to recognize that the Trump campaign is toast? The
> numbers are devastating:


Well, now most polls  show Clinton's lead cut in half. Reuters has them
neck-in-neck. Any honest stock broker would be issuing a revised estimate
by now. Will you?

As I said, I think talk like that is treacherous and I don't say that light
because I have a great deal of respect for you, but I have to call them
like I see them.

It is only being put forward that Trump will surely lose to calm the fears
of voters who are convinced he is a much greater evil, so that they won't
worry so much and won't feel the need to vote for Clinton who they rightly
detest.

The question of whether he may win or not is something quite separate an
evaluation of his politics, which I want to get into with your Goldwater
quote but I see my lunch hr is drawing to a close so that will have tu wait.

So just on this question: I thought your estimate that the Trump campaign
was toast when you said it. I've laid out all the things that could happen
before 8 Nov. other places, there are many.

Are you now ready to revise your estimate of Trump's chances?

More, later

Clay

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

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 


On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Louis Proyect via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> *
>
> On 9/1/16 4:46 PM, A.R. G via Marxism wrote:
>
>> As for what we should have supported, there were multiple, functioning
>> mass
>> movements in the country in 1964, and you'll note that most of them did
>> not
>> play electoral politics at all.
>>
>
> Not exactly. SDS had become fairly massive by that point and raised the
> slogan "Part of the Way with LBJ". The CPUSA, which was still the largest
> "Leninist" group on the left, would have upped the ante and called for "All
> the Way with LBJ". In fact the dynamics of the 1964 election were JUST like
> those today. Voting for anybody but LBJ was considered the same thing as
> voting for Goldwater who everybody thought was ready to blow up the world
> with hydrogen bombs. He said "I would remind you that extremism in the
> defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation
> in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" That was widely interpreted as a
> threat to impose a fascist dictatorship on the USA.
>
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/opt
> ions/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

[Marxism] Vijay Prashad on the ongoing fight against the legacy of colonialism

[Red Arnie 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.alternet.org/world/lingering-impacts-colonialism

Red Arnie
Moraga, CA
_
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: [Ku Klux Klan members supporting Barry Goldwater's campaign for the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention, San Francisco, California, as an African American man

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

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



http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2003673964/
_
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?

[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.
*

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Ken Hiebert via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>
> The Greens
> I am open to the view that the Greens are not a good alternative.  But
> they are not the only alternative.  If I lived in the US, I could use my
> vote to support a small socialist group.  That would be my way of calling
> for the building of a real socialist alternative.
>
> 


One small problem - there is NO political motion towards any socialist
grouping in the US today. There is, like it or not, an attraction of many
pro-socialist Sanders supporters towards the Green Party. As long as the
Greens remain firm on building a left alternative to the Democrats and
resist the hysteria of the Defeat Trump (elect Clinton) liberals and
frightened radicals, they are worth supporting, while always keeping the
goal of left regroupment in mind which would be much bigger than the
Greens. As Marx said, "give me real movement of masses over 100 perfect
programs!"
_
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?

[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.
*

On 9/1/16 4:46 PM, A.R. G via Marxism wrote:

As for what we should have supported, there were multiple, functioning mass
movements in the country in 1964, and you'll note that most of them did not
play electoral politics at all.


Not exactly. SDS had become fairly massive by that point and raised the 
slogan "Part of the Way with LBJ". The CPUSA, which was still the 
largest "Leninist" group on the left, would have upped the ante and 
called for "All the Way with LBJ". In fact the dynamics of the 1964 
election were JUST like those today. Voting for anybody but LBJ was 
considered the same thing as voting for Goldwater who everybody thought 
was ready to blow up the world with hydrogen bombs. He said "I would 
remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let 
me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no 
virtue!" That was widely interpreted as a threat to impose a fascist 
dictatorship on the USA.

_
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.
*

Ken: "Consider this scenario.  Clinton is elected this time round, but
becomes very unpopular.  In 2020 the Republicans nominate Trump or someone
of his ilk.  Then what?"

