Re: [Marxism] Moderator's note
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 Jul 18, 2015, at 4:18 PM, Andrew Pollack via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: When push comes to shove, it's always Louis's list. Unsub me. It always has to be Louis’ list, because he’s incapable of functioning in a broader mileu over a sustained period of time. He would be quickly chewed up in a trade union, workers’ party or other mass organization where his belligerent egotism would not be tolerated for very long. And he claims to be building an inclusive, non-sectarian left in the USA! How preposterously self-deluding can you get? I thought the exchange between Creegan and Karadjis was thoughtful and respectful on both sides. I’ve had my differences with both of them and others on the list over the past decade, but would happily call them comrades and function collectively with them in the same party. Not so Proyect, whose first instinct is to denounce. Most recently, he’s had the colossal gall to denounce those who have not followed him across the aisle to the austerian side as ideological purists and wild-eyed proponents of a new revolutionary international. I hope I’m wrong, but this is the kind of language I associate with those embarking, without fully realizing it, on that well-trodden path of many former leftists. I can’t abide petty martinets. For all its merits and the presence of good, serious people who subscribe to it, leaving this iist is not, after all, like leaving the old mass parties of the left. Unsub me also. On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: On 7/18/15 4:00 PM, Andrew Pollack wrote: You're booting Jim for doing class analysis? That's fucked up. To be precise, that's Stalinism. No, it's not. This is not a party. I don't collect dues or ask people to sell a stupid newspaper at plant gates 6am in the morning. It is a mailing list that I have the right to edit, to create boundaries around just like any other publication, print or electronic. I don't tend to remove people from the list unless I decide that their purpose here is only to do class analysis as you put it. I had 11 years of this kind of class analysis in the Trotskyist movement and that was enough for me. If anybody wants to set up a mailing list where you can blather on about the petty-bourgeoisie, contact me privately and I'll help you get started. This list has been around for 17 years and has over 1500 subscribers. If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it is that is not the place to do Leon Trotsky imitations. Here's a reminder from the Marxmail website subscription page for anybody tempted to repeat the Cannon-Shachtman debate: MODERATION PRINCIPLES: The Marxism mailing list is extremely permissive. There are a couple of things that are frowned upon strongly. If you come to the list with the attitude that you are a true Bolshevik, who needs to convert 'Mensheviks' to your beliefs, you will be unsubbed. Members of self-declared vanguard parties who can adjust to the tolerant atmosphere of the list are more than welcome, since they usually bring with them years of Marxist study and political experience. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/marvgand2%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] Schnauble veers to the left
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 Jul 16, 2015, at 9:15 PM, Andrew Pollack via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: the subject line (him veering to the left) appears to be baiting grexit supporters as allies of reaction. If so, this too is inappropriate for this list. On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Louis Proyect via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/world/europe/eurozone-greece-debt-germany.html Not to mention, of course, that Schauble would have joined with the Tsipras government and opposition in voting for the new round of austerity measures rather than with the Greek left and large majority of the Greek population which strongly opposes them. As a result, discussion over the various forms a Grexit might take has now widened in Greece and Europe, an unresolved but necessary development rather than one to be dismissed with a sneer. _ 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] [Pen-l] Convert to the Drachma – Piece of Cake. Right… | naked capitalism
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 Jul 16, 2015, at 8:41 AM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: On 7/16/15 8:20 AM, Marv Gandall via Marxism wrote: Is the suggestion here that all of the peoples in the eurozone are trapped in it because the technical problems of converting to a sovereign currency are intractable, or is there something special about the technological structure of Greek capitalism? Absolutely not. But all this talk about Tsipras should have come up with a plan B while he was in these intense negotiations with the eurozone bigs is nuts. As I have repeatedly tried to explain, converting to a new currency requires a full project life-cycle implementation just as it did moving from a drachma to the euro. I have been involved with 5 such massive projects during my career so I can guarantee you that it would take Greece or any other euro-based nations a full 3 years to effect a change. As Doug pointed out, such a declared intention would have consequences of capital drain. In any case, the challenge is more political than technical at this point. Well, yes. As, I noted two days ago on this thread: “The problem, Louis, as is so often the case, is less “technical” than it is political.” No one disputes that conversion from a stronger currency to a weaker one is economically wrenching, and inevitably results in capital flight. It has to be carefully managed by the state. Which is why it is preeminently a political rather than a technical issue. Your position has hitherto been that conversion to a new currency is so impossibly daunting that it should be ruled out, no matter how wretched the status quo - certainly in the case of Greece. You neglect to answer whether and why this rule would also be applicable to larger and more complex economies. But your fears about a Grexit being worse than the status quo seem greatly exaggerated, especially if an orderly Grexit can be arranged, which is in where the interests of the Greek people and the NATO powers converge for different reasons. That option has been on the table since Syriza took power, but its leadership, like yourself, has feared it as too radical a step and consequently did nothing to prepare the people and the state administration for that possibility. In fact, it actively discouraged speculation about a Grexit for fear of further antagonizing the troika. As for capital flight, it can take wings anytime where there is a perception that assets may be threatened by a left wing leadership susceptible to pressures from its restless base. Don’t take power if you don’t want to frighten away foreign and domestic capital. It is no more complicated than that. We know that even though the Syriza government bent over backwards to assure its creditors and depositors of its unshakeable commitment to the euro, euros continued to drain out of the country. In these circumstances, the Tsipras leadership was confronted with the stark choice of imposing more stringent capital controls, nationalizing the insolvent Greek banks, issuing a parallel currency, repudiating the debt, and inviting the US and Europe to negotiate in their own economic and geopolitical interests on that basis, or…abjectly accepting further cuts to the labour and pension rights of its followers, a further squeeze on their incomes, and the de-nationalization of important public assets. You’d have a difficult time persuading me it made the right choice because the difficulties of a “full project life cycle implementation” somehow trumped all these other considerations. _ 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] [Pen-l] Convert to the Drachma – Piece of Cake. Right… | naked capitalism
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. * (Schauble represents that wing of the European bourgeoisie - still a minority, but growing - which no longer wants to throw “good money after bad”. It wants to force Greece out of the eurozone, providing it with a one time injection of seed money rather than continued bailouts costing hundreds of billions of euros which will never be fully recovered.) Germany’s Wolfgang Schäuble puts Grexit back on the agenda By Stefan Wegstyl Financial Times July 16 2015 Days after Greece appeared to escape crashing out of the euro, hawkish German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble has put Grexit back on the political agenda, raising tensions in Berlin and across the EU. Speaking before a key Bundestag vote on Friday, Mr Schäuble said voluntary departure from the eurozone “could perhaps be a better way” for Greece than a proposed €86bn bailout package, which was painfully assembled at a marathon eurozone summit in Brussels over the weekend. Despite his misgivings, the 72-year-old German minister said he would still personally put the package to parliament. His hollow-sounding pledge was eerily familiar to one from Athens this week, where Greek premier Alexis Tsipras presented the same plan to Greece’s parliament while admitting he did not believe in it. Mr Schäuble’s manoeuvre makes clear he is leaving open a Grexit option, even as he is formally backing the latest rescue plan to keep Greece in the eurozone. It is uncertain how much leeway he has been given by chancellor Angela Merkel to advance a historic rupture of the eurozone that he believes would ultimately strengthen both Greece and the single currency. Ms Merkel, who celebrates her 61st birthday on Friday, has long given more weight than Mr Schäuble to the geopolitical costs of Grexit but has also said that a deal to prevent it cannot come “at any price”. Her approach has hardened since June 26 when Mr Tsipras infuriated Greece’s international creditors by calling for a national referendum on their latest bailout offer. It later emerged Mr Tsipras had informed the chancellor and French president François Hollande of his plans in a telephone call. But he neglected to say he would campaign against the deal. Ms Merkel only learnt the truth after Mr Tsipras announced his intentions on television. The chancellor’s complaints about the loss of trust in Athens have since multiplied. Mr Schäuble said in a radio interview there was widespread concern — including at the International Monetary Fund — that Greece needed a debt cut for the rescue to work. But, he noted, a “debt cut is incompatible with membership of the currency union”. Even if he favours a Grexit, Mr Schäuble may have to take a roundabout route to get there. He is wary of being seen to push Athens out the door for fear of breaking Germany’s decades-long commitment to European unity. Such a move would also risk casting Ms Merkel as Europe’s bully — a claim many are already making after a summit in which she forced the capitulation of Greece’s defiant leftwing prime minister. Berlin has already signalled that should Grexit come, Germany would generously support Athens, including with a debt cut. Some EU officials believe Mr Schäuble’s repeated insistence that the IMF, which has partnered the EU in previous rescues, be included in a new bailout may be intended to engineer an eventual Grexit. The IMF has suggested it might not join a new Greek programme once its current rescue expires in March without heavy restructuring of existing eurozone loans. One EU official said Mr Schäuble could use this as “an excuse”. Ms Merkel in the meantime seems certain to win the Bundestag vote on Friday on the proposed bailout. But about 60 MPs from her CDU/CSU bloc could rebel in protest against lending Athens even a cent more. The fact that Mr Schäuble will on Friday recommend the plan could win over some sceptics, thereby reducing Ms Merkel’s embarrassment. The vote authorises only the start of negotiations, meaning Mr Schäuble will have time to manoeuvre before a second vote on the package itself, once negotiations are concluded. Eckhardt Rehberg, the CDU’s budget spokesman, said: “The debate over a temporary Grexit has been important.” But social democrats, also part of the coalition, are furious that Mr Schäuble harps on about Grexit and are urging him to stick to the script. Many suspect the finance minister is playing up Grexit partly to embarrass the leader of their SPD party, Sigmar Gabriel. Mr Gabriel had agreed with Ms Merkel and Mr Schäuble that the Grexit option should be aired at the weekend summit as a way to put pressure on Athens.
Re: [Marxism] [Pen-l] Convert to the Drachma – Piece of Cake. Right… | naked capitalism
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 Jul 16, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Dayne Goodwin via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Louis Proyect via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: . . . But all this talk about Tsipras should have come up with a plan B while he was in these intense negotiations with the eurozone bigs is nuts... As far as i know, Louis, you are the only one talking like this. What the talk is about is whether Tsipras as the national leader of Syriza for several years before Syriza won the January 2015 elections and he became Prime Minister should have delegated work on preparing a plan B” within the party and since January also within the government. In fact, didn’t Varoufakis confirm earlier this week that a committee was instructed to study a Plan B during the negotiations but the project was quickly shelved? _ 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] currencies and IT
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 Jul 16, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Andrew Pollack via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: The SWIFT exchange was in the news when Iran's access to it was threatened, and was mentioned in passing today in a Times article now that sanctions will be loosened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interbank_Financial_Telecommunication Again, I’m not an IT expert, but it seems to me what’s been overlooked in this discussion is the distinction between the instantaneous electronic transfer of funds made possible by modern technology and the much longer timeframe required for the subsequent issuance of new coins and banknotes. Louis has made much of the time factor in introducing and distributing a new currency. I’m not clear as to what precisely he’s referring to when he asserts there are years of complicated computer programming required to implement the change. The origin of the eurozone is instructive in this regard. The conversion to the euro of 11 sovereign currencies involving hundreds of banks and hundreds of millions of Europeans was done at a keystroke and trading in the new currency began immediately. All that what was required was for the central banks in each country to fix the respective exchange rates at which the old currencies would be exchanged for the euro, and for the commercial banks to implement this change in depositors’ accounts. This conversion rates were the subject of negotiation between the central banks and with the new European Central Bank. The euro was launched on 1 January 1999, when it became the currency of more than 300 million people in Europe. For the first three years it was an invisible currency, only used for accounting purposes, e.g. in electronic payments. Euro cash was not introduced until 1 January 2002, when it replaced, at fixed conversion rates, the banknotes and coins of the national currencies like the Belgian franc and the Deutsche Mark.” In recognition that cash was still widely used, he old currencies continued to coexist with euro transactions and were gradually phased out over a three year period with minimal disruption to the financial system. Even today, cash is by far the most widely used means of payment for retail transactions in the euro area in terms of the number of transactions, although in terms of value it has a significantly smaller share. In both respects, however, the role of cash has been gradually declining in recent decades, while the use of debit and credit cards has been growing, a trend that is expected to continue.” For more detail, see: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/intro/html/index.en.html A Grexit would be politically difficult - but not, it appears, technically difficult - were it not an orderly process undertaken in concert with the eurozone. In this connection, I linked to an article yesterday which explained: The government and banks could work together to convert all bank deposits from euros into drachmas, either overnight or over a set period of time. Practically speaking, this would mean a person with 100 euros in their bank account on Tuesday could find that they instead have 100 drachmas in their account on Wednesday. There wouldn’t be any physical drachmas available yet, but the money would exist digitally…If the Greek government resolves to push ahead with its drachma currency, it would eventually have to print banknotes and coins. The process of designing and printing new banknotes would take at least a year, according to Bernd Kuemmerle, who is head of the banknote business division at German-based Giesecke Devrient, a leading global banknote producer.” This seems to me to be consistent with the apparent technical ease of converting drachmas into euros in 1999, except the process would work in reverse. _ 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] [Pen-l] Convert to the Drachma – Piece of Cake. Right…
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 Jul 16, 2015, at 5:23 PM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: On 7/16/15 3:19 PM, Marv Gandall wrote: Louis has made much of the time factor in introducing and distributing a new currency. I’m not clear as to what precisely he’s referring to when he asserts there are years of complicated computer programming required to implement the change. I recommend that you look at the comments thread under my article at Naked Capitalism for anything posted by me, Yves Smith, Nathan Tankus and someone named Clive. Grexit is for tomorrow. It will very likely be forced on the Greeks, no matter what you, Nathan, Yves, and Clive think about it. So the debate about its effects is largely academic at this point. We’ll have the opportunity to test how technically difficult it will be to partially or wholly reintroduce the drachma in real life when the the time comes. The immediate issue facing Syriza was whether to accept or reject the new round of cuts, regressive tax increases, deregulation, and privatization demanded by its creditors. Were I in the Greek parliament last night, I would without hesitation have stood with Konstantopoulou, Lafazanis, Stratoulis, and - to his credit - Varoufakis, as well as the other three dozen Syriza lawmakers in voting against these additional hardships the government agreed to impose on those it purports to represent. The logic of your position, and that of Panitch, Gindin, and Henwood, would have seen you stand with the majority of Syriza MPs and minority of central committee members who voted - “with deep regret” or otherwise - for the troika’s austerity program, in violation of both the Syriza program and the July 5th referendum result. At the end of the day, this is what this discussion has really been about. _ 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 Economist proposes a partial Grexit
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 Economist suggests that Greece’s return to a sovereign, more competitive currency would not be as catastrophic as is widely thought - provided it is an orderly process done in conjunction with the eurozone powers, and the drachma is viewed as a parallel currency for domestic purposes while the euro is kept for imports and other external obligations. Neither is a new idea. They’ve been bandied about across the political spectrum, but events may now move in this direction. The present extortionate bailouts are not seen as sustainable - neither by the eurozone powers who want to see further loans tied to even deeper reductions in Greek labour and benefit costs as well the wholesale transfer of Greek assets to private investors, nor by the mass of working class Greeks whose living standards have been ravaged by austerity and who are steadfastly refusing to capitulate further. Allowing the euro to circulate for external transactions would presumably qualify Greece for continued participation in the Eurosystem and the continuation of an essential supply of euros from the European Central Bank. Aside from geopolitical concerns - the NATO powers need an economically and politically stable Greece strategically situated on Europe’s southeastern flank - the Europeans are still vulnerable to a Greek default, albeit not as heavily as a few years ago when Europe’s exposed private banks had to be bailed out. Official loans to Greece from the rest of the euro area are close to €185 billion ($204 billion); they would have to be written off. The Bank of Greece owes the European Central Bank (ECB) over €125 billion borrowed to finance capital outflows (“TARGET 2” debt) and to issue extra cash, according to Barclays, a bank. And then there’s €27 billion of Greek sovereign debt held by the ECB. The tally would be close to €340 billion, over 3% of euro-zone GDP”, the Economist notes. “If the Greek central bank remained part of the Eurosystem its debts to the ECB could simply stay on the books… potential losses could be fudged.” “A full exit looks bad enough for both Greece and the rest of the euro area that the search is on for alternatives.” Gradations of Grexit The Economist July 11 2015 ACCORDING to IMF estimates made in 2012, any currency with which Greece replaced the euro would quickly halve in value. Greece would lose a prompt 8% of GDP and see inflation surge to 35% as the cost of imports rocketed. Confidence would be battered and confusion would reign, exacerbated by the months it would take for the new currency to come into circulation. This is all probably as true now as it was then. For the rest of the euro zone the direct effect would be much less—but still appreciable. Official loans to Greece from the rest of the euro area are close to €185 billion ($204 billion); they would have to be written off. The Bank of Greece owes the European Central Bank (ECB) over €125 billion borrowed to finance capital outflows (“TARGET 2” debt) and to issue extra cash, according to Barclays, a bank. And then there’s €27 billion of Greek sovereign debt held by the ECB. The tally would be close to €340 billion, over 3% of euro-zone GDP. A full exit looks bad enough for both Greece and the rest of the euro area that the search is on for alternatives. Wolfgang Schäuble, Germany’s finance minister, suggested in a recent interview that a “temporary” exit from the euro zone might be Greece’s best option. One way to do this, though not necessarily one Mr Schäuble would approve of, would be for all domestic assets and liabilities, including those of the banks, to be redenominated in “new drachmas” while external obligations remained in euros. If the new drachma were temporary, or simply treated as such, Greece might be able to stay in the euro area under such a dispensation. By continuing as part of the Eurosystem through which the ECB and national central banks manage the euro zone’s affairs, the Bank of Greece might retain credibility which it would otherwise lack. That would strengthen its hand in the fight against spiralling inflation which would surely follow redenomination. The Greek economy might not slump as far as it would otherwise, and the drachma might keep more of its value. The prospect of eventually returning to the euro proper—the Greeks may miss what they have forsaken—might give the government an extra incentive to control its finances and introduce growth-enhancing reforms. Doing things this way would also render moot worries about Greece falling out of the EU altogether and thus losing access to the single market and regional
[Marxism] Syriza CC rejects deal?
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 is a report on the Guardian’s live blog that 107 of 201 Syriza central committee members have condemned the deal signed by the Tsipras government. Any confirmation of this elsewhere? _ 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] Syriza CC rejects deal?
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 Jul 15, 2015, at 3:12 PM, Dayne Goodwin daynegood...@gmail.com wrote: You probably saw the later messages from Einde and David (which i just read). There is a report at Socialist Worker http://socialistworker.org/2015/07/15/syriza-leaders-against-the-coup As you probably know, this is a sign-on type statement, not a vote at a meeting. They are demanding the convening of a Central Committee meeting. Tsipras had promised he would take the new deal to Central Committee before taking it to parliament but he is reneging now that he can't be sure of winning Central Committee. This is very important because apparently it is Syriza stricture (not governmental) that requires resignations from gov't positions when individuals defy party positions. This action raises the question that Tsipras' position is not the Syriza/party position. On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:19 AM, Marv Gandall via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: There is a report on the Guardian’s live blog that 107 of 201 Syriza central committee members have condemned the deal signed by the Tsipras government. Any confirmation of this elsewhere? Isn’t the logical outcome of these internal party tensions the expulsion or departure of the Syriza left and the formation of a coalition between Tsipras and the rest of the Syriza leadership with some combination of To Potami, New Democracy, and Pasok = before or after a general election? It’s impossible to believe the Tsipras leadership wasn’t anticipating this outcome when it struck the deal with the eurozone - in fact, the day after the referendum when it issued that joint statement with the opposition, or even well before that. If the Tsipras faction thinks the left is an annoying encumbrance and that they can carry most of the party cadre and - more important from their POV, the country - with them in the next election, they won’t be too bothered about whether their current actions are in conflict with the formal party program, wouldn’t 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
Re: [Marxism] Polls that challenge the mantra that most Greeks want to stay in the Eurozone
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 Jul 14, 2015, at 7:12 AM, Louis Proyect via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: First off, it still seems that Greeks want to stay in the euro. While a poll at the end of 2014 by Gallup International found that 52% of Greeks would prefer to have the Drachma over the euro, this seems to be something of a rogue poll. All other polls have consistently shown Greek support for the euro. There has been a lot of informed comment in academic circles and in the financial as well as left-wing media that Greece would be better off leaving the eurozone than continuing to be subjected to the grinding austerity and deep depression, with little hope of economic recovery, which characterizes its current situation. The argument is that Greece would recover if it were free to devalue its own currency - that it could less painlessly recover its competitiveness though an “external” devaluation of the drachma as opposed to a savage “internal” devaluation based on driving down the cost of labour and social benefits. Even the initial shock of the transition to a new currency could be eased if Greece were able to negotiate an orderly exit with the eurozone powers who, together with the US, have a strategic interest in ensuring a stable Greece on their borders. Whatever you may think of that argument, this debate has never really filtered down to the Greek masses who support Syriza’s social program, largely because the pro-euro party leadership has rejected this option from the beginning. This is the foremost reason why most public opinion polls skew heavily in favour of continued eurozone membership. However much the two issues are linked, however, the referendum wasn’t about continued eurozone membership but about the austerity package. And the deeper issue, as always, is: Who decides these life-or-death issues: the people or the party, the leaders or the working class? We wouldn’t be having this discussion if the Greeks had voted by 61% to accept the austerity package that was proposed to them in the referendum. The Tsipras leadership would have had the result it was hoping for, despite its cosmetic campaign in favour of a No, and that would be that. It could return to Brussels to sign the surrender terms with the mandate of the Greek people securely in its pocket. We might still lament the outcome, but case closed. It is for the Greeks themselves to decide, not us, not the leaders they elected. We’re having this discussion precisely because the Tsipras leadership chose to ignore the overwhelming rejection of the austerity package. It acted as if as the popular democracy did not exist, and the popular classes had not decisively pronounced on the issue. It promptly signalled its willingness to the eurozone powers that, despite the referendum result, it was prepared to continue negotiating the terms of surrender. And it did so in concert with the widely despised opposition parties . How can we condone this about-face by the leadership, any more than we can condone a union leadership arbitrarily and unexpectedly capitulating to the employer the day after its members roundly reject an agreement assaulting their living standards and working conditions? Even if it were a well-intentioned union leadership which considered it was acting in the best interests of its poor benighted members who did not really understand the implications of what they were voting for? As an old comrade once remarked to me, “my first loyalty is to the working class, then to the party or trade union which purports to act in its name.” _ 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] Polls that challenge the mantra that most Greeks want to stay in the Eurozone
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 Jul 14, 2015, at 11:00 AM, Louis Proyect via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: This will be put to the test soon enough. By all indications, Tsipras and those in the Syriza leadership who are aligned with him have thrown in their lot with the parliamentary bloc made up of the New Democracy, PASOK and To Potami. If and when the Left Platform breaks with this grouping, it will be up to them and whoever they unite with to push for a Grexit. I am particularly interested to see how Antarsya fares since this group is obviously the one that Marvin Gandall and James Creegan would want to belong to if they were in Greece. I can’t speak for Jim, but I would have to spend time on the ground in Greece to determine which of the various left groups I would support. I do know I could never support a party or faction whose parliamentary representatives vote for a rotten deal which will force working and lower middle class Greeks to further bend the knee and accept a further deterioration of their miserable conditions, particularly against their democratic will as expressed in the referendum. I assume if you were in the Greek Parliament you would be jumping to your feet to cast a vote for this latest, harshest, and most demeaning austerity package. Btw, Antarsya means “The Anticapitalist Left Cooperation for the Overthrow”… I am fairly confident that they will never be thrust into a position of betraying the Greek people. In fact, I don’t think that there has ever been such a group in the past 100 years that has been put in the position where they could sell out anybody or anything. Could you not say the same about every other Marxist and anarchist group in Europe or North America in the period we have been living through? _ 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] Convert to the drachma–piece of cake. Right… | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist
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 Jul 14, 2015, at 5:18 PM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: On 7/14/15 5:09 PM, Marv Gandall wrote: Why adopt a program incapable, in your view, of even partial realization? I just got the same question on FB. My answer: they underestimated the bestiality of the German bankers and their tools in Poland and elsewhere. My follow-up: So why didn’t they come clean with those they represented and campaign for a Yes vote? Or resign if they could not stomach the bestial reforms being demanded of them by the eurozone powers? Why the charade of pretending to campaign against the austerity package and then turning around the next day to align with the opposition and the troika in accepting an even more onerous and humiliating set of demands? These do not seem to me to be the actions of an honest and capable leadership. I note, BTW, that you’ve not challenged my assumption a few posts back that you would vote for the bestial reforms were you a member of the Greek parliament. Should we interpret your silence as assent? _ 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] Convert to the drachma–piece of cake. Right… | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist
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 Jul 14, 2015, at 2:53 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 7/14/15 2:46 PM, Andrew Pollack wrote: Of course we will (eliminate the stock market)! Why the fuck would you want a stock market under socialism? What this reveals is the frustration of so many veterans on the left that the Greeks did not live up to their expectations. I thought this summed it up nicely: It is revealing of the political landscape in Europe - indeed, the world - that everyone's dreams of socialism seemed to rest on the shoulders of the young Prime Minister of a small country. There seemed to be a fervent, irrational, almost evangelical belief that a tiny country, drowning in debt, gasping for liquidity, would somehow (and that somehow is never specified) defeat global capitalism, armed only with sticks and rocks. https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/164 This is another straw man erected by those tortuously trying to justify the Tsipras’ leadership’s acceptance, reluctantly or otherwise, of the austerity program of the troika. No one expected Syriza, a radical democratic party, to introduce socialism. There was nothing in Syriza’s program about expropriating the Greek bourgeosie, or even for that matter of nationalizing the banks. It’s program in opposition was Keynesian - repudiate the debt, increase government spending to put people back to work, end the drive to privatize, defend trade union and pension rights, tax the rich in lieu of increasing consumption taxes, etc. You can refresh your memory here: http://www.syriza.gr/article/id/59907/SYRIZA---THE-THESSALONIKI-PROGRAMME.html#.VaVxR6Zg34Q As soon as the Tsipras leadership took office, it jettisoned that program in practice in order to satisfy its creditors. It quickly distanced itself from the party’s pledge to the Greek electorate that it would implement its reconstruction program “as early as our first days in power, before and regardless of the negotiation outcome.” That retreat culminated in this week’s rout when it agreed to the harshest austerity package to date - this, in direct contradiction to the massive democratic vote against such a package on July 5th. Under a more resolute leadership, events might have forced the government and its supporters to take defensive measures requiring it to move beyond Keynesianism towards socialist solutions, to a fundamental attack on the power and property of the Greek oligarchy. But this has not been a resolute leadership nor was socialism ever its starting or end point. Louis is again wrong in asserting that “the Greeks did not live up to the expectations…of so many veterans of the left.” The Greeks magnificently lived up - in fact, went way beyond - my expectations, and I’m sure that is true of most others on the liberal and radical left as well. It is their leadership which has disappointed - not, to repeat, in failing to achieve socialism, which was never the expectation, but in failing to defend, much less advance, the dwindling rights and benefits of the Greek working class. _ 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] Convert to the drachma–piece of cake. Right… | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist
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 Jul 14, 2015, at 4:57 PM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: On 7/14/15 4:53 PM, Marv Gandall wrote: This is another straw man erected I'm glad that Marvin did not speak to the technical issues. That saves me the trouble of explaining protection exceptions to him. I used to have huge problems explaining what I did to my mom but at least she wasn’t so fixated on trying to make Greece the lynchpin of world revolution. There are many clever experienced people in Syriza, including in the leadership, more clever and famiiar with the Greek situation than you or I. Why, in drafting the Thessalonki reform program, did they not take into account the “protection exceptions” you have uniquely identified? Why adopt a program incapable, in your view, of even partial realization? The problem, Louis, as is so often the case, is less “technical” than it is political. _ 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] Yanis Varoufakis interview with Austrailian Broadcasting Corporation
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 entered the prime minister’s office elated. I was travelling on a beautiful cloud pushed by beautiful winds of the public’s enthusiasm for the victory of Greek democracy in the referendum. The moment I entered the prime ministerial office, I sensed immediately a certain sense of resignation—a negatively charged atmosphere. I was confronted with an air of defeat, which was completely at odds with what was happening outside.” http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programitem/pgJE6gZygG?play=true _ 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] Greek Deal Prospects Slim as Crisis Talks Resume
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 Jul 12, 2015, at 2:30 PM, Hans G Ehrbar via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: Syriza thinks Greece will be the salvation or similar for Europe, which can easily be dismissed as self-serving propaganda. No, it was not; the Eurozone has to be reformed, and Greece was justified to expect that the critical situation of Greece would be considered in the framework of broader reforms. This is an illusion, Hans. If it were possible when Syriza was elected to entertain the notion that the eurozone, as presently constituted and under it’s current leadership, could be reformed, the events of the past six months have put paid to that pipedream with a vengeance. If anything, it is Syriza which has been “reformed” from a party committed to its anti-austerity Thessaloniki program to a governing party which has assured its creditors it is prepared to continue implementing the essential features of THEIR program: rolling back pension and trade union rights, privatizing important public assets, practicing fiscal restraint, and raising regressive consumption taxes. According to the Guardian, this is the list of the latest demands Syriza is being asked to accept or face expulsion from the eurozone: • Streamlining VAT • Broadening the tax base • Sustainability of pension system • Adopt a code of civil procedure • Safeguarding of legal independence for Greece ELSTAT — the statistic office • Full implementation of automatic spending cuts • Meet bank recovery and resolution directive l• Privatize electricity transmission grid • Take decisive action on non-performing loans • Ensure independence of privatization body TAIPED • De-Politicize the Greek administration • Return of officials from its creditors to Athens I have to assume you, Louis, Leo Panitch and other hard-nosed realists will urge the Tsipras government to sign off on these demands, and will praise its “courage” for doing so. I hope it rejects those demands and seeks to negotiate instead an orderly exit from the eurozone, one which sees Germany, the US and the other NATO powers agreeing in their own self-interest toease Greece’s transition to a new currency so that it doesn’t become a strategic “failed state” on Europe’s doorstep. You may well discover in the coming days, weeks, or months, that negotiating an orderly Grexit has all along been a more realistic and better option for Syriza, as its left wing has urged, than chasing the utopian dream of turning Wolfgang Schauble’s eurozone into something it cannot possibly become. _ 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] Greek Deal Prospects Slim as Crisis Talks Resume
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 Jul 12, 2015, at 9:15 AM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: My position, articulated before Tsipras took office, was that the relationship of forces militated against success of any sort. Everyone understood that the relationship of forces was adverse, but not to the point it ruled out “success of any sort”. You never struck a note of this kind when you celebrated Syriza’s victory, nor in the months afterward when, in your inimitable fashion, you confidently flamed critics of the government’s supine negotiating stance, concessions to the austerity agenda of the troika, and failure to make preparations for a break with the eurozone in the event the austerity demands of the troika were unyielding. The only hope for Syriza would have been a massive European-wide movement that made its survival possible. In other words, to create something like the framework of the new Latin American left inspired by the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela. No kidding. But for that to have happened, the government would have had to have had an entirely different orientation - to building a European-wide movement rather than satisfying Greece’s bloodsucking creditors. The Syriza leadership did not “inspire” a new European left along the lines of what transpired in Latin America because its tone, policies, and actions bore little resemblance to the Bolivarian movement under Chavez. You can see the sprouts of such a development in Spain, Scotland, and elsewhere but it is still too weak to make a difference. This week’s wholesale capitulation by the government to the escalating austerity demands of the eurozone powers, in which it acted in concert with the opposition, will not provide much nourishment for those sprouts. _ 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] Greek Deal Prospects Slim as Crisis Talks Resume
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 Jul 12, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Joseph Catron via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: I broadly agree with Lou here. (Yes, somebody mark the calendar.) You fellows can parse the details however you like, but at the end of the day, the problem will always be that the Greek working class stood alone against the combined forces of global capital. They might hypothetically have had the most principled leaders and brilliant strategy in the history of revolutionary politics. That still wouldn't have given them the ingredients needed for a winning fight. As in “there is no alternative”? You think Syriza would have risked foreign intervention, civil war, a coup d’etat if they had acted in more forcefully, in accordance with the Thessaloniki program? Quite likely. Would that heightened class conflict have inspired support throughout the world? Almost certainly. With what outcome? there aren’t any certain outcomes. If this is what you fear “at the end of the day”, why support the election of a left-leaning government like Syriza? Why put the Greek masses in such potential peril? Why not re-elect Samaris’ New Democracy? Arguably, that would be the better choice. It would have cooperated with the troika and its austerity program with far less friction and damage to the Greek economy and living standards than we’ve seen over the past six months. _ 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] Greek Deal Prospects Slim as Crisis Talks Resume
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 Jul 12, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Louis Proyect via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: (This article suggests to me that the real intention all along was for Syriza to be ousted… Congratulations. You now understand the position of the left critics of the Tsipras leadership (including Jim Creegan) who argued from the beginning that the government should be mobilizing and educating the people and preparing the state administration for a Grexit, rather than doggedly reinforcing illusions that a voluntary or involuntary departure from the eurozone was wholly unthinkable. Instead, Syriza’s ineffectual leadership expended precious financial resources and time prostrating itself before its creditors. The result is that it has rendered the country far more vulnerable to its predators than when it took office, and far less equipped to deal with what everyone understood was going to be a painful transition to a sovereign currency and resuscitation of the economy under public ownership if events happened to move, as they have, in that direction. _ 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] Eurozone leaders to Tsipras: You haven't grovelled enough
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.theguardian.com/business/live/2015/jul/11/greek-debt-crisis-eurozone-creditors-meet-to-decide-countrys-fate _ 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] Paul Mason What was the point of Tsipras referendum?
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 Jul 10, 2015, at 8:53 PM, Hans G Ehrbar via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: This is just one skirmish, more is to follow, and both the Greek voters and Syriza are learning a lot from this. Alas, I think Hans’ apologia for the wholesale capitulation of the Tsipras leadership - the culmination of a five month negotiation with the troika which was more fiasco thsn “skirmish - will be echoed by a majority of Syriza supporters and parliamentarians, including some hitherto identified with the party left. They will loyally and dutifully close ranks behind the party and its leadership and current direction, consoling themselves, like Hans, that the retreat from the party program is really, somehow, an advance. A substantial minority, however, will draw a more honest balance sheet of the government’s record to date and recognize that it does represent an advance over the preceding New Democracy administration on the key issues. Neither has secured significant debt relief; both have acquiesced to demands for labour market “reforms” designed to weaken the unions; both accept rigid fiscal “targets” to constrain government spending and job creation; both accept major increases in consumption taxes; both accept further cuts to pension benefits, etc. It is undeniably the case that the balance of forces has been overwhelmingly weighted against Syriza and tiny, embattled Greece. But the Syriza leadership full well understood this when it vied for governmental power, and its disillusioned and embittered supporters may be forgiven for asking: “If the objective circumstances simply don’t allow a left wing party to effect any meaningful change and, in fact, lead to further economic deterioration and erosion of living standards, what is the point of electing it in the first place”? _ 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] Paul Mason What was the point of Tsipras referendum?