Amith: I don't disagree with you about this problem. The issue is whether
or not building a socialist alternative requires promoting the Green
Party *within
swing states* and *within the next two months*. That is literally all I am
disputing. As a matter of strategy, I do not see how the benefits in the
long term outweigh the costs. It could risk a Trump victory in 2016 and the
benefits would be slightly increasing the power and influence of a marginal
party with no mass organizing base. The better strategy is to recognize
that we have already lost 2016 and begin trying to foment a mass movement
(or, better yet, ensure the trajectory of the ones that are already being
built) independent of the electoral calendar. This can be done on the local
level and can be done in every single state independently of who wins in
2016. If and when Clinton wins, continuing to build that party will be much
easier than under Trump. In prior contests the difference as far as this
particular calculation goes was probably negligible. But socialists,
Greens, and other assorted lefties did not build the alternative in 2008 or
2012 when many of the people who are now conceding to Clinton were not
willing to support Obama and voted for Stein.

Dennis: The issue is NOT the many political weaknesses of the Green Party -
it is one of holding up a standard of class politics - ABC for Marxists.

Amith: This is vague, I'm not sure how to respond or what the point you're
making is. That you are a Marxist? Great.

Dennis:  This is - sorry for being too blunt - tailism.

Amith: I would argue it is not tailism because we are talking specifically
about a realm in which we have already lost. As I mentioned, I have no
problem with people voting Green in Dark Blue states and more importantly,
I would never take this line of reasoning in actual social movements
(grassroots organizing, labor building, anti-war activism, etc). But more
importantly, that's fine. You can call it tailism, I'm not sure what to do
with that, it sounds more like a classification than an argument.

Dennis:  Should we have supported Johnson in 1964 because the American
people were overwhelminly in favor of military retaliation against North
Vietnam for the alleged attack at the Gulf of Tonkin that August?

You'll have to forgive me, I do not have as much knowledge about the
Goldwater campaign as others do. I was given different points of view
growing up, with some arguing that Goldwater was some sort of isolationist
and others telling me he wanted to nuke everything.

As for what we should have supported, there were multiple, functioning mass
movements in the country in 1964, and you'll note that most of them did not
play electoral politics at all. So the question is not whether they should
support Johnson over a Socialist candidate, it was the same question then
as now: how do we build a mass movement and among the obstacles that are
thrown in our way, which obstacles are the obstacles we want rather than
the ones we don't want? How do we divest ourselves from a two-party system
in which both parties are our enemies and we are consistently slated to
lose despite actually speaking to the needs of the electorate? The simple
fact is that the 1964 election was not between us and our enemies. It was
between our enemies and themselves. It is a ritual to legitimate the
existing government, and in order to successfully challenge that system, we
need to ensure the proper conditions for our organizing outside the system.
So the question is not which of these pieces of shit smells less, it is
which one will more likely allow the conditions for the growth of our
movement given that the delegate math does not favor us?

Dennis: BTW - did he call for support to Kerensky in August 1917 for
"protection" against the Kornilov coup attempt, or did he call for
organizing the people to fight back??

I don't know, but the fact that you are referring to 1917 -- a time in
which there had been tremendously greater organization by the Left in a
country that was in the middle of crisis, than in the two months before the
2016 election -- a very different context -- means that this is an
inapposite analogy.

- Amith

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Ken Hiebert  wrote:

> To A. R. G.
> You are quite correct to point out something missing in my message.  Who
> was it sent to?  I cc'ed it to Clay, but that did not show up on the list.
>
> The Greens
> I am open to the view that the Greens are not a 

Re: [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.
*

To A. R. G.
You are quite correct to point out something missing in my message.  Who was it 
sent to?  I cc'ed it to Clay, but that did not show up on the list.

The Greens
I am open to the view that the Greens are not a good alternative.  But they are 
not the only alternative.  If I lived in the US, I could use my vote to support 
a small socialist group.  That would be my way of calling for the building of a 
real socialist alternative.

You say, "There is a fundamental importance to building a separate party with 
separate politics. But that cannot be done in 2 months."
I agree.  It will take much longer than 2 months.  But each time we postpone 
it, it will take that much longer.

Consider this scenario.  Clinton is elected this time round, but becomes very 
unpopular.  In 2020 the Republicans nominate Trump or someone of his ilk.  Then 
what?
Against that possibility we need to build the strongest socialist movement we 
can.  Organized socialists will play an important role in any resistance to 
Trump or to Clinton.
Now is the right time to be building the socialist alternative.

ken h


On 2016-09-01, at 10:12 AM, A.R. G wrote:

> Ken,
> 
> I don't know who you were asking specifically but I voted for Stein in 2012. 
> There were crucial differences between Obama and Romney, but I felt their 
> similarities outweighed those differences such that it was worth voting for 
> the Greens. I plan to vote for her again. The difference is that in 2012, I 
> also advocated that those in swing states vote for the Green Party. 
> 
> In this election, I am much less sure. There is a chance that Trump could win 
> the election, and if so, the differences between his policies and Clinton's 
> vastly outweigh their similarities. 
> 
> I understand and sympathize with the positions some of you have articulated 
> (although I do not agree at all with Carl's). There is a fundamental 
> importance to building a separate party with separate politics. But that 
> cannot be done in 2 months. If the Greens want to be the voice of those who 
> are disaffected they must start on a much more grassroots level and build up. 
> From what I have seen, they have only done so in a few locales and their 
> primary appeal seems to be slagging off the Democrats. As Clay has pointed 
> out, this is a strategy that does not appear to have many contemporary 
> benefits and could give rise to considerable costs if it ends up being one of 
> any number of factors that contributes to a potential Trump victory -- 
> something that was unthinkable less than a year ago. 
> 
> I'd also encourage those of you who are downplaying the difference to look at 
> some of Trump's most recent policy proposals. Trump is talking about using 
> Executive Power grabs to re-implement already discarded policy proposals like 
> S-Comm to start rounding up millions of people. He is serious about the wall. 
> He is talking about religious and political vetting for refugees from Iraq 
> and Afghanistan and other (Muslim) countries. He is no longer speaking in 
> populistic vagueries. He is actually spouting policy rhetoric about deporting 
> millions of people with almost no process and turning the United States into 
> an "American" (read: white, Christian) bastion with Zionist-style racial 
> preservation policies.
> 
> The other policies he has proposed are returns to the Bush administration, 
> including the implementation of torture. It is true that Obama holds 
> considerable blame for refusing to prosecute the torturers. But so what? 
> Between Trump and Shillary, only one is floating the notion of returning to 
> those policies, and he isn't even cloaking it with euphemisms. Rather than 
> trying to hide from the law, he is openly flouting it. 
> 
> Hillary Clinton is a horrible person. I have no doubt that her victory will 
> bring about untold oppression. The difference is that she has a Trump card on 
> us. The other option is considerably worse, so much so that the difference 
> cannot be thrown aside under the "all of them are horrible" premise. I feel 
> that some of you on this list are acting as though one can play in a lion's 
> den and not run into a lion. We are talking about corrupt elections in an 
> empire in decline during a massive slide to the right, wherein a combination 
> of NGOs and liberal redbaiters have effectively compromised any serious sort 
> of mass movement. 
> 
> There is a simple truth that we are deluding ourselves into forgetting: we 
> have already lost the 2016 election. We will not win this round. The focus 
> needs to be on building a resistance to whoever wins in 2016. 

[Marxism] US Strategy to fight ISIS has set off a new conflict in Syria

[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.
*

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/31/u-s-strategy-to-fight-isis-has-set-off-a-new-conflict-in-syria/
_
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] "Rosa Remix" book launch

[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.
*

Thursday, Sept. 8, 6-8PM
Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung
275 Madsion Avenue

On Thursday, September 8, the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung—New York Office 
invites you to join us, from 6-8pm, to celebrate the release of Rosa 
Remix, a collection that examines Rosa Luxemburg and the relevance of 
her work to contemporary political struggles.


Last fall our office held a conference to which we invited a mixture of 
academics, journalists, and activists to discuss Rosa Luxemburg’s 
theoretical work and how it may contribute to current discussions taking 
place on the Left. The contributions of our invited speakers were so 
good that we decided to turn them into a book. Rosa Remix is the result.


http://www.rosalux-nyc.org/rosa-remix-2/




_
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.
*

Hi Dennis,

First and foremost, I do not consider Marxism to be a cult. I consider it
to be a modality of analysis. So frankly, I do not give 2 shits whether or
not something "counts" as Marxist -- and judging by the kind of garbage
pail "Marxism" that floats around on leftist websites it looks like I'm not
the only one who isn't very strict about that.

My approach does not betray a lack of confidence in the working class or
the oppressed minorities. My approach lacks confidence in the electoral
designs of the founding fathers and the ability of the Green Party to
overcome them within a very short period of time. I think what Clay wrote
earlier was a reasonable point: why aren't we listening to exactly those
communities you mention, who are right now flocking to Hillary? Is it lost
on everyone that the working class and the oppressed minorities -- even
those who originally had faith in Bernie Sanders -- are now resigned to
Hillary Clinton, assuming they weren't already fawning over her bullshit?
We need a strategy to ensure that those people's most immediate needs --
and one very looming, incredibly grave, and urgent threat to those needs,
embodied in Trump's detailed plans to deport 11 million people and issue
immediate reversals of several limited reforms -- are spoken to.