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 Jul 10, 2015, at 8:53 PM, Hans G Ehrbar via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: This is just one skirmish, more is to follow, and both the Greek voters and Syriza are learning a lot from this. Alas, I think Hans’ apologia for the wholesale capitulation of the Tsipras leadership - the culmination of a five month negotiation with the troika which was more fiasco thsn “skirmish - will be echoed by a majority of Syriza supporters and parliamentarians, including some hitherto identified with the party left. They will loyally and dutifully close ranks behind the party and its leadership and current direction, consoling themselves, like Hans, that the retreat from the party program is really, somehow, an advance. A substantial minority, however, will draw a more honest balance sheet of the government’s record to date and recognize that it does not represent an advance over the preceding New Democracy administration on the key issues. Neither has secured significant debt relief; both have acquiesced to demands for labour market “reforms” designed to weaken the unions; both accept rigid fiscal “targets” to constrain government spending and job creation; both accept major increases in consumption taxes; both accept further cuts to pension benefits, etc. It is undeniably the case that the balance of forces has been overwhelmingly weighted against Syriza and tiny, embattled Greece. But the Syriza leadership full well understood this when it vied for governmental power, and its disillusioned and embittered supporters may be forgiven for asking: “If the objective circumstances simply don’t allow a left wing party to effect any meaningful change and, in fact, lead to further economic deterioration and erosion of living standards, what is the point of electing it in the first place”? _ 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] Facing bad choices, in or out of the euro, Greece needs our solidarity
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 Jul 10, 2015, at 4:35 AM, ioannis aposperites via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: …Tsipras was clear from the beginning: His government was declared to be a national salvation government. The promises to the proletariat were supposed to be the outcome of a fair class collaboration and were conditioned by that collaboration as long as the bourgeoisie had to be also satisfied. You like it or not, that was Tsipras' game. Of course the greek working class and its other political forces were and are playing a variety of different games, but that does not regard Tsipras' intentions. Conclusion: speaking of treachery is not even technically correct. The word treachery is sometimes bandied about too loosely, but let’s not bend the stick back too far in this case. Tsipras was not “clear from the beginning” that his intention, and that of his government, was to implement the most punitive of a succession of austerity packages forced on the battered Greek masses over the past five years. Exactly the opposite, of course. The stated intention of the Thessaloniki program was precisely to put an end to the austerity packages and the country’s debt peonage and to use the state to launch a program of public works and other measures to promote an economic recovery. The program was Keynesian in essence, and it is from that standpoint, not that of revolutionary socialism, that Tsipras’ government wholly abandoned the party program and the tens of millions who rallied behind it. Tactical retreats and compromises which fall short of the full realization of a party program are often necessary and inevitable given adverse economic circumstances and the political correlation of forces. Calling on your troops to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally to the enemy the day after they have won a resounding victory and their confidence and readiness for further combat in pursuit of their objective has been greatly strengthened (as well as that of their allies abroad) is a qualitatively different matter. Finally, the Tsipras government was not a “national salvation” or unity government, as the term is commonly understood. Syriza formed a coalition government with the smaller right wing ANEL party which was also opposed to the austerity program imposed on Greece. The two established parties, ND and PASOK, and a new centre party, To Potami, were all outside the government and were consistently critical of its declared intention to repudiate the debt and resistance to so-called “structural reforms”. It was only earlier this week that the Syriza leadership reached out to the discredited leaders of the opposition parties to issue a joint statement in favour of an agreement with the troika on the latter’s terms, precisely those which a strong majority of Greeks had rejected by referendum a day earlier. _ 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: Facing bad choices, in or out of the euro, Greece needs our solidarity
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. * Correction: Last sentence, second para. should read “millions”, not “tens of millions”. Begin forwarded message: From: Marv Gandall marvga...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Marxism] Facing bad choices, in or out of the euro, Greece needs our solidarity Date: July 10, 2015 at 6:15:07 PM EDT To: ioannis aposperites aposperi...@gmail.com, Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu On Jul 10, 2015, at 4:35 AM, ioannis aposperites via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: …Tsipras was clear from the beginning: His government was declared to be a national salvation government. The promises to the proletariat were supposed to be the outcome of a fair class collaboration and were conditioned by that collaboration as long as the bourgeoisie had to be also satisfied. You like it or not, that was Tsipras' game. Of course the greek working class and its other political forces were and are playing a variety of different games, but that does not regard Tsipras' intentions. Conclusion: speaking of treachery is not even technically correct. The word treachery is sometimes bandied about too loosely, but let’s not bend the stick back too far in this case. Tsipras was not “clear from the beginning” that his intention, and that of his government, was to implement the most punitive of a succession of austerity packages forced on the battered Greek masses over the past five years. Exactly the opposite, of course. The stated intention of the Thessaloniki program was precisely to put an end to the austerity packages and the country’s debt peonage and to use the state to launch a program of public works and other measures to promote an economic recovery. The program was Keynesian in essence, and it is from that standpoint, not that of revolutionary socialism, that Tsipras’ government wholly abandoned the party program and the tens of millions who rallied behind it. Tactical retreats and compromises which fall short of the full realization of a party program are often necessary and inevitable given adverse economic circumstances and the political correlation of forces. Calling on your troops to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally to the enemy the day after they have won a resounding victory and their confidence and readiness for further combat in pursuit of their objective has been greatly strengthened (as well as that of their allies abroad) is a qualitatively different matter. Finally, the Tsipras government was not a “national salvation” or unity government, as the term is commonly understood. Syriza formed a coalition government with the smaller right wing ANEL party which was also opposed to the austerity program imposed on Greece. The two established parties, ND and PASOK, and a new centre party, To Potami, were all outside the government and were consistently critical of its declared intention to repudiate the debt and resistance to so-called “structural reforms”. It was only earlier this week that the Syriza leadership reached out to the discredited leaders of the opposition parties to issue a joint statement in favour of an agreement with the troika on the latter’s terms, precisely those which a strong majority of Greeks had rejected by referendum a day earlier. _ 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 case of the slows
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 Jul 9, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Andrew Pollack via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: The Guardian's live update is claiming that Tsipras will put forward a proposal as bad or worse as anything yet offered (and one such report sensibly predicts strikes and rallies against the proposal will result). If true, clearly Tsipras doesn't understand that Oxi means Oxi. Could be that he’s positioning himself for a split with the Syriza left and a “grand coalition” with To Potami and possibly representatives from New Democracy and PASOK. Hope not. It could produce more demoralization than resistance. The latest from the Financial Times: Tsipras seeks to rush austerity package through Greek parliament Claire Jones in Frankfurt, Anne-Sylvaine Chassany in Paris and Shawn Donnan in Washington The Greek government is preparing to rush a package of economic reforms and austerity measures through parliament as early as Friday in a bid to convince its eurozone creditors it is committed to striking a deal for a third bailout that would save it from crashing out of the euro. Greece’s cabinet approved the plan, which includes increases in value added tax and savings from public pensions demanded by creditors, on Thursday evening before sending it to eurozone authorities. “We are ready to compromise,” Greek prime minister Alexis Tsipras told his cabinet colleagues, Greek media reported. But Mr Tsipras could see his anti-austerity Syriza party split over the promised reforms. Greek media reported that Panagiotis Lafazanis, energy minister and leader of the hard-left faction, told his cabinet colleagues he could not support the plan. Syriza is to hold a meeting of its MPs early on Friday morning. Earlier on Thursday, Wolfgang Schäuble, Germany’s hardline finance minister, commended his new Greek counterpart Euclid Tsakalotos for his “more conventional” approach but urged Athens to start implementing reforms immediately even before reaching an agreement on a new bailout, as a way of rebuilding trust between Athens and its eurozone partners. “Just do it. That would win an incredible amount of trust,” Mr Schäuble said at a conference in Frankfurt. Greece is now scrambling to stay in the single currency. Creditors are waiting for detailed reform proposals from Athens before deciding whether the Syriza-led government has given enough ground to restart bailout talks. If eurozone finance ministers meeting on Saturday conclude that Athens has not gone far enough, European leaders will gather the next day to make preparations for its exit from the euro. The US and the International Monetary Fund have been pressing eurozone governments to be more accommodating towards Athens and offer it debt relief. But Mr Schäuble recounted a recent conversation with his US counterpart in which he suggested swapping debt-laden neighbours. “I offered my friend Jack Lew these days that we could take Puerto Rico into the eurozone if the US were willing to take Greece into the dollar union. He thought that was a joke.” Earlier on Thursday, Jens Weidmann, the president of Germany’s Bundesbank, said doubts about the solvency of Greek banks were “legitimate” and “rising by the day”. He also said the majority of Greeks who had voted No in Sunday’s referendum had “spoken out . . . against contributing any further to the solvency of their country through additional consolidation measures and reforms”. Mr Weidmann, a member of the governing council of the European Central Bank who has called for Greek banks’ €89bn liquidity lifeline to be scrapped, said it needed to be “crystal clear” that responsibility for Greece lay with Athens and international creditors, and not the ECB. Despite the tough words from Germany, there were signs of more flexibility from other European leaders. Donald Tusk, the European Council president who has been among the toughest critics of Athens’ prevarication in recent weeks, said he had spoken to Mr Tsipras on Thursday and agreed any bailout deal should include debt relief for Greece. “I hope that today we will receive concrete and realistic proposals of reforms from Athens,” Mr Tusk said. “The realistic proposal from Greece will have to be matched by an equally realistic proposal on debt sustainability from the creditors. Only then will we have a win-win situation.” Valdis Dombrovskis, the European Commission vice-president overseeing its response to the Greek crisis, said “there is some willingness to look at this issue” in the bloc. Debt relief was unlikely to come in the form of a “haircut”, however, and more likely via an extension of
Re: [Marxism] Greece accepts bailout terms
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 Jul 9, 2015, at 6:14 PM, A.R. G amithrgu...@gmail.com wrote: Wait, so what was the point of the No vote and all of that? - Amith As was suggested, the Tsipras leadership very likely anticipated a Yes vote which would justify acceptance of the package and an expansion of the governing coalition to the right as an expression of the popular will. At the same time, campaigning for a No vote would keep its base intact regardless of the outcome. The resounding No vote exploded that cover. The leadership is not able to justify acceptance of the package as an expression of the popular will and signalled a de facto expansion of the governing coalition to the right by inviting the leaders of New Democracy and To Potami to sign onto a government statement affirming the goal of an agreement with the troika. That this joint statement was issued in haste a day after the referendum leads to no other conclusion, IMO, than that the government, in concert with the opposition, wanted to quickly stem the mass momentum resulting from the No vote. On Jul 9, 2015, at 5:28 PM, james pitman via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/09/greece-debt-crisis-athens-accepts-harsh-austerity-as-bailout-deal-nears As a Guardian correspondent tweeted earlier: “The irony has not been lost on anyone - even though governing MPs are making light of it - that after the Greeks’ resounding rejection of further biting austerity at the weekend, prime minister Alexis Tsipras has with lightning speed now agreed to put his name to the most punitive austerity package any government has been asked to implement during the five years of economic crisis in Greece.” http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2015/jul/09/greek-crisis-reform-plan-grexit-tsipras-draghi-live#block-559ee760e4b07fc6a121f5af This latest development is a betrayal of the popular will, no matter how much it will be sugar-coated with promises of (very modest) debt relief. It would have been more principled, though equally out of touch with mass sentiment, to have campaigned openly for a Yes vote if the Tsipras wing believed there was no possibility of resisting the troika, a belief which, judging by its erratic behaviour, seems to have taken root soon after it formed the government. The message this capitulation communicates, and the eurozone powers will spin it this way, is that resistance is futile. Let’s hope this becomes one of those rare historical instances where this proves not to be the case. _ 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] Greece accepts bailout terms
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 party is a coalition of different tendencies dominated by Tsipris’ Synapsimos faction of former euro-communists. At present, it looks like this development will split Syriza, with the Left Platform and other left-wing groups and individuals opposed to the latest overture. How deeply and permanently the party will be split remains to be seen. On Jul 9, 2015, at 9:43 PM, A.R. G amithrgu...@gmail.com wrote: So, SYRIZA was in fact as fraudulent as the other lefties were suggesting? What is SYRIZA's excuse for this behavior? - Amith On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 3:38 AM, Marv Gandall marvga...@gmail.com wrote: On Jul 9, 2015, at 6:14 PM, A.R. G amithrgu...@gmail.com wrote: Wait, so what was the point of the No vote and all of that? - Amith As was suggested, the Tsipras leadership very likely anticipated a Yes vote which would justify acceptance of the package and an expansion of the governing coalition to the right as an expression of the popular will. At the same time, campaigning for a No vote would keep its base intact regardless of the outcome. The resounding No vote exploded that cover. The leadership is not able to justify acceptance of the package as an expression of the popular will and signalled a de facto expansion of the governing coalition to the right by inviting the leaders of New Democracy and To Potami to sign onto a government statement affirming the goal of an agreement with the troika. That this joint statement was issued in haste a day after the referendum leads to no other conclusion, IMO, than that the government, in concert with the opposition, wanted to quickly stem the mass momentum resulting from the No vote. On Jul 9, 2015, at 5:28 PM, james pitman via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/09/greece-debt-crisis-athens-accepts-harsh-austerity-as-bailout-deal-nears As a Guardian correspondent tweeted earlier: “The irony has not been lost on anyone - even though governing MPs are making light of it - that after the Greeks’ resounding rejection of further biting austerity at the weekend, prime minister Alexis Tsipras has with lightning speed now agreed to put his name to the most punitive austerity package any government has been asked to implement during the five years of economic crisis in Greece.” http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2015/jul/09/greek-crisis-reform-plan-grexit-tsipras-draghi-live#block-559ee760e4b07fc6a121f5af This latest development is a betrayal of the popular will, no matter how much it will be sugar-coated with promises of (very modest) debt relief. It would have been more principled, though equally out of touch with mass sentiment, to have campaigned openly for a Yes vote if the Tsipras wing believed there was no possibility of resisting the troika, a belief which, judging by its erratic behaviour, seems to have taken root soon after it formed the government. The message this capitulation communicates, and the eurozone powers will spin it this way, is that resistance is futile. Let’s hope this becomes one of those rare historical instances where this proves not to be the case. _ 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] Greece accepts bailout terms
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 Jul 9, 2015, at 5:28 PM, james pitman via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/09/greece-debt-crisis-athens-accepts-harsh-austerity-as-bailout-deal-nears As a Guardian correspondent tweeted earlier: “The irony has not been lost on anyone - even though governing MPs are making light of it - that after the Greeks’ resounding rejection of further biting austerity at the weekend, prime minister Alexis Tsipras has with lightning speed now agreed to put his name to the most punitive austerity package any government has been asked to implement during the five years of economic crisis in Greece.” http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2015/jul/09/greek-crisis-reform-plan-grexit-tsipras-draghi-live#block-559ee760e4b07fc6a121f5af This latest development is a betrayal of the popular will, no matter how much it will be sugar-coated with promises of (very modest) debt relief. It would have been more principled, though equally out of touch with mass sentiment, to have campaigned openly for a Yes vote if the Tsipras wing believed there was no possibility of resisting the troika, a belief which, judging by its erratic behaviour, seems to have taken root soon after it formed the government. The message this capitulation communicates, and the eurozone powers will spin it this way, is that resistance is futile. Let’s hope this becomes one of those rare historical instances where this proves not to be the case. _ 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] On Tsirpas
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 Jul 6, 2015, at 4:41 AM, Stuart Munckton via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: Again the problem is this is read through a certain lens. And gets to the heart of what is a sell out etc. I think Tsipras genuinely wants a deal and is trying to get the best deal he can. that is what he says. that, for the matter, is what the supposedly more hardline Varoufakis says *repeatedly* whenever asked. I think the reason is a weighing up of the consequences of each decisions, combined with popular views. That is what they always said and everything they have done is in this direction. Of course, they won't do a deal *at any price*, as we have just seen. But I think this is weighing up the reality that a grexit is not necessarily automatically going to improve their position, and certainly, unless it is widely understood as the Troika's fault, could badly affect Syriza's standing. But also it is about understanding that there is no real way to improve their position without a breakthrough elsewhere in Europe, or with more more pressure across Europe on the ruling classes to force a backdown. Regardless of whether you think this approach is right or wrong, there is no back down from their *actual position* involved in offering concessions, or a sell out. if you pretend to be one thing and do another, you may be a sell-out. But this is the course they have always advocated and, we have seen, they are willing to be very firm on the principles underpinning it -- even if we concluded the approach is strategically wrong. My impression also. Concretely, I think the Tspiras leadership is seeking debt relief and an end to the vicious austerity which has smashed the living standards of the Greek masses as its immediate priorities. This requires the troika of creditors to write off and postpone interest payments far into the future and to allow more room for government spending by abandoning the current targets for primary budget surpluses, ie. fiscal restraint. In exchange, as the Tsipras letter leaked to the press last week indicated, it has promised to implement the nefarious structural reforms demanded by euro-capitalism, beginning with lifting impediments to the employment of cheap, transient labour markets which would weaken the power of trade unions, rolling back pension benefits, raising consumption taxes (the VAT), and proceeding with the privatization of important public assets. However, these reforms require further elaboration, negotiation, and parliamentary approval and the devil will lie in the details, with the government seeking to fudge and soften their impact during this process, or at least hoping it can do so. The final shape these concessions will take will largely depend on the evolving relationship of forces within Greece and within the other debtor countries of the eurozone, within both the ruling and popular classes. The troika has transparently behaved like an arrogant bullying employer supremely confident it could cow its workers and destroy any resistance by their not fully compliant union. Instead, it has provoked an angry worker backlash and the equivalent of a strengthened strike mandate to their union. Whether this miscalculation by the euro-capitalist hard-liners will result in an acknowledgement that some accommodation with Syriza is now necessary to stabilize the Greek situation and prevent the referendum example from inspiring resistance elsewhere in the eurozone remains to be seen. _ 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] With Money Drying Up, Greece Is All but Bankrupt
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 May 26, 2015, at 6:38 AM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: NY Times, May 26 2015 With Money Drying Up, Greece Is All but Bankrupt By LANDON THOMAS Jr. […] Security experts say that well-to-do families in suburban pockets surrounding Athens are now supplying critical funds to local police departments. They know where their priorities lie. _ 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] Most Canadians oppose communism victims memorial: poll
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. * When asked to rank a list of new facilities “to showcase Canada’s National Capital Region,” respondents ranked a memorial to the victims of communism last out of five possibilities...A national library “on a grand scale” and a memorial for historical injustices against Aboriginal peoples were the top two picks of respondents. http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/most-canadians-oppose-communism-victims-memorial-poll _ 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] Varoufakis' vision of a grand public-private partnership to revive the Greek economy
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. * In an article which appears in today’s Project Syndicate, Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis “imagines” the shape of a Greek economic rebound should the IMF, ECB, and eurozone countries relent and meet Syriza’s demands for debt relief and an end to austerity. A robust recovery would be fuelled by joint private-public enterprises and foreign investment flows resulting from the formation of two state-sponsored banks, one for development and the other to absorb the bad assets of the Greek banks and restore them to solvency. Varoufakis links his scheme to the privatization of public assets, which Syriza had pledged to resist. “Privatization would be part of a grand public-private partnership for development”, he writes. The state, in concert with the private sector, would target for development “IT companies that use local talent, organic-agro small and medium-size enterprises, export-oriented pharmaceutical companies…the international film industry (attracted by) Greek locations, and educational programs that take advantage of Greek intellectual output and unrivaled historic sites.” https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/greek-recovery-strategy-by-yanis-varoufakis-2015-05 _ 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] 40th anniversary of end of Vietnam war
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. * Next week marks the 40th anniversary of the liberation of South Vietnam by the the revolutionary forces of the National Liberation Front backed by the People’s Army of (North) Vietnam. The Guardian’s Nick Davies describes how the war against the US and its puppet government in Saigon was won and how the promise of an independent egalitarian, future was lost in the wake of the destruction caused by the war, the US trade embargo, and the pressures of an all-encompassing global capitalist economy on a poor and isolated country. As in China and the former Soviet Union, state enterprises have been sold off, the private sector and foreign investment have expanded dramatically, the once impressive health, education and welfare systems have been dismantled, and soaring inequality and corruption have accompanied higher growth and lower poverty rates. http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/apr/22/vietnam-40-years-on-how-communist-victory-gave-way-to-capitalist-corruption _ 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] More pressure on Tsipras to break with Left Platform