Right now, the way we can do that is by organizing those movements on the
grassroots level *outside of the elections. *That is what most of us do as
activists. We attend socialist forums, sure. But we also do community
organizing. We work with working class organizations and try to build their
membership. We find people within the working class that do not have the
baggage that bourgeois activists do and see what we can do to assist their
efforts to affect policy. That is what trusting in the power of the masses
looks like. Indeed, you'll notice that the most effective grassroots
movement thus far -- with all its contradictions -- has not endorsed Jill
Stein *or* Hillary Clinton (and certainly not Trump). Black Lives Matter
has recognized that there are no reasonable choices and is attempting to
build a bulwark against racist policies by any of these people through
close connections with the working class (albeit their louder members
appear to be NGO-backed morons from the touchy-feely department). *That* is
what we must do and where we should be looking for leadership.

Somehow, you have managed to extend that faith in the power of the working
class, and particularly marginalized groups within it, to the people who
run in controlled elections. That is, simply put, not our territory. We can
build a party that can meaningfully challenge the dominant parties. But how
can we do it in 2 months? How could we even do it in 2 years? I'd like to
hear a concrete proposal.


- Amith

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Dennis Brasky  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:12 PM, A.R. G via Marxism <
> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> There is a simple truth that we are deluding ourselves into forgetting: we
>> have already lost the 2016 election. We will not win this round. The focus
>> needs to be on building a resistance to whoever wins in 2016. Is there any
>> serious case that can be made that that resistance -- and our connection
>> with those communities that will lead it -- would be stronger under Donald
>> Trump than under Hillary Clinton? I doubt it. I think we must swallow our
>> pride and admit that if we live in swing states, we are in a bind and will
>> need to vote for the most right-wing president in modern history: Hillary
>> Clinton.
>>
>> I know this will lose me cred on this list but from a tactical standpoint
>> as a socialist I don't see the way around this; I'm of course, welcome to
>> alternative visions provided they pay heed to the position we are in.
>>
>
>  ...
>
>>
>> reply - You think so?? Labeling oneself a Marxist, one who bases own's
>> political approach on class strugle politics, and employing Marxist
>> phraseology, while looking to "the most right-wing president in modern
>> history" to "save" us from another right-winger -- if it wasn't so damn
>> nauseating, it would be laughable. How did things work out for your
>> political ancestors when they supported Hindenburg in 1932 to "protect" the
>> German Left from the Nazis??
>>
>
> Your approach betrays a total lack of confidence in the working class
> and oppressed minorities to fight back against the reactionary and racist
> policies that have been and will continue to be served up by a ruling class
> that finds itself in increasingly dire straits. You look everywhere for a
> 

Re: [Marxism] Vote for Clinton?

[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.
*

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:12 PM, A.R. G via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>
> There is a simple truth that we are deluding ourselves into forgetting: we
> have already lost the 2016 election. We will not win this round. The focus
> needs to be on building a resistance to whoever wins in 2016. Is there any
> serious case that can be made that that resistance -- and our connection
> with those communities that will lead it -- would be stronger under Donald
> Trump than under Hillary Clinton? I doubt it. I think we must swallow our
> pride and admit that if we live in swing states, we are in a bind and will
> need to vote for the most right-wing president in modern history: Hillary
> Clinton.
>
> I know this will lose me cred on this list but from a tactical standpoint
> as a socialist I don't see the way around this; I'm of course, welcome to
> alternative visions provided they pay heed to the position we are in.
>

 ...

>
> reply - You think so?? Labeling oneself a Marxist, one who bases own's
> political approach on class strugle politics, and employing Marxist
> phraseology, while looking to "the most right-wing president in modern
> history" to "save" us from another right-winger -- if it wasn't so damn
> nauseating, it would be laughable. How did things work out for your
> political ancestors when they supported Hindenburg in 1932 to "protect" the
> German Left from the Nazis??
>

Your approach betrays a total lack of confidence in the working class
and oppressed minorities to fight back against the reactionary and racist
policies that have been and will continue to be served up by a ruling class
that finds itself in increasingly dire straits. You look everywhere for a
"protector" except where Marxists should be looking - to the oppressed
victims of those policies. If you're right, then we can forget socialism
and the struggle against all the rottenness in the world - destruction of
the planet, war, sexism, racism, greed, homophobia - and just turn inwards
to our own personal lives. I say that you're wrong!
_
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: bellingcat - Fact-Checking Russia’s Claim that It Didn’t Bomb a 5-Year-Old in Syria - bellingcat