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. * European governments are stepping up their efforts to split Syriza, making a purge of its radical left wing a condition of any bailout, according to today’s Financial Times. “Many officials — up to and including some eurozone finance ministers — have suggested privately that only a decision by Alexis Tsipras, Greek prime minister, to jettison the far left of his governing Syriza party can make a bailout agreement possible”, the paper reports. The high level leaks come in the wake of a proposal earlier this week by former premier and New Democracy leader Antonis Samaris to join with Tsipras in a unity government stripped of its leftist members and prepared to continue implementing the austerity program imposed by the EU, ECB and IMF. The FT report makes no mention of Samaris, stating that the eurozone powers instead favour Tsipras forging “a new coalition with Greece’s traditional centre-left party, the beleaguered Pasok, and To Potami (The River), a new centre-left party that fought its first general election in January.” It notes that “Syriza’s moderate wing admit there is a problem with the Left Platform, the official internal opposition that represents about a third of the party” but fear provoking a premature clash with it, particularly over aligning with Pasok, “which is seen by the majority of Syriza supporters as part of the corrupt old political system”. The European powers are hoping that further economic distress resulting from its financial pressure will lead to mass voter dissatisfaction with the Syriza-led government and its replacement by a more compliant one. But the FT also reports that “concern was rising in Brussels that if the continued stalemate forced Greece to impose capital controls to prevent a bank run, this could strengthen Syriza’s populist appeal rather than sparking disillusionment among voters.” * * * Frustrated officials want Greek premier to ditch Syriza far left Peter Spiegel in Brussels and Kerin Hope in Athens Financial Times April 5 2015 Eurozone authorities’ frustration with Greece has grown so intense that a change in the current Athens government’s make-up, however far-fetched, has become a frequent topic of conversation on the sidelines of bailout talks. Many officials — up to and including some eurozone finance ministers — have suggested privately that only a decision by Alexis Tsipras, Greek prime minister, to jettison the far left of his governing Syriza party can make a bailout agreement possible. The idea would be for Mr Tsipras to forge a new coalition with Greece’s traditional centre-left party, the beleaguered Pasok, and To Potami (The River), a new centre-left party that fought its first general election in January. “Tsipras has to decide whether he wants to be prime minister or the leader of Syriza,” said one European official. A senior official in a eurozone finance ministry added: “This government cannot survive.” Members of Syriza’s moderate wing admit there is a problem with the Left Platform, the official internal opposition that represents about a third of the party and controls enough MPs to bring down the government if it were to rebel in a parliamentary vote. “We used to be more debating society than political party . . . so it is hard to get a system of party discipline up and running,” said one Syriza official. “But you have to remember — we’ve been in power less than 100 days.” Under the leadership of Panayotis Lafazanis, almost as popular a figure in the party as the prime minister, Left Platform members say they will veto structural reforms that are being pushed hard by Greece’s creditors in the current round of bailout talks. Yet even though Mr Tsipras had adopted a more moderate stance in his dealings with Brussels and Berlin, it is too soon to expect him to risk an open clash with his left wing, according to observers in Athens. To win the support of Pasok and To Potami, Mr Tsipras would also have to dump his right-of-centre coalition partner, the nationalist Independent Greeks. “It would be desirable to move to a more coherent pro-European centre-left coalition compared with this unseemly union of the radical left with the populist right,” said George Pagoulatos, a professor of political economy at Athens business university. “But it is premature for the moment.” Eurozone officials insist they are not trying to force a change in the government — sensitive to accusations the EU was complicit in ending the tenure of George Papandreou, Greece’s prime minister at the start of the eurozone crisis, and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian premier until
[Marxism] Soros: forget Greece, aid Ukraine
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. * George Soros is urgently plumping for the EU to commit its resources to Ukraine rather than Greece. “The European Union stands at a crossroads”, he says, it has to deal with two sources of existential crisis: Greece and Ukraine. That may prove too much.” So Ukraine is the better bet for investors like Soros. It is accomplishing what Syriza has hitherto refused to do - cooperating with the EU, IMF and other international creditors to implement “a radical reform program which is gaining momentum”. While there has been “continuing progress in internal reforms” under the pro-Western government of Petro Poroshenko, the EU remains preoccupied with Greece, where the best that can be hoped is for continued “muddling through” to try and keep it in the eurozone. “Europe has been drip-feeding Ukraine, just as it has Greece”, Soros writes. This, despite the fact that the case for saving Ukraine is “black and white…Vladimir Putin’s Russia is the aggressor, and Ukraine, in defending itself, is defending the values and principles on which the EU was built.” For Soros “the tragedy…is that the EU will lose the new Ukraine. The principles that Ukraine is defending – the very principles on which the EU is based – will be abandoned, and the EU will have to spend a lot more money on defending itself than it would need to spend helping the new Ukraine succeed.” Full: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/ukraine-eu-last-chance-by-george-soros-2015-03#j5OEtxqV08hIXrMR.99 _ 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] What Next for Greece? Joanne Landy of CPD/Nation magazine
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 Mar 24, 2015, at 12:04 PM, Dayne Goodwin via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: What’s Next for Greece? Debating Syriza’s Options A reading list on the future of austerity in Greece, Europe and beyond. by Joanne Landy The Nation magazine, March 24 http://www.thenation.com/article/202465/whats-next-greece-debating-syrizas-options# The steady stream of topical links on Greece you've been providing is much appreciated, Dayne. _ 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] Israeli apartheid week spans the globe
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 Mar 17, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Dennis Brasky via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: This list can be proud to have Joe Catron as a contributor! http://www.palestinechronicle.com/10-years-after-modest-launch-israeli-apartheid-week-spans-the-globe/ Agreed, Dennis. Joe belongs to the long heroic tradition of committed internationalists who have given expression to their political beliefs by participating in dangerous foreign conflicts, and he deserves our maximum respect. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] The coming crisis in China
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 contrary view see this piece by former Marxist John Ross, now teaching in China. What he calls a “socialist market economy”, others call “state capitalism”. For many years, I have made my living by supplying companies more accurate analysis of economies such as China than could be found in the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, and The Economist. Such publications have not been able to comprehend the superiority of China's economic structure to that of the West, and have therefore made repeated erroneous predictions. It seems that there are still openings in that field and, in light of the continuing errors in such publications, the factual record for 2014 again clearly shows that those seeking more accurate predictions of what will happen in China’s economy will find these in China's media, from China's top economists, and in China's own growth projections. Full: http://ablog.typepad.com/keytrendsinglobalisation/2015/02/chinas-economy-grew-3-times-faster-than-the-us.html On Mar 18, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Dennis Brasky via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: http://www.democracyjournal.org/36/the-coming-china-crisis.php?utm_source=Book+Updateutm_campaign=03%2F18%2F2015utm_medium=email _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] The Last Lincoln Brigade Volunteer
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 Mar 15, 2015, at 8:05 AM, Louis Proyect via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: NY Times Sunday Magazine, Mar. 15 2015 The Last Volunteer (Del Berg, 99, is the last known surviving veteran of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, a contingent of nearly 3,000 Americans who fought to defend the democratically elected government during the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s.) * * * (Bill was my dad’s cousin. I used to periodically visit NYC and spend time with Biil when I was a student in the late 60’s and early 70’s. He was loyal CP’er and a colourful character, as you can see below. The intervention against Sandino radicalized him. Before he went to Spain, he helped organize the city’s cabdrivers. Though we tried to skirt around them, political differences gradually drew us apart.) Column One Life and Death of an Activist STEPHEN BRAUN, TIMES STAFF WRITER Los Angeles Times April 13, 1991 'Wild' Bill Gandall wanted his passing used to rally the faithful. It also offers an elegy for the dedicated political adventurers of a faded era. The crowning moment of Wild Bill Gandall's final campaign found him on his hands and knees, crawling up the steps of the Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles in protest against the Persian Gulf War. All around was chaos, the kind of confusion the 82-year-old had survived as a Marine in the Nicaraguan bush and a recruit in the Spanish Civil War. Knocked to the ground as demonstrators surged toward the building's doors, Gandall dragged himself past nightstick-wielding federal police. At the top of the steps, the old man steadied himself with his cane and spoke briefly to reporters before he was hustled away and handcuffed. You only die once, he said. Two months later, William P. Gandall was found dead in his wheelchair in a sunlit Long Beach hospital dining commons. Once a museum piece of an anti-war movement weakened by solid American support for the Gulf conflict, Gandall is now being offered up as a movement martyr. Relatives and activists accuse the U.S. Federal Protective Service of hastening Gandall's death by roughing him up and failing to provide proper medical attention during the Jan. 16 demonstration--claims police deny and a coroner's autopsy contradicts. The brutality alleged is a far cry from the Rodney G. King beating, which has brought national attention to such law enforcement behavior. Instead, protesters say, it amounts to the failure to treat an old man with the care his age required. Even as Gandall's death rallies peace activists desperate to reinvigorate their cause, it also serves as an elegy for a fading American archetype. Gandall was a real-life counterpart of the tough, committed characters found in the novels of John Dos Passos and Ernest Hemingway, political adventurers who reached their prime in the troubled decade before World War II. He lived life full-bore, fighting with the Marines in Nicaragua in 1926 and against Fascists in Spain in 1936, enduring the demoralization of the Hollywood blacklist in the 1950s--quarreling and rabble-rousing all the while. If Gandall's last act of protest seemed almost a suicidal risk for an elderly man with a heart pacemaker, it becomes clearer in the context of his past. He came of age in an era with little moral or political ambiguity, a foot soldier in a movement whose leftist idols had yet to be tarnished and whose enemies came without redeeming human shades of gray. Compared to the educated, issue-oriented activists who have dominated national protest since the Vietnam War, Gandall and his generation were blue-collar internationalists who mapped their lives by activism. I don't think we will see their kind again, said Harvey Klehr, an Emory University political scientist and historian of the American left. In the 1930s and the 1940s, the left had the power to elicit tremendous commitment. These people marched off to war and lost their lives, all in the name of anti-fascism. It's hard to imagine that kind of fervor again. On his Long Beach hospital bed, Gandall asked his daughter, Kate, a New York film student, to carry on. He told me to make the most out of his death, she said. So Kate Gandall has begun laying groundwork for a lawsuit against federal police. Anti-war organizers put out calls in leftist circles for witnesses. Last Sunday, a day after the old soldier was buried in a Riverside veterans cemetery, 100 people--former Spanish Civil War soldiers, unionists, communists and war resisters--sprawled out in the vaulted chapel of a Unitarian church near MacArthur Park. They were there for Gandall's memorial
Re: [Marxism] [Pen-l] Greece: Phase Two | Jacobin
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. * Michael Roberts takes on Lapavitsas: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2015/03/14/greece-keynes-or-marx/ On Mar 12, 2015, at 6:11 AM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: (Essential reading but I am disappointed that Lapavitsas does not provide more analysis on the ramifications of the Grexit he advocates. He also rejects the idea that the falling rate of profit explains Greece's troubles. That's something to think about. The FROP implies that there was a drop from some elevation where in fact the Greek economy never reached such a height. That fact, in my opinion, explains the tilt toward the Eurozone to begin with. It was an attempt to artificially stimulate an economy that was dysfunctional at its core.) --- Greece: Phase Two Greek MP Costas Lapavitsas on the economic barriers ahead for Syriza and the challenges of eurozone exit. by Sebastian Budgen Costas Lapavitsas https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/lapavitsas-varoufakis-grexit-syriza/ _ 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] Greek Prospects
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 Mar 8, 2015, at 8:46 AM, James Creegan via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: The first thing that strikes me about Marv's thinking is its fatalistic objectivism, which takes present mass consciousness as an immutable given, leaving no role for leftwing agency. I’m not a fatalist. Nothing is immutable. The natural world and human society are ever changing. People respond by trying to do what they consider necessary to maintain or improve their conditions in changed circumstances. In doing so, they generally take into account the economic, political, social and other constraints on their ability to act. Division and conflict arises within and between classes in defining their interests and how to pursue them. This understanding is consistent with historical materialism, and informs my view of the process currently underway in Greece and the eurozone. In my view, the possibilities for overcoming the gap between consciousness and reality are greater in Greece today than they have been in any Western country for a long time due to three circumstances: 1) the people have already taken the momentous step of upending a normal pro-status quo political duopoly; 2) a leftwing party is now in control of the government, giving it an unprecedented ability to shape public opinion (a bully pulpit, in the current cliche); 3) the hopes with which perhaps most people voted for Syriza--that it would roll back austerity and stay in the Eurozone at the same time by means of negotiation with the institutions--have now been clearly exposed by the first round of talks as a dead end. People will be casting about for a new course of action. I’m in agreement with points 1 and 2. But what is the basis for your belief that Syriza has “clearly exposed” itself and that the people are casting about for a new course of action? That is not at all clear, and the evidence presently points in the opposite direction. You understand this, which is why you’re reduced to proclaiming that the people “will be” breaking with the course set by Syriza at some undefined future stage. They may or may not, but in the meantime proclamations relevant to a possible future situation aren’t relevant to one in which they are presently expressing increased confidence in their leadership, not less, even in the face of its programmatic retreat, and where the relationship of forces between the Greeks and their eurozone paymasters is as adverse as ever. I don’t want to throw the bible at you, but I expect you would have seen signs everywhere, where there were few, that the British Labour Party leadership had “clearly exposed itself in the aftermath of WWI and your view of British politics would have similarly been shaped by the firm conviction that its working class supporters were poised to break with it. When and where have you ever thought otherwise? My main fear is that the Syriza leadership will fail to utilize these opportunities because it is paralyzed by thinking akin to Marv Gandall's. Ever since the neoliberal onslaught and the fall of the USSR, broad sections of the left have abandoned any hope of revolutionary change in favor of restoring the liberal Keyensian policies that prevailed during the glorious thirty postwar years. The route to such a restoration seems to be convincing more enlightened policy makers that neoliberalism is bad for capitalism, and that they should adopt policies aimed at stimulating consumer demand. The more radical neo-Keynesians usually add that such persuasion must be supplemented by popular pressure. Marv seems to partake of this 'post-soviet realism'. Having written off any prospect of challenging capitalism… I haven’t written off any prospect of challenging capitalism, and am heartened and hopeful whenever there is the reappearance anywhere of the consciousness and militancy which characterized the international workers’ movement before its historic decline. Perhaps we’re witnessing the first signs of its rebirth, but that once-powerful movement no longer exists. You’re correct that this is the foremost reason why broad sections of the left have abandoned any hope in revolutionary change. Some have done so permanently, others like myself and probably most others on the list, only insofar as they can see to the horizon. Moreover, I’m impressed by how abruptly and unexpectedly history can turn, as we learned in our lifetime with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Here too, the differences between us may not be as wide as you suppose them to be. he seems to be pinning his hopes on a realization by more enlightened bourgeois
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Comments on the Alex Callinicos-Stathis Kouvelakis debate | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist
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. * While I'm a great deal more respectful of James Creegan than Is Louis Proyect, I'm in agreement with Louis' focus on the relationship of forces - for me, the central issue in any political conflict - and it seems to me the onus is on Jim to provide some answers. What evidence is there that the Greek and European working class is now prepared to break with electoral politics and establish structures of dual power, as in Russia in 1917? What is their current state of combativity and consciousness? Is there any indicatiion of mutinous sentiments in the armed forces and other repressive state agencies? Jim wants Syriza or forces to its left to prepare the masses for an insurrection, utilizing transitional demands, but is there any doubt that the Greek military and bourgeoisie, backed by NATO, would quickly move to crush any incipient movement in this direction before it could gain any traction? The likelier outcome would be Hungary and Germany 1919 rather than Russia 1917 in circumstances which are far less favorable than those which faced Bela Kun and Karl Liebknecht. Unless circumstances change radically, the most that can be expected, alas, is some loosening of the austerity straight jacket squeezing the working class in Greece and other European debt colonies by a ruling class which has concluded that modest concessions are necessary in the interest of political stability and economic recovery. On Mar 6, 2015, at 3:05 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 3/6/15 5:54 PM, James Creegan wrote: This is called dodging the question. How do you envisage the Greek situation as unfolding, or how would you like it to do so? This is something I told you already when you badgered me last time on this. I wrote this before Tsipras took office and the self-anointed evolutionaries began denouncing him for selling out. I would not change a word: http://louisproyect.org/2015/01/25/reflections-on-syriza/ Of course the real question is whether Syriza can deliver such reforms given the relationship of forces that exist. Germany, its main adversary, has a population of 80 million and a GDP of nearly 4 trillion dollars. Greece, by comparison, has a population of 11 million and a GDP of 242 billion dollars, just a bit more than Volkswagen’s revenues. Given this relationship of forces, it will be a struggle to achieve the aforementioned reforms. To make them possible, it will be necessary for the workers and poor of Greece to demonstrate to Europe that they will go all the way to win them. It will also be necessary for people across Europe to demonstrate their solidarity with Greece so as to put maximum pressure on Germany and its shitty confederates like François Hollande to back off. But if your main goal in politics is to lecture the Greeks about the need for workers councils, armed struggle and all the rest, you obviously have no need to waste your time on such measly reforms. Part of the problem for much of the left is its inability to properly theorize the conditions of class struggle in a post-Soviet world. In Latin America and southern Europe, states are struggling to improve the lives of their citizens but without abolishing capitalism. In an interview with Stathis Kouvelakis for Jacobin magazine, Sebastian Budgen asked what Greece would look like if Syriza won the election, adding, “We all know that socialism in one country doesn’t work. To what extent would a left social democracy in a poor, backward European country with no access to international lending, excluded from the Eurozone be able to change things? What kind of society would that be like?” _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/marvgand2%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] Chechnya/Ukraine
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 Feb 28, 2015, at 4:39 AM, Ron J via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: …I find the excuse you provide Bandera reprehensible. He was a fascist. On Feb 28, 2015, at 4:41 AM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: People want to understand why Stephen Bandera lined up with the Nazis? In many ways, they were the lesser evil as far as Ukrainians were concerned. In essence, the main reason countries bordering the USSR orient to NATO today is because of this sordid past. Until the rehabilitation of Bandera by the pro-NATO Ukrainian nationalist parties now in power in Kiev, the great majority of Ukrainians did not regard Bandera as “the lesser evil” and supported the Soviet Union and the Red Army - even under Stalin! - against the fascist bands allied to the Nazis. They did so both actively during World War II and beyond it in their historical memory. This was true both of the predominantly Russian-speaking regions in the east and of the predominantly Ukrainian-speaking regions in the west. If attitudes have changed, as one would have reason to expect, it is as a result of the very recent events which have torn the country apart, not because of the “sordid past” of the USSR. The 2012 KIIS Survey shows that the absolute majority of the residents of Ukraine, given a choice of the various forces active in Ukraine during World War II, support most the Soviet Army (75%). In addition, 4% favor the Soviet partisans. The Ukrainian Insurgent Army [militia led by ultrarightist Stephan Bandera] is a choice of 8% of the respondents. In contrast, only 1% support the German Army. The relative majorities (41% each) of adult Ukrainians have negative views of both Joseph Stalin and [Bandera cohort] Roman Shukhevych during the war. However, a much greater percentage (32%) hold very positive or mostly positive views of the wartime activities of Stalin, compared to Shukhevych (14%).” See: https://www.academia.edu/3378079/The_Politics_of_World_War_II_in_Contemporary_Ukraine _ 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] Prominent Putin critic Boris Nemtsov shot dead near Kremlin
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.
*
Agree. Hope I didn’t leave the impression his murder was somehow justified.
On Feb 28, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Andrew Pollack acpolla...@gmail.com wrote:
Marv's assessment seems accurate. I mentioned in a facebook post (hopefully
not yet here, sorry if dup) that Nemtsov was surely murdered for his role in
today's antiwar protest - a protest organized by former oligarch Khodorovsky.
From the wikis of both they seem to be for closer ties to Western capital. Be
that as it may, genuine antiwar, anti-imperialist forces must characterize
this assassination openly as the horrendous crime it is.
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Marv Gandall 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.
*
Nemtsov embodied the contradictions of most current movements for democratic
reform. Since the historic decline of the worldwide trade and socialist
movement, the fight for democratic rights against authoritarian regimes has
more often than not been coupled with an admiration for unfettered capitalism
and its iconic representatives, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Nemtsov
became the standard bearer for democratic reform in Putin’s Russia after
having previously served as a prominent figure in the preceding Yeltsin
regime which laid the foundation for the present system of crony capitalism
in the country.
On Feb 28, 2015, at 8:03 AM, Ken Hiebert via Marxism
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote:
POSTING RULES NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*
Stepan Kutuzov said:
Nemtsov was a thief and a bandit. He was killed for the cause. There and
the road.
Ken Hiebert replies:
There and the road. If this is a translation from another language, I
must say I don't get it in English.
Also, a quick google search for Stepan Kutuzov on Marxmail brings up no
other messages.
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/marvgand2%40gmail.com
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/acpollack2%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] Prominent Putin critic Boris Nemtsov shot dead near Kremlin
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. * Nemtsov embodied the contradictions of most current movements for democratic reform. Since the historic decline of the worldwide trade and socialist movement, the fight for democratic rights against authoritarian regimes has more often than not been coupled with an admiration for unfettered capitalism and its iconic representatives, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Nemtsov became the standard bearer for democratic reform in Putin’s Russia after having previously served as a prominent figure in the preceding Yeltsin regime which laid the foundation for the present system of crony capitalism in the country. On Feb 28, 2015, at 8:03 AM, Ken Hiebert via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: POSTING RULES NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Stepan Kutuzov said: Nemtsov was a thief and a bandit. He was killed for the cause. There and the road. Ken Hiebert replies: There and the road. If this is a translation from another language, I must say I don't get it in English. Also, a quick google search for Stepan Kutuzov on Marxmail brings up no other messages. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/marvgand2%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] Sometimes the Bosses Are Stronger
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 Feb 25, 2015, at 4:20 PM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: On 2/25/15 5:37 PM, Marv Gandall wrote: There is a lot of scaremongering about a Grexit, and not only by nervous investors. I have yet to see anybody make the case that there wouldn't be at least than 2 years of pain but even if there was, the real problem is the underlying economy. Greece is suffering for the same reasons much of Eastern Europe is suffering. Its industrial base is third-tier. All this talk about the drachma versus the euro makes it sound like currency is the issue when it is one of a falling rate of profit. FROP theorist Micheal Roberts agrees with you, thinks the issue of a debt default is a diversion, and that only alternative open to the Syriza is to take over the banks and the commanding heights of the economy while mobilizing the Greek and European masses in a fight for socialism. I don’t believe that is your position, though it flows logically from the view that the real problem is the underlying capitalist economy. Frankly, I can’t see any other alternative for Syriza other than to repudiate the debt and nationalize the economy which would qualitatively distinguish it from the preceding Samaras government. On the other hand, I don’t know that the relationship of forces between the classes is such that it can be turned in its favour. This is the terrible dilemma facing the Tsipras government, which is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. The international left, especially that part of it which is not engaged in any serious political struggle, is hardly in a position to offer it tactical advice one way or another. _ 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] Sometimes the Bosses Are Stronger
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 Feb 23, 2015, at 7:19 PM, Louis Proyect via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: Maybe Syriza should have appealed to some other power bloc instead of Eurasia. Like the planet Azimgreb in the Alpha Buzalki solar system. I heard they were flush with grozeks, their currency. I don't know if they would be accepted by European banks, however. There is a lot of scaremongering about a Grexit, and not only by nervous investors. It is often overlooked that the eurozone countries also have an interest in a “managed” Grexit, if it should come to that. While there undeniably is risk attached, the matter isn’t as cut-and-dried as Louis seems to think. If it were, there wouldn’t be a serious debate unfolding within Syriza and among left-wing Greek economists about how to proceed, devoid of mocking references to grozeks, Azimgreb, and the Alpha Buzalki solar system. Critics of the Eurogroup agreement like Costas Lapavitsas are not an unworldly lot, whatever one might think of the merits of their position, which deserves to be treated with respect. Below is how one foreign exchange trader on the other side of the class divide assessed the consequences of a Grexit if there were no agreement this week. Whether there would be mass protests by the Greek masses against a decision to leave the eurozone on the scale imagined by the writer is doubtful, although it must be conceded that the new government has left itself vulnerable by not preparing the masses for the possibility of a forced exit - instead, reinforcing the widespread conviction that a withdrawal from the single currency under any circumstances was unthinkable and would inevitably be chaotic and catastrophic and worse than the status quo for the Greek people. How would Grexit work? By Matt Weller Futures February 20, 2015 […] • The real market fireworks could come if there is no chance of a deal and the Eurogroup and co. make plans for a Grexit. Below are our thoughts on how this could be managed and what to expect: • The Eurogroup makes the announcement that Greece is going to leave the Eurozone; we expect this announcement to come after the US market close sometime after 2200 GMT on Friday. • If this happens, then we would expect the Greeks to announce capital controls on all their banks and announce a number of “bank holidays” early next week, to try and manage the situation. • Over the weekend we would expect a series of discussions between Greece and the Eurozone and another statement before the markets open late on Sunday evening. • This statement could include a timeline for a “managed exit” from the currency bloc including a timescale for re-introducing the drachma, how Greece will pay back its debts (will they be written off?), how the Eurozone will support the Greek economy, etc. • A plan of economic support to help Greece manage this transition. • The ECB is likely to step in to support Greek banks so that they do not immediately collapse. We believe that the Eurogroup and co. will want to manage this process in the smoothest way possible to ensure that excess volatility does not hit the financial markets and disrupt the Eurozone economy. However, the consequences of a Grexit announcement in the coming days could include: • A sharp drop in the EUR, EUR/USD could fall below 1.10 and move back towards parity. • We could see Italian and Spanish bond yields move higher. • A rush to safe havens like US Treasuries, UK Gilts, the yen and the Swiss franc. It could also boost the USD, which is also considered a safe haven, and could weigh heavily on risky assets like global stock markets. • A sharp and devastating sell-off in Greek stocks and Greek bonds (pushing bond yields through the roof). • A sharp increase in the cost of Greek debt insurance. • Protests on the streets in Greece (75% of Greek people wanted to remain in the currency bloc when polled before Greece’s January elections.) • Possible public protests in Germany if Greece’s debts are written off. Full:http://www.futuresmag.com/2015/02/20/how-would-grexit-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
[Marxism] The odds against Syriza
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. * Below, the link to a very good background piece on the almost impossible task facing Greece - small, poor, and bankrupt - to escape from the straitjacket of eurozone austerity, even under a popular leadership like Syriza committed to radical change. The new government has now reportedly indicated it is prepared to accept 70% of the austerity package earlier imposed on the country by the EU, ECB, and IMF. The callous hardline taken by the “troika” and the German government as well as the established governing parties in even highly indebted states like Spain, is essentially political. The debt relief Greece seeks could be easily provided by its European and international creditors, but they want to make an example of a humbled Syriza that the equally discontented Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, and other Europeans, inspired by the electoral success of the left-wing Greek party, won’t dare emulate. The article is by Susan Webber, a former Wall Street analyst who blogs under the name Yves Smith on the widely read nakedcapitalism site. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/02/outlook-darkens-for-syriza-and-greece.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
Re: [Marxism] 02-02-15 France Supports Greece in EU Debt Battle
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 Feb 2, 2015, at 11:55 AM, Ralph Johansen via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: I’m wondering, if Germany begins to get pressure from other governments that it doesn't feel it can accommodate for whatever reasons having to do mainly with its net export position, with the position of the Bundesbank and the moral hazard effect on other indebted governments, what do we think is the likelihood (I've read that it is a probability) - and the effect - of a complete pull-out of Germany from the Eurozone, re-instituting the Deutschmark or a similar separate German medium of exchange? If Germany left the euro, it’s expected that it’s currency would rise sharply and its exports would face stiffer competition from other European nations and overseas. That was a major reason it entered a currency union with countries whose economic performance have exerted a restraining influence on the exchange rate. I can’t see why German capitalism would want to revert to the status quo ante. Unlike the highly indebted peripheral countries, it has benefited mightily from its position within the eurozone. As you say, an eventual compromise at a low level of debt relief appears as the likely prospect, but 80-90% of the bail-outs the Greeks have been getting go to pay interest and principle on outstanding indebtedness at the expense of Greek (and European) taxpayers, which is why Syriza concludes that more loans at anything like existing terms are less than useless, and that they absolutely cannot pay them with a shrinking economy anyhow. It’s very unlikely that the existing terms will remain in place, although it’s equally doubtful they’ll be any substantial write off of existing debt. But maturities can be spread out to relieve the burden of debt and both sides can then claim victory - Syriza, that it has obtained debt relief and can redirect the savings towards social programs, and the Merkel government, that it has held the line on a deep debt writeoff. Since the other indebted nations, notably Italy and Spain, will want similiar treatment, it should form part of an overall package outside of a formal debt conference. At least, that’s my reading of where both sides think they’ll end up although, as in any negotiation, there’s no assurance they’ll be able to reach a mutually acceptable compromise. There seems to be no question that Syriza's approach owes more to Keynes than to Marx, that the effort is being characterized as first allevating the most acute points of domestic distress and then advancing proposals to save European capital from itself, especially since other European taxpayers are paying for this debacle as well - - but look, Syriza only obtained 36% of the participating electoral vote, their parliamentary plurality of 49% exists as an anomaly of the rules of apportionment of seats, they cannot propose that a socialist government will expect the Greek people to agree to cut their economy loose from its European moorings and share a dwindling nothing, they cannot survive without external aid at this point, no one, other than other European states (collectively) that fear penumbral effects on their own financial prospects of Greek collapse, will willingly invest in a faileing state -- and the Greek people in the light of all this are not regarded by Syriza as ready for a socialist revolution - nor given the options do they see a viable plan for such a situation. And when anyone suggests that you let Greece crash completely, and then there will be conditions ripe for revolution, and autarky, we have to remember that they do not have anything like the resources available to Argentina which, with its vast land and relatively large productive infrastructure for providing inputs and for growing soybeans for China was able to recover from default. Even Ireland, which has had some recovery from imposed austerity under terms similar to those imposed on Greece has a historical relationship as a platform for plant and investment by international capital that Greece lacks. This is the position of Varoufakis and the Syriza leadership and it’s understandable why they would be so hesitant about a voluntary exit. But other respected voices on the left like Costas Lapavitsas have argued that if Greece left the eurozone and adopted its own devalued currency, it could begin to recover - admittedly after a very difficult transition period - with forceful state intervention in the economy. Europeans and others would buy cheaper Greek goods, and take advantage of cheaper vacations, education, health and other services.
[Marxism] 02-02-15 France Supports Greece in EU Debt Battle
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. * Note that Schaeuble has not rejected the reported Greek proposal for a swap of the debt it owes to the EU, ECB, and IMF, only that Germany does not want Greece to act unilaterally, indicating that this could be a basis for negotiation. More support for the view Syriza will be forced into a compromise which does not resemble its campaign promises. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/02/us-greece-politics-idUSKBN0L60WO20150202?feedType=RSSfeedName=worldNews (Reuters) - Greece's new government dropped calls for a write-off of its foreign debt and proposed ending a standoff with its official creditors by swapping the debt for growth-linked bonds on Monday, a week after its election on an anti-austerity platform. Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, in London to reassure private investors that he was not seeking a showdown with Brussels over a new debt agreement, said the new left-wing government would spare privately held bonds from losses, a source told Reuters. The reported proposals, which included a pledge to reform the Greek economy, contrast sharply with the government's strident vows in Athens last week to ditch the tough austerity conditions imposed under its existing bailout. Late on Monday, Varoufakis issued a statement saying that comments of his to financial investors had been misinterpreted. He gave no details but he was widely reported in Greek media to be backing down from the government's aim of reducing the debt. The government and the finance minister will not back down, irrespective of how grieved some people are by our determination, he said in the statement. It was not clear whether the proposals would be accepted by European heavyweight Germany, which opposes softening the terms. Varoufakis had not discussed the swap with officials from its European Union or European Central Bank creditors, said the source, who had direct knowledge of the plans but would not be named due to the sensitivity of the issue. The finance minister also said he had not put a value on the swap, the source said, calling it a work in progress. These bonds held by the ECB right now can be restructured. It's possible to turn it into perpetual bonds to be serviced, or growth-linked debt, said the source. It's the same with a proportion of the other bilateral bonds held by the official sector. Germany's Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble told Reuters in an interview earlier on Monday that Berlin would not accept any unilateral changes to Greece's debt program. We want Greece to continue going down this successful path in the interests of Greece and the Greeks but we will not accept one-sided changes to the program, he said at the Reuters Euro Zone Summit. Varoufakis called his plan a menu of debt swaps that meant Athens would no longer call for a write-off of Greece’s 315 billion euros ($360 billion) of foreign debt, the Financial Times reported. What I’ll say to our partners is that we are putting together a combination of a primary budget surplus and a reform agenda, Varoufakis told the newspaper. I’ll say, 'Help us to reform our country and give us some fiscal space to do this, otherwise we shall continue to suffocate and become a deformed rather than a reformed Greece'. Athens planned to target wealthy tax-evaders and post primary budget surpluses of 1 to 1.5 percent of gross domestic product, he told the paper, even if it meant his party, Syriza, could not fulfill all the spending promises on which it was elected. The finance minister and Greece's new Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras are touring European capitals in a diplomatic offensive to replace Greece's bailout accord with the European Union, ECB and International Monetary Fund, known as the troika. On Tuesday, Tsipras will meet Italy's Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, a young center-left leader thought to be among those most sympathetic to calls for leniency. Varoufakis said he was confident he could reach a negotiated settlement soon, telling Britain's Channel 4 news it was time to stop Greece being a festering wound on Europe and dismissing a suggestion the ECB could block a new deal. He met international investors on Monday evening. Michael Hintze, founder and CEO of hedge fund CQS, asked afterwards if the minister had proposed a debt swap, said It's more balanced and broader than that, without elaborating. The source told Reuters losses would not be forced on private investors, saying: They have had enough hair cuts. In a statement released by the Greek Finance Ministry early on Tuesday in Athens, Varoufakis said the government's aim was to pull the country out of debt serfdom.
[Marxism] France, US profess sympathy for Syriza position
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. * Despite the predictable hardline posturing by Germany, the ECB, and the EU, this weekend’s sympathetic comments by French finance minister Sapin and US President Obama can’t help but reinforce the Syriza leadership’s conviction that it can exploit strategic divisions at the top concerning austerity and the debt crisis. I noted several weeks ago that “the likeliest outcome is an eventual compromise which limits, but does not entirely impair, Syriza’s ability to provide jobs, income support, and debt relief to Greece’s beleaguered population. Such an outcome would be in keeping with the growing conviction of the European elites that its brutal austerity regime is undermining economic growth and political stability throughout Europe and that some accommodation to mass distress and discontent is necessary.” France Supports Greece in EU Debt Battle By MARCUS WALKER, INTI LANDAURO and ANDREW ACKERMAN Wall Street Journal Feb. 1, 2015 (Behind a paywall) PARIS—France expressed sympathy for the new Greek government’s hope of renegotiating the tough terms of its bailout, amid growing international calls for Germany to rethink its austerity-heavy approach to the debt crises in Greece and Europe. French Finance Minister Michael Sapin said on Sunday that Greece needs a “new contract” with Europe, backing the demand of the Athens government, led by the left-wing Syriza party, to end the previous framework of Greece’s bailout program, which has become politically toxic in the heavily indebted nation. His comments—and similar remarks by President Barack Obama —are the latest example of a pushback in Europe and beyond against Berlin’s handling of the eurozone debt crisis. Germany, Europe’s biggest economy, has pressed since 2010 for tight fiscal and monetary policies as the best way to force other countries to adopt supply-side overhauls to make them more frugal and competitive. But the eurozone’s chronic lack of growth, and a mounting voter backlash against political establishments that have given priority to fiscal retrenchment, are challenging Berlin’s hegemony over economic strategy in the 19-country currency bloc. The eurozone, second only to the U.S. in gross domestic product, remains the laggard of world economic recovery and is still struggling with the legacies of the global financial crisis. President Obama, in comments aired Sunday on CNN, echoed Mr. Sapin in urging compromise and said Greece needs “a growth strategy” to deal with a slump in which economic output has shrunk by some 25%. Mr. Obama acknowledged that eurozone members must have fiscal prudence and structural overhauls, but he said that “what we’ve learned in the U.S. experience…is that the best way to reduce deficits and to restore fiscal soundness is to grow.” The president added: “You cannot keep on squeezing countries that are in the midst of depression.” German policy makers have gotten used to criticism from Washington, but Mr. Obama’s comments caused a stir in Europe because they came in the context of Syriza’s election win on Jan. 25, and amid fears about whether Greece and Germany will be able to reach a deal in time to avoid a Greek exit from the euro. And while Germany’s financial clout still gives it an effective veto over many eurozone economic policies, the wind appears to be turning against Berlin. In moves that have worried German policy makers, France and Italy are pressing to slow down fiscal belt-tightening to help economic recovery, while the European Central Bank has announced large-scale asset purchases, known as quantitative easing, in an effort to lift growth and inflation despite strong reservations in Berlin. It is Greece’s election result, however, that poses the most dramatic challenge to eurozone economic orthodoxy. The small nation’s rejection of mainstream parties that cooperated with German-sponsored austerity has led to a game of chicken between the new Syriza-led government under Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and northern European creditor governments led by Berlin. Athens is demanding a new financing arrangement outside the bailout procedures built up at Germany’s behest since 2010. Greece wants a relaxation of austerity, an end to intrusive inspections by a creditors’ committee, and a reduction of the country’s debt burden. German officials, including Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, are so far insisting that Greece abide by previous bailout agreements, and that no new framework can be offered. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has made it clear throughout Europe’s long debt crisis that Germany will agree to finance debtor
[Marxism] Can Syriza realize its ambitious goals?