[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.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2016/09/01/fact-checking-russias-claim-didnt-bomb-5-year-old-syria/
_
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] Apple is making life terrible in its factories - labor rights warriors:

[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.
*

"Working conditions are terrible, and workers are subject to terrible
treatment," China Labor Watch writes.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/26/apple_criticized_for_factories/

_
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] 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 believe you are arguing that this current election is exceptional because of 
Trump's open appeal to racism.  I accept your point that his is the most 
explicitly racist campaign in some time.
If the two main candidates were Clinton and Jeb Bush, would you be open to 
supporting another candidate?

May I ask who you supported in 2012?

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

[Marxism] [UCE] Fwd: Clinton To Give Speech On ‘American Exceptionalism’ With Bush Official In OH

[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.
*

Hillary Clinton will jump back on the campaign trail on Wednesday with a 
scheduled foreign policy speech in Cincinnati, Ohio in which she will 
reportedly boost the idea of “American exceptionalism.”


The former secretary of state will be joined onstage by George W. Bush’s 
former deputy assistant secretary of state, James Clad, who announced 
his endorsement in a Tuesday statement.


“For Republicans and Democrats alike, everything in national security 
requires clarity and steadiness, whether managing nuclear weapons or 
balancing great power rivalries,” Clad said in the statement. “Never 
losing sight of the national interest is key – a discipline which 
Secretary Clinton possesses in full measure.”


full: 
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clinton-james-clad-joint-appearance-cincinnati

_
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: U.S. Strategy to Fight ISIS Has Set Off a New Conflict in Syria

[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.
*

Turkey’s military intervention and the gains made by allied rebels in 
Aleppo suggest an increasingly forceful Turkish role in Syria’s civil 
war. The intervention places the U.S. in an awkward position, however, 
as it is now backing multiple hostile sides in an increasingly 
convoluted conflict.


“The Turkish intervention is a game changer in northern Syria, similar 
to the Russian intervention last year,” says Hassan Hassan, a senior 
fellow at the D.C.-based Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy. “The 
rebels are more confident in Turkish help now and they’ll likely become 
more forceful in the way they fight on other fronts.”


full: 
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/31/u-s-strategy-to-fight-isis-has-set-off-a-new-conflict-in-syria/

_
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: Seven ways to skin Schrödinger’s cat | New Scientist

[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.
*

Quantum physicists just can't agree on how to handle the fundamental 
uncertainty that apparently underpins reality. We round up their best 
attempts so far


https://www.newscientist.com/article/2097199-seven-ways-to-skin-schrodingers-cat/
_
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: Donald Trump’s Immigration Proposals May Have a Secret Fan: Hillary Clinton - The Daily Beast

[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.
*

The speech immediately drew sharp criticism from Hillary Clinton 
backers. But here’s the funny thing about 2016: Many of the proposals 
Trump advocated have had support from Clinton herself.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/01/donald-trump-s-immigration-proposals-may-have-a-secret-fan-hillary-clinton.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

[Marxism] Fwd: In Putin’s Russia, The Neo-Stalinist Tipping Point - The Daily Beast

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

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



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/31/in-putin-s-russia-the-neo-stalinist-tipping-point.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

[Marxism] Fwd: A Debate Over the Physics of Time | Quanta Magazine

[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.
*

There are a few things that everyone agrees on. The directionality that 
we observe in the macroscopic world is very real: Teacups shatter but do 
not spontaneously reassemble; eggs can be scrambled but not unscrambled. 
Entropy — a measure of the disorder in a system — always increases, a 
fact encoded in the second law of thermodynamics. As the Austrian 
physicist Ludwig Boltzmann understood in the 19th century, the second 
law explains why events are more likely to evolve in one direction 
rather than another. It accounts for the arrow of time.


But things get trickier when we step back and ask why we happen to live 
in a universe where such a law holds. “What Boltzmann truly explained is 
why the entropy of the universe will be larger tomorrow than it is 
today,” said Sean Carroll, a physicist at the California Institute of 
Technology, as we sat in a hotel bar after the second day of 
presentations. “But if that was all you knew, you’d also say that the 
entropy of the universe was probably larger yesterday than today — 
because all the underlying dynamics are completely symmetric with 
respect to time.” That is, if entropy is ultimately based on the 
underlying laws of the universe, and those laws are the same going 
forward and backward, then entropy is just as likely to increase going 
backward in time. But no one believes that entropy actually works that 
way. Scrambled eggs always come after whole eggs, never the other way 
around.


full: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160719-time-and-cosmology/
_
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: Can Science Crack The 'Hardest' Question? : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

[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.
*

Opinions may diverge initially — but once we start to think about it, no 
question is harder than figuring out the origin of everything.