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. * Financial Times columnist Wolfgang Münchau sees a contradiction at the heart of Syriza’s program - a determination to negotiate an orderly default on Greece’s unsustainable debt while remaining in the eurozone. A debt default, negotiated or otherwise, and an end to crushing austerity is the essential first step to recovery for Europe’s highly indebted poorer countries. The policy has been aggressively promoted by the continent’s two major left-wing parties, Greece’s Syriza and Spain’s Podemos, and has propelled each of them to the brink of power. Syriza is favoured to win the Greek election later this month. As always, how each exercises power will be more important than the winning of it. Münchau thinks Syriza will inevitably be forced to capitulate. “While Syriza is right about debt restructuring, it is also disingenuous by ruling out a eurozone exit”, he says. If you advocate debt restructuring, you would need to answer the question of what you would do if the negotiations fail. The choices then would be either to revert to the status quo — in which case there would be no point in voting for Syriza — or leave the eurozone, and unilaterally default against foreign creditors. But this is precisely what Syriza has ruled out. Syriza has the right instincts, but may not have the right policies. Such lack of consistency matters because Angela Merkel in particular appears willing to call Syriza’s bluff. Der Spiegel reported over the weekend that the German chancellor is willing to risk a Greek exit if its next prime minister were to abandon the current policies. “In other words: the only way for Greece to restructure its debt would be to leave the eurozone.” The choice may not be as stark as presented by Münchau, however. If the logic of events forces Syriza to choose between outright capitulation or leaving the eurozone, it might well opt for the latter. But if that is an option under consideration, the party’s leadership is doing the opposite of preparing its base and the wider Greek public for it. Which suggests that it instead shares with its creditors and the Merkel government the belief that the likeliest outcome is an eventual compromise which limits, but does not entirely impair, Syriza’s ability to provide jobs, income support, and debt relief to Greece’s beleaguered population. Such an outcome would be in keeping with the growing conviction of the European elites that its brutal austerity regime is undermining economic growth and political stability throughout Europe and that some accommodation to mass distress and discontent is necessary. * * * (Behind a paywall) Political extremists may be the eurozone’s saviours By Wolfgang Münchau Financial Times January 4, 2015 This is going to be the year in which the eurozone will have its moment of truth. Three scheduled elections — in Greece this month; in Portugal and in Spain in the second half of the year — will tell us whether the EU’s approach to crisis resolution works politically or not. The probability of at least one political upset is very high indeed. In both Greece and Spain, parties of the hard left lead the polls. In Greece, the political choice is essentially between the status quo of fiscal austerity and an alternative of negotiated debt default. The economic argument for the second course of action is compelling. Greek debt runs at 175 per cent of gross domestic product. The country does not need to service all that debt right now. Greece pays no interest on the “official” debt from the EU until 2023. But this is only eight years away — well within the horizon of any long-term investor. The official EU policy towards Greece is best described as debt forbearance — of recognising a debt problem, and delaying the inevitable. It is also the policy of Antonis Samaras, the Greek prime minister, and his coalition government. It is a version of extend-and-pretend: extend the loans, and pretend that you are solvent. The history of international debt crises tells us that these strategies are always tried, and always fail. Now, add deflation to this mix. From this month onwards, eurozone headline inflation rates could turn negative, due to the most recent fall in the oil price. Deflation raises the real value of debt, and could push Greece over the brink. Unfortunately, the only party that makes a convincing case for a debt restructuring is Syriza, a party of the radical left. While Syriza is right about debt restructuring, it is also disingenuous by ruling out a eurozone exit. If you advocate debt restructuring, you would need to answer the question of what
[Marxism] Michael Roberts on the collapse in oil prices
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. * Good summary by the British Marxist economist Michael Roberts of the various factors contributing to the oil price plunge. On the economic side, a supply glut and falling demand. On the political side, a concerted effort by the Saudis and the other Arabian Gulf states to eliminate rising competition from US shale oil producers. Though the weakest US producers may be driven under, the larger objectives of US foreign policy are served by the impact of falling prices on major oil exporters Iran, Venezuela, and Russia. Russia, in particular, has been badly hit. The economy is contracting, the steady rise in living standards is coming to a halt, and an austerity program of wage and benefit cuts is looming on the horizon. Putin has been popular because his Ukrainian policy appeals to Russian nationalism, but Roberts contends that the use of the oil price weapon by US and its allies and the resulting domestic economic crisis will undermine Putin once its full effect is felt. According to Roberts, however, “the most important aspect of the collapse in the oil price is the spectre of global deflation”. Though most mainstream economists think lower oil prices will stimulate consumer demand and economic growth, this is likely to be offset, in his view, by falling profitability, the widespread failure of the most indebted firms, and the global spread of the economic crisis now brewing in Russia - “this time based in the non-financial productive sector of capitalism.” http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/oil-the-rouble-and-the-spectre-of-deflation/ _ 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] [Pen-l] Michael Roberts on the collapse in oil prices
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 Dec 8, 2014, at 1:42 PM, raghu mragh...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Marv Gandall marvga...@gmail.com wrote: According to Roberts, however, “the most important aspect of the collapse in the oil price is the spectre of global deflation”. Though most mainstream economists think lower oil prices will stimulate consumer demand and economic growth, this is likely to be offset, in his view, by falling profitability, the widespread failure of the most indebted firms, and the global spread of the economic crisis now brewing in Russia - “this time based in the non-financial productive sector of capitalism.” I don't understand this argument. Isn't this a good type of deflation i.e. the kind that comes from an increased supply of a vital input commodity, rather than a decreased level of demand? [...] Opinion is divided, mainly because lower energy costs may not be enough to revive spending byUS workers whose real incomes have declined and who are still working off debt. There is also some worry on Wall Street, but not enough to stop exuberant investors, about the potential for default by oil-producing companies and states and the resulting bank crises which have typically accompanied sharp price drops. From today's Wall Street Journal: Falling Oil Prices: The Good and the Bad By E.S. Browning Wall Street Journal December 8 2014 The oil-price decline of the past six mgonths has been stunning. On Monday morning, crude-oil futures were trading at $64.27 a barrel in New York. That was down 40% in less than six months and marked the lowest price since July 2009, just after the end of the financial crisis. Falling oil prices are thought to be good for stocks because they stimulate consumer spending and hold down inflation. The lower costs support economic growth, boost corporate earnings and lessen pressure on the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates. The stock market loves that mix. But falling prices aren’t an unalloyed benefit. They also reduce the incentive to develop new oil and gas fields and make it less urgent to create alternative energy sources. That hurts companies in those areas and, because it makes energy less plentiful, means higher costs and fewer energy alternatives once global demand revives. “On balance, I think it is an overwhelming positive. It is a tremendous transfer of wealth from producers to consumers,” said David Joy, chief market strategist at Ameriprise Financial Inc., which oversees $810 billion. But “there is clearly a debate about this.” So far, he points out, reports on year-end consumer spending haven’t been strong. If spending doesn’t pick up much, the main benefit of lower oil prices to economic growth won’t be felt, and fears of global deflation will spread. Low-end retailers such as Costco Wholesale Corp. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. have reported some sales improvement in recent weeks, as have some restaurants, said Henry Herrmann, chief executive at Waddell Reed Financial Inc., which oversees $130 billion in Overland Park, Kan. New-car sales also have been strong, he said. Friday’s November jobs report showed a small pickup in wages, which also should help consumers. But surveys show that many consumers still feel as if the U.S. is in a recession, Mr. Joy said. Many have had little or no inflation-adjusted wage gains for years and still face significant debt, which has kept them from going back to their old spending ways. “The general mindset of the consumer is still very cautious. You don’t see a robust start to the holiday shopping season and the housing sector is only modestly improving,” he said. Consumers may be trying to pay down debt, which would be good for their longer-term finances but wouldn’t help economic growth right away. Fears also spread last week of a debt default by Venezuela, a troubled oil exporter, and of further financial strains for Russia. Russia’s 1998 debt default threw the financial system into turmoil, although few analysts are forecasting a repeat. Aside from oil-related companies, worries focused on railroads, rail-car manufacturers, leveraged bank loans and firms that supply big oil companies, Mr. Herrmann said. His firm has cut way back on holdings of junk bonds issued by energy-related companies, he added. [...] _ 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] Two views on Podemos
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 Nov 30, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Louis Proyect via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: This is economic determinism bordering on fatalism but what might be expected from a supporter of Democratic Party presidential bids for the time he has been on Marxmail…From everything I have heard from Marvin over the past decade or so, he would be oriented to the PSOE. You seem to have compiled pretty good files on those you disagree with on this list, Louis. How about some choice quotes from the archives to back up your statements? _ 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] Two views on Podemos
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 Nov 29, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Louis Proyect via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: On 11/29/14 4:34 PM, Andrew Pollack wrote: The fact that one was published in June and the other November is significant; that is roughly the time period in which it became clear to all (well, almost all) that the Podemos leadership was intending to follow the liberal trajectory of Syriza's tops. I think we probably have different ideas about what a liberal trajectory means. But beyond the question of its decision, for example, to scale back some of its more radical proposals, there is another dimension that has to be considered--namely, the class dynamic of a party that has no links to the Spanish bourgeoisie and that is open and transparent. Unlike the British Labour Party or the Democratic Party for that matter, Podemos is much more like the Greens in the USA. If you keep in mind that Podemos represents the next stage of the anti-capitalist struggle in Spain rather than the Leninist party that will ultimately be necessary for total emancipation, then it begins to make sense. The problem, of course, is that whenever left-wing parties have neared power - and especially once they’ve have formed governments (Labour, European social democrats) or participated in them (Communists, Greens) - these parties quickly become beholden to the bourgeoisie and the international capital markets. Even modest efforts at reform are met by capital flight and sabotage, and the resulting economic difficulties turn the masses against these governments, which are then forced to retreat rather than face certain defeat in an early election. It is easy to condemn these parties for not mobilizing the masses and pushing back against these pressures, but this fails to take into account that the balance of power between the classes and the level of consciousness of the masses in bourgeois democracies have never provided the necessary conditions for such struggles to unfold. It’s only in conditions where democratic rights are absent and the masses don’t have peaceful electoral channels to vent their grievances, or where wars and other catastrophes lead to a breakdown of social order and mass deprivation, that the property and power of the bourgeoisie has been challenged through insurrection. And these insurrections have been more often quashed by the armed forces of the state than have succeeded. I don’t like to sound these notes, but this is the course history has taken to date. As for Podemos and Syriza being on “liberal” or “social democratic” trajectories, the two terms are virtually synonymous today, so Andy and Louis are both right. Here, BTW, is a link to a news article a couple of days ago about Podemos, which corresponds to my remarks above. Spain's poll-topping Podemos tones down radical plans in manifesto Reuters Friday November 28 2014 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/28/us-spain-podemos-idUSKCN0JC1OC20141128?feedType=RSSfeedName=worldNews _ 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] Effacing the radical tradition in the American Jewish community
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 a long but interesting piece (h/t Gordon Peffer) by Rachel Cohen, a writer for the liberal bimonthly American Prospect, on the expunging from the Jewish American historical memory of the community’s secular, left-wing, working class origins. Today, the class position of Western Jews has shifted, secularism has been replaced by the rise of religious orthodoxy, internationalism by Zionism, and socialism by a growing sympathy for the loudly pro-Zionist Republican party. “No doubt, the Jewish political shift..was partially grounded in Jewish economic mobility”, Cohen writes. “But such a narrative obscures the reality of the many Jewish individuals who do not fall so squarely into the classic American Success Story…who never endorsed American free-market values.” Cohen traces the rightward drift of the community to the McCarthy era in which “the institutional Jewish community actively participated, disavowing radical Jews, cooperating with HUAC, and organizing their own propaganda campaign to demonstrate they were loyal, patriotic Americans.” McCarthyism at home coincided with the birth of Israel in the Mideast, but Cohen says it was not until the 1967 Six Day War, “which engendered a more visceral commitment to Israel’s survival for many American-Jews”, that “things noticeably began to change”. “It’s not a coincidence that the erasure of radical history has coincided with the creation of an American-Jewish consensus that was built and maintained in large part to drive a specific politics around Israel”, she notes. What really threatens Jewish institutions now is the possibility that this perceived sense of Jewish unity, of Jewish accord, might fall apart. Yet that tantalizing idea of Jewish unity was always a myth—one that grew and flourished through the exclusion and expulsion of select groups of Jewish voices, groups, and movements…Fortunately, the shaky foundations of consensus are already beginning to crumble.” https://medium.com/thelist/the-erasure-of-the-american-jewish-left-1dd41335a46b _ 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] Effacing the radical tradition in the American Jewish Co mmunity
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. * Agree on both counts. Cohen is also right to single out the 1967 war as a turning point, but not quite for the reason she mentions. Very few young Jewish radicals I knew in university at the time were genuinely alarmed about their own survival, as she suggests, or that of the all-conquering Israelis. But when forced to choose between the new Palestinian movement which was rapidly winning the support of the international left against the occupation and their own sympathies for a “Jewish state”, which they continued to view through a romantic haze, they decisively opted for the latter. Once embarked on that trajectory, they moved farther and farther to the right which paralleled the inevitable evolution of the Israeli state and society. On Nov 27, 2014, at 1:11 PM, Jim Farmelant via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: And to that list, I would add the battles over affirmative action during the 1970s. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant http://www.foxymath.com Learn or Review Basic Math -- Original Message -- From: James Creegan via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Subject: [Marxism] Effacing the radical tradition in the American Jewish Community Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:05:11 -0500 One watershed event omitted from Cohen's piece is the teachers' strike in Ocean Hill-Brownsville (NYC) in 1968, which followed closely upon the '67 war . An SDSer at the time (and a college kid who didn't know all that much), I supported the black community against the strikers--a position I now believe to have been wrong. Upon subsequent reading, I concluded that the Rockefeller Foundation, under McGeorge Bundy (remember him?), was deliberately (and successfully) using slogans of community control to pit blacks against unions. But, whatever the rights and wrongs of that dispute, it did mark a certain turning point.Jews, many of whom had previously considered themselves not quite white, began increasingly thereafter to think of themselves as another white ethnicity. Jim Creegan What's your flood risk? Find flood maps, interactive tools, FAQs, and agents in your area. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5477699dcbb6e699d39cdst04vuc _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/marvgand2%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] [Pen-l] NYRB review of Naomi Klein
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 Nov 25, 2014, at 3:12 AM, Joseph Green jgr...@communistvoice.org wrote: Some capitalists already produce corn ethanol or palm oil as biofuels. Far from denying this, I have pointed it out repeatedly in this discussion and in articles. And this is an example of capitalists moving to a fuel which is not directly a fossil fuel. Yet it ended up having a destructive effect. I have also discussed Kyoto and why it failed, and Kyoto is an example of bourgeois enviornmentalism. Capitalist firms may be required to produce in environmentally-safe ways. This will involve a constant conflict between the logic of market forces and the regulations imposed on them. If things are left to market forces, then progress will be too slow to prevent disaster, and will be constantly interrupted by fiascos such as the repeated fiascos with biofuels. Capitalist economies have changed from one form of energy to another. But the changes in the past have never brought in the type overall environmental planning that is now needed to avoid environmental catastrophe. And to describe the change from one form of energy to another as a change to a superior form, begs the question of what type of superiority one is referring to. I agree that efficient energy is not necessarily cleaner energy. But in this case, solar, wind, and tidal power are also cleaner. It seems to me the issue is whether these new forms of energy become more cost-effective (taking into account also the cost of increasingly disruptive climate events on production) so as to lead to their widespread adoption by capitalists in sufficient time to avoid “environmental catastrophe”. I would say this is at least as likely (or unlikely) as the overturn of the existing social system. There’s always been a fear on the far left that to acknowledge the possible self-reform of the system - which has surprised Marxists and other anticapitalists predicting capitalism’s imminent demise many times in the past - is to promote illusions that things will take care of themselves and that mass pressure is unnecessary. One doesn’t follow from the other, however. […] You raise that it's possible that the capitalists may implement a superior form of energy. But if this possibility is to become a reality, they need to forced to do this via regulations, regulations based on overall environmental planning. And only the working masses have the class interest to provide this pressure against them. On a practical level - about the need for mass pressure and the environmentally safe regulation of the economy - we agree. On a theoretical level - that it is only the working masses which have a class interest in avoiding natural catastrophes, we don’t - but it is more important to agree on practical than on theoretical questions. Concretely, is there much difference in the demands favoured by the established environmental organizations and the left-wing of the environmental moon vement? This is an important question. It seems to me that the militant wing of the environmental movement has undertaken many important actions. And we see, as pointed out in Klein's book, that if it weren't for the militant wing of the movement, the establishment environmentalists would give up on outright opposition to anti-fracking, as shown in Klein’s book. I completely agree. Pressure from the militant wing has always been necessary to drive movements forward.. Part of the militant section has denounced some of the market measures. And so on. But the problem is that the militant wing has not separated decisively from bourgeois environmentalism. This is seen in that even that section of the movement which says it opposes market measures, doesn't realize that the carbon tax is a market measure. It is also seen in the reluctance to put forward the need for overall planning. […] One of the key issues is whether it is possible to achieve the needed reforms in cooperation with Bloomberg and the corporations, or whether one needs to oppose the corporations and market fundamentalism. It concerns whether one demands, not just regulations and planning, but the end to the privatization of the government. Without a change in the way government agencies are now run, regulation and planning would be jokes. It concerns whether there is a demand that planning take into account mass livelihood as a goal alongside environmental goals, or imagines that green jobs in itself will solve the social issues. It concerns whether planning is done financially, or material planning is involved. And so on. This
Re: [Marxism] [Pen-l] NYRB review of Naomi Klein
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 Nov 24, 2014, at 2:34 AM, Eugene Coyle eugeneco...@igc.org wrote: This post by Joseph Green, well done, points out to me what narrow silos we work within. I have been unconsciously assuming that people on Pen-L would know about the close links between the big environmental groups like NRDC and EDF with the giant corporations whose behavior they are actually abetting. In the world I work in, the behavior of the big environmental groups is common knowledge, though many of the people I work with still try to cooperate with them in one way or another. On Nov 23, 2014, at 9:31 PM, Joseph Green jgr...@communistvoice.org wrote: [Marvin Gandall wrote] Not to mention, on a more serious note, that not all capitalists outside the coal, gas and oil industries are wedded to fossil fuels and unconcerned about their disruptive and potentially catastrophic effects. Bloomberg is a prominent spokesperson of this growing wing of the bourgeoisie. If solar and other alternative energy prices continue to fall in line with advanced technology and more widespread adoption and become more cost-effective and safer than environmentally destructive forms of energy, there's no reason to suppose today's capitalists would not do what previous generations of capitalists have done and move to superior forms of energy. It's not an inevitable development, but neither can it be ruled out. …Yes, even today a section of the bourgeoisie is concerned about the environment, and more will be in the future. But establishment environmentalism has put forward futile marketplace solutions. Indeed, it's measures aren't simply weak or inadequate, but some of them have made things worse. […] Sorry, I don’t think it can be completely ruled out, except by dogmatists, that “if solar and other alternative energy prices continue to fall in line with advanced technology and more widespread adoption, and become more cost-effective and safer than environmentally destructive forms of energy, there’s no reason to suppose today’s capitalists would not do what previous generations of capitalists have done and move to superior forms of energy.” Which, as I noted, is not to say such a development is inevitable or even likely. My comment had nothing to do with the demands being raised by the mainstream environmental organizations, although I did earlier pose the question on this thread, which remains as yet unanswered: Concretely, is there much difference in the demands favoured by the established environmental organizations and the left-wing of the environmental movement? I'm not referring to the customary differences of strategy, nor the theoretical differences about whether it is possible to achieve the necessary reforms short of a sweeping change in capitalist property relations. “What are the ‘acceptable’ demands that…the eco-socialist movement would reject, and what ‘respectable’ environmental groups are advancing these?” _ 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] A young Canadian veteran of Afghanistan joins the Kurds
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 secular Kurds are attracting both left-wing volunteer fighters and more conservative young males with military backgrounds like Dillon Hillier, profiled below in the Ottawa Citizen and other major Postmedia dailies across Canada. The leftists identify in particular with the revolutionary democratic Kurdish forces in Turkey and Syria who have become widely admired internationally because of their inspiring defence of Kobani. Veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan appear to be attracted to the fight against the vague menace of “Muslim terrorism” promoted by Western politicians and the media and most graphically represented by ISIS. Such political views as Hillier holds, for example, are undoubtedly derived from his experience in the military and from his father, Randy, a Conservative member of the Ontario provincial parliament from a rural riding. Such are the contradictions of the Kurdish struggle, led by militias attached to left-wing parties who trace their origins to Marxism, heavily dependent on the military and political support of the US, itself a close NATO ally of the Turkish state which describes these militants as “terrorists” and has tried to crush them. In any case, it’s principled and necessary for the besieged Kurds to draw support from wherever they can get it. And in the case of Hillier and other volunteers like him, idealists at heart, their engagement with the Kurdish struggle is more likely than not to have a positive effect on their political understanding. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/calgary/Canadian+volunteered+fight+with+Kurds+against+ISIS+says+right/10402040/story.html _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] [Pen-l] NYRB review of Naomi Klein
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 Nov 22, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: On 11/22/14 9:31 AM, Carrol Cox wrote: The fact that former Mayor Bloomberg could join the climate march ought to generate some caution. I agree with Carrol. We need a communistic climate change movement led by fighting detachments of an aroused proletariat. Not to mention, on a more serious note, that not all capitalists outside the coal, gas and oil industries are wedded to fossil fuels and unconcerned about their disruptive and potentially catastrophic effects. Bloomberg is a prominent spokesperson of this growing wing of the bourgeoisie. If solar and other alternative energy prices continue to fall in line with advanced technology and more widespread adoption and become more cost-effective and safer than environmentally destructive forms of energy, there's no reason to suppose today's capitalists would not do what previous generations of capitalists have done and move to superior forms of energy. It's not an inevitable development, but neither can it be ruled out. By Carrol's logic, leftists should never have thrown themselves into the great struggles of our time waged by trade unionists, blacks, gays, women, and opponents of the war in Vietnam because in each case liberal politicians and clergy were invited to march with demonstrators, who were, in the main, supporters of the Democratic Party. I think Carrol's tendency towards abstention flows from what is, IMO, his underlying view of the ruling class as diabolically monolithic and all powerful, with the more perniciously clever Democrats the greater evil. Go back and read his many posts on any number of subjects and you will see this theme expressed again and again. _ 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] Oil Price: Russia can survive an oil price war
POSTING RULES NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * This is an important article (h/t naked capitalism) which helps explain the Putin government’s defiance of the NATO powers in support of the breakaway pro-Russian regions in eastern Ukraine. The sharp drop in oil prices has hurt, but the author argues that Russia is not deeply indebted, has sufficient currency reserves, has strengthened trade ties with China, and perhaps most important: “Western involvement in Russian oil and gas plays is more pronounced than ever…Russian state-owned oil and gas giants Rosneft and Gazprom have increasingly allowed Western majors like BP, Eni, Exxon, Shell, Statoil, and Total access to some of Russia’s underdeveloped, but prized projects. Western companies have an estimated $35 billion tied up in Russian oil with hundreds of billions more planned and service providers Halliburton and Schlumberger each derive approximately five percent of their global sales from the Russian market. The Western majors remain committed to their extra-national ventures and these powerful relationships ultimately limit the sanctions’ scope.” http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Russia-Can-Survive-An-Oil-Price-War.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
Re: [Marxism] NYRB review of Naomi Klein
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 Nov 21, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Andrew Pollack via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: It's certainly true, as Shane and Ted say, that the odds on making a socialist revolution in time to save the planet and its species are frighteningly small. But that doesn't mean pushing only those demands which supposedly make continuing pollution profitable. Given the current weakness of movements for socialism, especially in the biggest polluting countries (US and China), we need to think strategically about demands which build those movements, and argue for them to take up transitional climate demands. What's more, a workers' movement fighting for confiscatory carbon taxes is more likely to scare the ruling class into substantial cuts in emissions far more than a movement which starts with an acceptable demand... Concretely, is there much difference in the demands favoured by the established environmental organizations and the left-wing of the environmental movement? I'm not referring to the customary differences of strategy, nor the theoretical differences about whether it is possible to achieve the necessary reforms short of a sweeping change in capitalist property relations. What are the acceptable demands that Andy and the eco-socialist movement would reject, and what respectable environmental groups are advancing these? _ 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] NYRB review of Naomi Klein
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 a link to another review of Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything, this one by Elizabeth Kolbert in the latest New York Review of Books. Kolbert is sympathetic to Klein’s analysis of the climate crisis and her indictment of governments and liberal green organizations who offer misleading reassurances that the looming catastrophe can be averted without major changes to the status quo. But, like some other reviewers, Kolbert thinks Klein’s various proposals to resolve the crisis through “managed degrowth” and “regeneration” are too vague to be meaningful or, like carbon taxes, “hardly seem to challenge the basic logic of capitalism.” This, despite the fact that Klein is avowedly anticapitalist, although her rhetorical flourishes about “changing everything” though a global environment movement are arguably aimed not at the system’s overthrow as purging it it of its rapacious, unregulated, “neoliberal” character which thwarts popular efforts to rid it of its worst features. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/dec/04/can-climate-change-cure-capitalism/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+nybooks+%28The+New+York+Review+of+Books%29 _ 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] NYRB review of Naomi Klein
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 was describing the nature of Klein’s “anticapitalism”, not making a value judgement about it. Some would and have forcefully argued that her approach is fundamentally social democratic (I agree) and that you can’t stop climate change unless you expropriate the capitalists politically and economically (that remains to be seen). On Nov 20, 2014, at 5:33 PM, Shane Mage via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: On Nov 20, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Marv Gandall via Marxism wrote: Here’s a link to another review of Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything, this one by Elizabeth Kolbert...Kolbert thinks Klein’s various proposals to resolve the crisis through “managed degrowth” and “regeneration” are too vague to be meaningful or, like carbon taxes, “hardly seem to challenge the basic logic of capitalism.” This, despite the fact that Klein is avowedly anticapitalist, although her rhetorical flourishes about “changing everything” though a global environment movement are arguably aimed not at the system’s overthrow... http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/dec/04/can-climate-change-cure-capitalism/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+nybooks+%28The+New+York+Review+of+Books%29 Not aimed at the system's overthrow? Such criticism is beyond stupid, ultra-left of ultra-left. Greenhouse-gas-fueled economic growth, still proceeding apace, threatens imminent collapse of human civilization, perhaps even of the (last unextinct) human species itself. The overthrow of the capitalist system (ie., the worldwide proletarian democratic communist revolution) is at best somewhere far beyond the horizon of present historical possibility. Therefore any measures to stop increasing and then start reducing atmospheric carbon gasses can only be effective not by challenging but by OPERATING IN CONFORMITY WITH the basic logic of capitalism.” That is why the central program of any green, socialist, working class, even progressive political movement has to be the immediate introduction of a comprehensive, substantial, and annually increasing carbon tax--taxation that would make all forms of carbon pollution, starting with the worst like coal and tar-sands, uneconomic (ie., unprofitable, loss-making) synchronically with the concomitant increase of increasingly profitable pollution-control technologies and pollution free (mainly solar and aeolian) energy supplies, an increase that is (in the latter case) inherently unlimited. This must be central to the Hawkins/Jones-style Green presidential campaign that we have to envisage for 2016. _ 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] Another milestone in the restoration of Chinese capitalism
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. * China took another major step today to restoring full-fledged capitalism, opening its Shanghai stock exchange to all foreign investors and allowing its own citizens to buy overseas assets on the Hong Kong bourse. Until now, the Chinese market was only open to a limited number of “qualified” foreign institutional investors - mainly the big US and European investment banks - who were assigned a quota limiting their collective share purchases. The quota system remains in place, as China gradually moves away from capital controls, but the scope and value of stocks available to foreigners have greatly increased, and restrictions on who can buy them - notably hedge funds eager to crack the China market - have been lifted. Today’s first day of trading saw foreign investors bidding up shares on the Shanghai market, but interest in foreign shares listed on the Hong Kong exchange by wealthy Chinese buyers was more muted. The greater flow of funds into Shanghai likely reflects the mainland’s greater growth potential as well as the anticipated steady appreciation of the yuan against foreign currencies. The Financial Times report below calls the program “one of the most significant developments in the opening of China’s financial markets in years.” * * * Hong Kong-Shanghai exchange deal sees money head north By Josh Noble in Hong Kong and Gabriel Wildau in Shanghai Financial Times November 17 2014 An equity trading scheme linking the Hong Kong and Shanghai exchanges had a lopsided start on Monday, with mainland investors showing little appetite for buying shares listed offshore. The Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect allows investors in both financial centres to buy equities in each other’s market, giving global hedge funds and retail investors direct access to China for the first time while offering domestic investors a new route to international assets. The pilot project is subject to both daily and aggregate limits on how much capital can cross in each direction. Each day global investors can put as much as Rmb13bn ($2.1bn) into Shanghai stocks, while wealthy mainland individuals can send up to Rmb10.5bn south into Hong Kong. International investors exhausted their daily quota by 2pm on Monday, having bought more than $1bn of stock during the pre-trade auction. Yet the southbound leg through which Chinese retail investors can trade in Hong Kong experienced tepid demand. At the close, mainland buyers had bought less than Rmb180m worth of Hong Kong shares, leaving more than 80 per cent of their daily quota untouched. “I think it’s fair to say that it’s not been a roaring success. It’s something that will be looked at critically,” said one Hong Kong-based equity market banker. “It will be monitored closely in the next couple of days, but it’s too early to hit the panic button.” Based on the first day, the aggregate quota of Rmb300bn for investing into China will be filled in 23 trading days. However, the southbound leg will require roughly 140 sessions to exhaust its limit of Rmb250bn. “For domestic investors who want buy Hong Kong shares, they already had ways to get around the restrictions and buy them. So there wasn’t much pent-up demand to begin with,” said a trader at a midsized brokerage in Shanghai. Some large foreign asset managers have taken a cautious approach to the opening of the Stock Connect, choosing to wait and watch how the early days go. The delay in clarification on a key capital gains tax issue also served to slow take-up among institutional investors. However, many hedge funds and retail investors have been clamouring to buy into the Shanghai market to exploit price gaps between the two exchanges, where dozens of companies maintain dual listings. The Stock Connect is one of the most significant developments in the opening of China’s financial markets in years, and could ultimately lead to mainland shares being added to global benchmark indices, such as those compiled by MSCI and FTSE. The start of the scheme caused choppy trading in Hong Kong. The Hang Seng index initially jumped, but finished the day down 1.2 per cent. The Shanghai market edged lower by 0.2 per cent. Some of the Shanghai-listed stocks by analysts tipped to benefit did see a rise, with spirits makerKweichow Moutai adding 1.8 per cent, automaker SAIC up 3.2 per cent, and Daqin Railway gaining 6.2 per cent. In Hong Kong, Mengniu Dairy was the biggest mover, with a 1.8 per cent rise. However, Hong Kong Exchanges Clearing shares sank 4.5 per cent. The bourse operator had been the top gainer in Hong Kong this year, rising more than 40 per cent
Re: [Marxism] [Pen-l] [lbo-talk] Another milestone in the restoration of Chinese capitalism
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 Nov 17, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Shane Mage shm...@pipeline.com wrote: On Nov 17, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Marv Gandall wrote: China took another major step today to restoring full-fledged capitalism, opening its Shanghai stock exchange to all foreign investors and allowing its own citizens to buy overseas assets on the Hong Kong bourse. What restoration? China has been capitalist for a long time, and since 1949 its form of capitalism has been monopoly state capitalism in Stalinist mode (ie., state capitalism calling itself socialism). And since the Deng reforms it has moved steadily into convergence with its non-socialist Western homologue, state monopoly capitalism. Shane Mage Well, let's set that polemic aside and agree that it's been restoring the system of private ownership in finance and manufacturing which prevailed in China prior to 1949, albeit on a much larger and more advanced scale. it's now become a major economic power in its own right, exporting capital and acquiring foreign assets which were beyond its reach as a wholly dependent and exploited semi-colony of the imperialist powers prior to the Chinese Revolution. _ 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] Surging tar sands oil exports to US
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. * Canadian oil from the Alberta tar sands is pouring into the US at a record pace despite the delayed Keystone XL pipeline, according to the report below from Bloomberg News. Tar sands exports to American refineries in Oklahoma and along the Gulf Coast have risen by 83% over the past four years and are set to double to 400,000 barrels per day next year. The heavy crude sells at a discount, and is driving the lighter West Texas and imported blends from Mexico, Venezuela and the Middle East onto the world market, adding to the global supply glut and collapsing oil prices. The North American oil industry is reportedly unfazed by the Obama administration’s failure to approve Keystone XL as well as recent indications that it will veto any legislation by the new Republican-controlled Congress allowing the pipeline to proceed. Canadian pipeline operators like Enbridge, the country’s largest, and TransCanada, which owns the Keystone system, have simply increased capacity in their other lines and are relying more heavily on rail transport to get their oil to market. “Keystone is kind of old news…producers have moved on,” a Texas oil analyst told Bloomberg. The current blasé attitude of Canadian producers and American refiners to the delays around Keystone XL and the added capacity it would bring onstream is most likely owing to the sharp fall in global oil demand. While the issue is still being exploited by politicians in Canada and the US, meaningful pressure from the industry on the American government to approve the pipeline would probably only return if there is a strong recovery in the market. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-14/keystone-left-behind-as-canadian-oil-pours-into-u-s-.html?alcmpid=mostpop _ 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] CNN report: US reviews strategy to fight IS
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 Nov 14, 2014, at 8:33 AM, Michael Karadjis mkarad...@gmail.com wrote: Hagel has immediately clarified that that was essentially CNN misinformation, though, to be fair to CNN, probably a large part of it is simply journalists there too thick to really get it: Hagel Discounts Targeting Assad Now in Islamic State Fight http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-13/hagel-discounts-expanding-islamic-state-fight-to-include-assad.html Hagel denied a CNN report yesterday that the administration is looking at a shift in tactics to include new actions against the Syrian regime. “There is no change, and there is no different direction,” Hagel said. I’ve reread the CNN report, and it doesn’t anywhere suggest a “change” in US policy is underway so much as a revival of the existing policy to remove Assad through a negotiated settlement which would be accompanied by the integration of some respectable pro-Western elements of the opposition into the regime. As the report states: “Now officials and diplomats said Kerry has in recent months intensified discussions with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Russia about the possibility of a diplomatic tract to transition al-Assad and his inner circle out of power, while maintaining large parts of the regime and institutions of the state.” I’m not surprised to see the defence secretary denying there has been a change. The Pentagon is very likely divided on where to concentrate the military effort because of the political and military complexities surrounding the intervention. Dempsey, for example, has publicly spoken out in favour of strengthening the Iraq front. I’m equally no fan of CNN, but its headline did refer to a strategy “review” and covered both sides of the debate in quite some detail. There may not be a “formal” review of the strategy underway, according to the deputy national security director, Ben Rhodes, but that leaves plenty of room for an informal consensus to have emerged about a shift in tactics, based on the testimony of most of those interviewed. The report rings true to me because ISIS has created more favourable conditions to bridge the differences between the outside powers, and made it more imperative for the US to get Turkish boots on the ground, which seems to require Assad’s removal or relegation to a figurehead as a precondition. This may not at all be possible because the situation is so fraught with contradictions, but this would not preclude the US from wishfully rethinking its presently stumbling strategy. _ 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] CNN report: US reviews strategy to fight IS
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. * Below is a link to an interesting report from an unlikely source, CNN, about the contradictions and strategic choices facing the US as it scrambles to halt the rise of the Islamic State and other jihadist forces threatening to destabilize Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, and other friendly regimes in the Middle East. The Obama administration has not had much success enlisting the Iraqi government and armed forces as its main bulwark against ISIS, which is forcing it to refocus on the Syrian theatre, where the left-wing Kurdish militias in the north of the country have been the most effective ground forces engaging the radical Islamists in combat. The administration's central objective, however, is to draw the Turkish army into the fight. This will necessarily require concessions to the Erdogan government which wants to eliminate both the Assad regime and the Kurdish independence movement. According to CNN, the Obama administration is stepping up diplomatic efforts with Russia, Iran, and the Gulf states to ease Assad from power, and, more ominously, is considering giving the Turks a free hand to invade the autonomous Kurdish regions inside Syria and establish a protectorate in the guise of a no-fly zone. http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/politics/obama-syria-strategy-review/index.html?utm_source=Sailthruutm_medium=emailutm_term=%2ASituation%20Reportutm_campaign=Sit%20Rep%20November%2013%2C%202014 _ 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] Question, re: Role of Singapore?
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 Nov 13, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Allen Ruff via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: Wondering if anyone out there can suggest some readings on the role of Singapore as a center of finance in the global circuits of capital? Especially interested, in regard to the extraction and flows of gas, oil and other energy across Asia, and the Pacific. This might be helpful as a start, Allen. From the Financial Times last month. Note that “Singapore has attracted dozens of global commodity trading firms, exploiting its position as the world’s largest bunkering port, straddling sea lanes to and from commodity-hungry China. Gunvor, the world’s fourth-biggest oil trader, has added about 20 per cent to its staff in Singapore in the past nine months…Commodity derivatives are the fastest-growing part of business on SGX, the Singapore exchange.” There’s undoubtedly more of what you’re looking for in the IMF study alluded to in the report. * * * Singapore jostles with Hong Kong for financial crown By Jeremy Grant in Singapore Financial Times October 16 2014 When Michael Milken, pioneer of the 1980s junk bond market, held the first Asia-based conference of the Milken Institute last month, he decided to do it in Singapore – where he had established a branch of his think-tank a year earlier. The choice of the Asian city state was striking. Hong Kong might have been a more obvious location, given its proximity to China, the world’s second-biggest economy and home to a financial centre that is the gateway in and out of the country’s rapidly maturing capital market. But Mr Milken says that many of the institute’s “stakeholders and partners” – banks, insurance companies, private equity groups, asset managers and institutional investors – already had senior executives for Asia based in Singapore. “One of the reasons why we chose Singapore is because we felt that it could be a symbol for Asia and what the standards – be they legal, accounting, financial or regulatory – could be for the rest of Asia,” Mr Milken says. Singapore is unlikely to have featured in Mr Milken’s calculations as recently as five years ago. However, its rapid rise as the region’s largest centre for both commodity and foreign exchange trading – as well as its growth as a wealth management hub – has created a new competitive dynamic in Asia, which bankers in western financial capitals are watching closely. “Singapore is really well-positioned to compete with Hong Kong,” says Glenn Hubbard, dean of Columbia Business School. “If you think about transparency, openness and business integrity Singapore has all that in spades.” Rivalry between the two cities also highlights how financial centres in Asia have made their mark since the 2008 financial crisis forced a punishing process of deleverage and regulatory reform on London and New York. While both western centres are again on the rise, increasing wealth generation in Asia inevitably raises the question of which centres in Asia are likely to dominate what is still the world’s fastest-growing economic bloc. Hong Kong’s financial centre was well-established as an Asian outpost of the City of London even as Singapore was only starting to build, from scratch, an Asian dollar market in the 1960s. Today it remains unchallenged in Asia in terms of equities and initial public offerings. The territory ranks third after New York and London so far this year with 67 new listings, valued at $17.6bn, while Singapore trails at 19th, with a mere 8 listings worth $1.9bn, according to Dealogic. That position will be bolstered by the launch next month of Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect, which promises to allow for the first time Hong Kong and foreign investors with offshore renminbi to access the Shanghai market. “Hong Kong shouldn’t be recognised as just a centre for equities; it should be seen as a much wider access to a range of financial assets to China overall,” says Sean Darby, Hong Kong-based global head of equity strategy at Jefferies, the US investment bank. But Singapore has attracted dozens of global commodity trading firms, exploiting its position as the world’s largest bunkering port, straddling sea lanes to and from commodity-hungry China. Gunvor, the world’s fourth-biggest oil trader, has added about 20 per cent to its staff in Singapore in the past nine months. Part of the attraction has been corporate tax rates on offer that are lower than the basic rate of 17 per cent, compared with 16.5 per cent in Hong Kong, where there is a much smaller set of commodity traders focused mostly on base metals. Commodity derivatives
Re: [Marxism] Richard Smith v. Naomi Klein
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 Nov 13, 2014, at 11:25 AM, Andrew Pollack via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: But it's also a biting critique of Naomi Klein's latest book This Changes Everything: Capitalism versus the Climate. Richard makes painfully clear that her proposals, despite claims by some that she's moved further leftward, are still just tinkering on the margins of the system, that her policy proposals are liberal/social democratic reforms which would leave the fate of the planet and all its species in the hands of its current rulers, which means certain doom for all of us. I hadn't read Klein's book before, but Richard's critique made me rush to do so. Unfortunately his criticisms are all too true. Her latest piece, on the China-US climate agreement: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/11/12/some-very-initial-thoughts-us-china-deal _ 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] How the former Soviet republics have fared on their own
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. * Most of the 32 countries which were formerly Soviet republics have lagged the modest growth rates of the developed capitalist countries since the dissolution of the USSR in 1990, according to research by former World Bank economist Branko Milanovic. Seven are basket cases, including Ukraine and Georgia. None of these “is likely to reach its 1990 income any time soon. Basically, they are countries with at least three to four wasted generations. At current rates of growth, it might take them some 50 or 60 years—longer than they were under Communism!—to go back to the income levels they had at the fall of Communism.” The largest of the former republics, Russia, despite the oil boom and rapid growth of the recent decade, has also failed to match 1.7% annual average GDP of the OECD countries, undoubtedly owing to its economic collapse under Boris Yeltsin in the immediate aftermath of the Soviet breakup. “The real capitalist successes are only five: Albania, Poland, Belarus, Armenia and Estonia, having grown by at least 3% per capita per annum, almost at twice the rate of rich countries, and without an obvious help of natural resources”, Milanovic says. http://glineq.blogspot.ca/2014/11/for-whom-wall-fell-balance-sheet-of.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
Re: [Marxism] US-China climate deal?