The more popular phrasings go something like, "Where did the world come 
from?" or "Why is there something rather than nothing?" This is the 
question of creation, of how the universe and everything in it came to 
be. And, although we've made great progress towards understanding the 
universe and its history, we are still far from understanding its origin.


full: 
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/08/31/491984911/can-science-crack-the-hardest-question

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

[Marxism] Fwd: Why the New Sanders Group Our Revolution Is Leaving Many Bernie Backers Scratching Their Heads | Alternet

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

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



http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/why-new-sanders-group-our-revolution-leaving-many-bernie-backers-scratching-their
_
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: Physics confronts its heart of darkness: Cracks showing in dominant explanation for dark matter - Salon.com

[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.
*

Physics has missed a long-scheduled appointment with its future — again. 
The latest, most sensitive searches for the particles thought to make up 
dark matter — the invisible stuff that may comprise 85 percent of the 
mass in the cosmos — have found nothing. Called WIMPs (weakly 
interacting massive particles), these subatomic shrinking violets may 
simply be better at hiding than physicists thought when they first 
predicted them more than 30 years ago. Alternatively, they may not 
exist, which would mean that something is woefully amiss in the 
underpinnings of how we try to make sense of the universe. Many 
scientists still hold out hope that upgraded versions of the experiments 
looking for WIMPs will find them but others are taking a second look at 
conceptions of dark matter long deemed unlikely.


full: 
http://www.salon.com/2016/09/01/physics-confronts-its-heart-of-darkness-cracks-showing-in-dominant-explanation-for-dark-matter_partner/

_
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] Farewell young man

[John Passant 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.
*



Farewell young man
Whose stolen land
The white man commands
The only way is this demand
It is their land

To read the whole poem, click here:

http://enpassant.com.au/2016/09/01/farewell-young-man/



_
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.
*

Is the presidential election about personalities or policies?

For more than a generation neoliberal policies - in both Republican and 
Democrat administrations - have produced increasing inequality (and at an 
accelerating rate). At the same time neoconservative policies - again in 
administrations of both parties - produced the crime of the century (so far), 
the invasion of Iraq, and also the first US president to be at war throughout 
two presidential terms. (Obama has attacked eight countries; Bush only attacked 
six.)

Trump is the first candidate of either major party in more than a generation to 
pay homage neither to neoliberalism nor to neoconservatism. He has rejected 
neoliberal policies (trade pacts, from NAFTA to TTIP) and neoconservative ones 
(Nato; provocation of Russia) as well. For that reason he is hated and feared 
by the political establishment (in both parties).

“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]

Clinton champions neoconservatism and neoliberalism but can say so only 
indirectly because those policies - more war and more inequality - are not 
popular. Therefore she must try to distract the public from the policies that 
she would follow in office by directing attention to Trump's less than 
attractive personality. But there are indications that it's not working, as her 
lead in the polls shrinks, in spite of her overwhelming support from the media.

As William Blum (author of “Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. 
Interventions Since World War II") says, “Yes, Trump’s personally obnoxious. 
I’d have a very hard time being his friend. Who cares?” 

—CGE

> On Sep 1, 2016, at 12:36 AM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism 
>  wrote:
> 
> You don't have to buy Clinton's reasons for voting for her to vote for her.
> That's very simplistic thinking, not strategic. You can and should vote for
> her as the only practical way to deny Trump the WH.
> 
> I guarantee you non-white Americans will get that because that is exactly
> what they will be doing, and not because they believe the horsecrap. They
> do believe the hatred coming from only one campaign for the WH even if it
> doesn't get much mention here.
> 
> I have say that Jill Stein's LA rally was objectively pro-Trump - see
> another reply for details.
> 
> If the Green Party targets its campaign more to win votes away from Clinton
> than from Trump, as an engineer I have to recognize that represents a bias
> towards Trump.
> 
> I've covered how her tweet are objectively pro-Trump,
> http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2016/08/how-jillstein-tweets-for-trump.html
> 
> but i think the same can be said about her whole campaign - BTW Putin
> doesn't have any problem with that - why else 105 articles in RT -
> certainly not because he wants RT to do good work.
> 


_
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