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 Nov 12, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Patrick Bond via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: (Similarly, has anyone found anything about Obama's support for net neutrality that we should know?) Nothing beyond that an open internet is very popular with his young liberal base and, more significantly, with content providers like Netflix and Google. Netflix and Google (through You Tube) account for more than half of peak Web traffic. The major internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon, which are seeking to levy tolls on the content providers, are opposed. If the latter succeed, consumers would face higher costs and the fast lanes would be closed to independent bloggers, discouraging readership. The blogs and other social media, as we know, are an important source of critical commentary. In 2013, Obama, the bold champion of net neutrality, appointed Tom Wheeler as chairman of the FCC. Wheeler is a telecom and cable lobbyist of long standing and a public opponent of regulating the industry under Title II of the Communications Act. Are we surprised? The matter will likely be settled at some future date by the Supreme Court or Congress, both controlled by the Republicans who favour the ISP'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] Hezbollah: US Not in Favour of Destabilizing Syrian Gov’t
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 Nov 10, 2014, at 4:44 PM, Louis Proyect via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: On 11/10/14 4:39 PM, Joseph Catron wrote: At the moment, they're resigned to Assad because among the range of outcomes acceptable to them (not ISIS or Nusra), he's winning. You have that all wrong. Between a dictatorship that is deeply committed to neoliberalism and a rebel army that is largely made up of impoverished farmers, small businessmen and members of the informal sector (in other words, the same social composition as those who rose up against Somoza), the USA knows where its class interests lie. It is one of the ironies of history that so many who championed the Sandinistas are now ready to label another insurgent movement against crony capitalism as the moral equivalent of the Nicaraguan contras. I take it there’s no implication here that the predominantly Islamist forces leading the Syrian insurgency are - if you wish to put it in these terms - the “moral equivalent” of the Sandinistas who overthrew the Somoza dictatorship. It shouldn’t be necessary on a Marxism list to point to the wide discrepancy in their social programs, taking into account both the FSLN’s misguided policy towards the Miskitos, and that the Islamists are leading a legitimate struggle against the Assad regime. _ 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 DLC takeover of the Democratic Party
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 a link to an excellent background piece on how “the Democratic elites ensconced in the law firms, foundations, banks, and media executive suites” moved to dismantle the social and regulatory reforms of the New Deal and previous Democratic Party administrations under the tutelage of a consummate insider, Al From. Like so many accounts of political change, however, Stoller's review of From's memoir attributes too much to the role of individuals without taking into account that construction of the new ideological framework and party structures - not only within the DP but also in European social democratic parties - was mostly owing to the decades-long decline in the economic weight and political influence of the trade unions resulting from globalization, tech change, and other factors. The greatly altered balance of forces between capital and labour was inevitably reflected at the political level in these left-centre parties in the emergence of the Clintons, Blairs, Schroders, and Hollandes and their full abandonment of a shrinking trade union base in favour of an increasingly dominant professional and corporate wing out of whose ranks they emerged. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/11/matt-stoller-democratic-party-acts-way.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] Syriza's Tsipras offers reassurances
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. * In what has become commonplace as left-wing parties near power, Syriza takes pains to reassure policymakers and Greek voters it won't quit eurozone, default on debt, or nationalize banks if it forms the next government. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/04/us-greece-politics-syriza-idUSKBN0IO0TJ20141104?feedType=RSSfeedName=worldNews _ 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] Rojava's autonomous cantons: What a revolution looks like
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. * Best concise summary I’ve read so far on the origins, ideology, and radical social experimentation of the left-wing Kurdish parties straddling the Turkey-Syria border, whose militias, notably the YPG/J in Kobane, are leading the fight against the reactionary barbarism of the Islamic State. These revolutionary democratic organizations, committed to gender and ethnic equality, are presently the only light in the darkness enveloping the Middle East. http://links.org.au/node/4129 _ 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 materialist conception of happiness
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. * Dog bites man. The latest Pew Survey of Global Attitudes reports that people in China and other rapidly developing countries are more satisfied with their lot and optimistic about the future than those in the war-torn Middle East, and that “satisfaction with material well-being has the biggest positive impact on overall happiness”. http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/10/30/people-in-emerging-markets-catch-up-to-advanced-economies-in-life-satisfaction/ _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] The materialist conception of happiness
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 Nov 2, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Charlie via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: Not so fast with the “Chinese are happy mantra. On Nov 2, 2014, at 11:58 AM, Dennis Brasky via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: With hundreds of millions of peasants stuck in the countryside doing barely better than starving, and workers in the cities choking on polluted air and working 16 hour shifts, sleeping in crowded rooms because of sky-high rents, I see a materialist basis for frustration, anger, and revolt. On Nov 2, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Steve Heeren via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: I haven’t read the article Marv posted but, just from his summary alone, it sounds as if the study has some serious conceptual and methodological weaknesses. I agree happiness and satisfaction are elusive concepts, and polls can be notoriously misleading. However, history demonstrates that you can get deep dissatisfaction, miserable working conditions and widespread protest coexisting with a general sense that history is progressive, that living standards are on an upward trajectory, and that social reforms or revolution will yield even better results in the future. This was the case, and was recognized as such by the early Marxists, during the long rise of the trade union and radical movement in the West when a rapidly expanding industrial economy bred working class confidence, optimism, and militancy in conditions when labour was in relatively short supply. The same can be said of China and other expanding economies today. In the developed world, meanwhile, the opposite prevails: economies are stagnating, jobs and living standards are on a downward trend, job insecurity is rife, trade union density and strike activity has shrunk dramatically, and there is a generalized sense of decline and powerlessness, none of which is conducive to working class confidence, optimism, and militancy. _ 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] Nusra Front and Revolutionaries' Front
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 be interested to know what Michael K. and others who closely follow the Syrian opposition make of this report. Can either of the two organizations be characterized as more representative of the embattled population and its aspirations? Al Qaeda group seizes bastion of Western-backed rebels in Syria's Idlib region By Mariam Karouny Reuters November 1 2014 BEIRUT - Islamist militants affiliated to al Qaeda seized the last remaining stronghold of Western-backed rebels in Syria’s northwest province of Idlib on Saturday after days of fighting, rebels and a monitoring group said. Backed by other hardline Islamist groups, the Nusra Front are waging a major military campaign against the Syria Revolutionaries’ Front led by Jamal Maarouf, a key figure in the armed opposition to President Bashar al-Assad, after accusing him of being corrupt and working for the West against them. The Nusra Front is al Qaeda's official affiliate in the Syrian civil war and was once one of the strongest insurgent groups fighting to topple Assad. But it has been overshadowed by the Islamic State, which has seized swathes of northern and eastern Syria and is now being targeted by U.S.-led air strikes. In the past few days, the Nusra Front captured several villages in the Jabal al-Zawiya region of Idlib province and on Saturday it entered the village of Deir Sonbol, the stronghold of the Revolutionaries’ Front, forcing Maarouf to pull out. Dozens of his fighters defected and joined Nusra, that is why the group won, Rami Abdulrahman, head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights told Reuters. A Nusra fighter confirmed the report, saying: “They left him because they knew he was wrong and delusional. He left his fighters in the battle and pulled out. Last night, we heard them on the radio shouting 'Abu Khaled (Maarouf) escaped, Abu Khaled escaped', he added. Maarouf's group is loosely defined as part of the Free Syrian Army, a term used to refer to dozens of groups fighting to overthrow Assad. They have little or no central coordination and are often in competition with each other. Hours after his withdrawal, a defiant Maarouf issued a video statement in which he vowed to continue the fight against Nusra and said his group would return to Jabal al-Zawiya. “For a week now, Nusra Front has put the villages of Jabal al-Zawiya under siege (as if) they were the 'Noseiry' regime, Maarouf said in the video, using a derogatory term for Assad's Alawite sect, which is an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam. I (want to) clarify why we pulled out of the villages of Jabal al-Zawiya. (It is) so that we preserve civilian blood because this group does not hesitate to kill civilians. A source in a group affiliated to Maarouf denied that any fighters had defected to the Nusra Front. The Syria Revolutionaries’ Front is one of the biggest groups in the Western and Saudi-backed opposition to Assad. The United States plans to expand military support to moderate opposition anti-Assad groups as part of its strategy to defeat the ultra-hardline Islamic State. _ 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 ideological struggle underlying aid to Kobani
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. * Ideological differences are the foremost reason why Turkey, Barzani’s Kurdish Regional Government, and the US favour the dispatch of “vetted” Iraqi Kurdish and Free Syrian Army forces to relieve the siege of Kobani, rather than simply opening the border to allow neighbouring PKK fighters from the Kurdish region in Turkey to reinforce their leftist compatriots on the Syrian side. According to the prevailing narrative, the Kurdish desire for ethnic and cultural self-determination has been reawakened by events in Syria. But this is oversimplification. The escalating conflict has more to do with political ideology – a radical socialism at odds with Turkey’s burgeoning capitalist project and the Islamist-rooted government leading it.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/turkeys-real-kurdish-problem/article21199739/ _ 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] Hold the applause for Canadian journalism's supposedly sober coverage of last week's events
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. * Andrew Mitrovica lays bare the sentimental patriotic claptrap served up by Canada’s politicians and mainstream media in the wake of the two isolated “terrorist” incidents last week. http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/10/26/never-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way-of-a-good-cronkite-moment/ _ 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] Soros on Ukraine and confronting Russia militarily
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. * Billionaire investor George Soros is agitating for a new Cold War against Russia. Writing in the forthcoming issue of the liberal New York Review of Books, in language redolent of that era, Soros argues that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine represent an “existential challenge to Europe…based on the use of force that manifests itself in repression at home and aggression abroad, as opposed to the rule of law.” Decrying the “reluctance” of Europe and the US to engage in “direct military confrontation with Russia”, he urges an EU arms buildup to simultaneously stimulate Europe’s stagnant economy and to counter the perceived Russian threat. “All available resources ought to be put to work in the war effort even if that involves running up budget deficits”, he writes. The spearhead of the new “war effort” should be Ukraine, which should be provided with Javelin missiles and other advanced weaponry. Soros preposterously asserts against all evidence that “it is unrealistic to expect that Putin will stop pushing beyond Ukraine when the division of Europe and its domination by Russia is in sight. Not only the survival of the new Ukraine but the future of NATO and the European Union itself is at risk…” It will be recalled that Soros’ foundation, the Open Society Institute, was instrumental in bringing pro-Western politicians to power in Ukraine in the so-called Orange Revolution of 2005. Here he may also be “talking his own book”, as they say on Wall Street - that is, promoting policies calculated to boost his investments. His detailed economic prescriptions in the article call, among other things, for European and American taxpayers rather than bondholders to finance the reconstruction of Ukraine, forestalling a potential sovereign default, and for the privatization of Naftogaz, the gas monopoly, with the market price for fuel passed on to consumers. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/wake-up-europe/?insrc=hpss _ 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 economic origins of the Hong Kong democracy movement
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. * Democratic movements have customarily viewed the acquisition of political rights not as an end in itself, but as a means to improve living standards and redress inequality. A report in this morning’s Financial Times indicates these underlying economic and social objectives are also a central feature of the Hong Kong protests. The quasi city-state, a haven for mainland Chinese and international capital, has the highest income gap in the developed world, with the richest 10% owning more than three-quarters of its total wealth. In an interview conducted jointly with the Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, and New York Times yesterday, the city’s chief executive CY Leung, warned of the threat to entrenched privilege represented by the extension of democratic rights. “If it’s entirely a numbers game – numeric representation – then obviously you’d be talking to half the people in Hong Kong [that] earn less than US$1,800 a month,” he said in reference to the median per capita wage. “You would end up with that kind of politics and policies.” Demonstrators interviewed in today’s FT report added to the impression that economic grievances are fuelling the demands for greater democracy. The report, behind a paywall, follows: Economic inequality underpins Hong Kong’s great political divide Josh Noble in Hong Kong Financial Times October 21 2014 Economic inequality underpins Hong Kong’s great political divide Hong Kong’s protest movement – now more than three weeks old – has largely focused on definitions of universal suffrage and various methods for electing political leaders. However, many of those taking part also feel economically disenfranchised by a system they blame for leaving a generation locked out of the housing market and making an already troubling income divide even worse. On Monday CY Leung, Hong Kong chief executive, appeared to confirm protesters’ fears when he warned in an interview with the Financial Times and other foreign media that a fully open voting system would lead to populism by shifting power towards low-earners. While Hong Kong’s establishment has stressed the importance of protecting the interests of the business community, many in the street believe political change is needed to fix economic imbalances. “We need to think if Hong Kong should stay an international financial centre and a paradise for global capitalism,” said Rebecca Lai, a 47-year-old NGO worker at a protest site in Mongkok district. “We need to think if this is still good for the citizens.” Hong Kong’s low-tax, laisser-faire style of government has created one of the world’s most successful economies. The territory’s per capita GDP has soared from below $7,000 two decades ago to about $38,000 now. In the annual “Ease of Doing Business” report compiled by the World Bank, Hong Kong ranks second again this year, recognition for a city that has fostered a number of globally successful business empires. However, that economic dynamism has come at a price. A fifth of Hong Kong’s 7m people live in poverty, according to the charity Feeding Hong Kong, while the income gap is the widest in the developed world. Loose monetary policy across the globe post-financial crisis has contributed to worsening inequality in many places, as asset prices have risen while wages have stagnated. But Hong Kong’s experience has been among the most extreme, owing to its unique position of importing interest rates from the US through its currency peg, while benefiting from rapid Chinese growth across the border. The richest 10 per cent of the Hong Kong population now controls 77.5 per cent of the wealth, according to Credit Suisse research, up from 69.3 per cent in 2007. House prices have soared, making them the most expensive in the world. Average prices are now 14.9 times median household income, according to consultancy Demographia, compared with 7.3 times in London and 9.2 times in San Francisco. Inflation has also remained high as costly retail space and a tourist wave from China has fed into the pricing of everyday goods. “Look at this street – it’s all jewellery shops and medicine shops,” said Catherine, a 30-year-old protester in the Causeway Bay shopping district, who declined to give her surname. “All the small restaurants have gone. We cannot eat gold.” The leaders of the protest movement have also highlighted their concerns about inequality, the lack of opportunities for young people, and the power of the wealthy. “We are not slaves to anybody. We are not slaves to Li Ka-shing,” said student leader Lester Shum to the crowd demonstrating outside government
[Marxism] Behind Turkey's decision to allow a transit corridor
POSTING RULES NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * From today’s Wall Street Journal, why Turkey has grudgingly acquiesced to allowing Iraqi peshmerga forces across its border to reinforce the People’s Protection Units (YPG/J) defending Kobani: Turkish officials had publicly opposed the opening of a corridor to allow weapons and fighters across its territory to support the militia in Kobani because it is loyal to the PKK, which Ankara has fought in a low-intensity war for three decades. Privately, Turkey told the Americans they were comfortable with the Iraqi Kurds loyal to their ally Massoud Barzani, the head of Iraq’s semiautonomous Kurdistan Regional Government, playing a bigger role in Kobani’s defense. There was, however, one caveat. The Turkish government doesn’t want to see fighters linked to the PKK strengthened. Turkey is hoping that allowing Iraqi Kurdish fighters into Kobani will dilute PKK influence and put Iraqi Kurds in control of the battle and any reinforcements that will come from the West.” This might be wishful Turkish thinking. If and when they do begin to fraternize, the PKK-linked fighters in Kobani, widely admired by Iraqi as well as Syrian and Turkish Kurds, may well exert more influence on Barzani’s peshmerga forces than the other way round. http://online.wsj.com/articles/turkey-to-allow-transfer-of-iraqi-kurdish-fighters-to-kobani-1413810406?utm_source=Sailthruutm_medium=emailutm_term=%2ASituation%20Reportutm_campaign=SitRep1021 _ 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] USA Air Drops Supplies to Kurds in Kobane
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 Erdogan government has also this morning agreed to allow the peshmerga to cross their territory from Iraq to relieve the siege. This, a day after Erdogan again reiterated he was opposed to aiding the YPG/J. Clearly, the Turks have succumbed to pressure from the US and Barzani’s Kurdish Regional Government. The assistance, while obviously very welcome, is a two-edged sword. The Turks and Americans are hoping their intervention will shore up Barzani at home and displace the leftist PKK in Turkey and PYD in Syria. As al-Jazeera reported recently, Barzani’s base in Iraq had begun deserting him because of his hesitant support of the YPG/J fighters in Kobani, and this has had to be a factor in the American decision to prevent the fall of Kobane, alongside the need to shatter ISIS’ aura of military invincibility which was drawing recruits to it from across the region and elsewhere. On Oct 20, 2014, at 6:59 AM, Greg McDonald via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/20/us-drops-weapons-to-kurds-in-syria Kobani: US drops weapons to Kurds in Syria Kobani air drops likely to anger Turkish government, which opposes sending arms to Kurdish rebels in Syria The US military says it has airdropped weapons, ammunition and medical supplies to Kurdish forces defending the Syrian city of Kobani against Islamic State militants. The air drops on Sunday were the first of their kind and followed weeks of US and coalition air strikes in and near Kobani, near the Turkish border. The US earlier said it had launched 11 air strikes overnight in the Kobani area. Meanwhile Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Monday that Turkey was facilitating the passage of Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga fighters to Kobani. Cavusoglu did not provide details on the transfer of the fighters. In a statement on Sunday night, US Central Command said US C-130 cargo planes made multiple drops of arms and supplies provided by Kurdish authorities in Iraq. It said they were intended to enable continued resistance to Islamic State efforts to take full control of Kobani. The air drops are almost certain to anger the Turkish government, which has said it would oppose any US arms transfers to the Kurdish rebels in Syria. Turkey views the main Kurdish group in Syria as an extension of the Turkish Kurd group known as the PKK, which has waged a 30-year insurgency in Turkey and is designated a terror group by the US and by Nato. Senior US administration officials said three C-130 planes dropped 27 bundles of small arms, ammunition and medical supplies. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the White House. One official said that while the results of the mission were still being assessed, it appeared that “the vast majority” of the supplies reached the intended Kurdish fighters. The official also said the C-130s encountered no resistance from the ground in Syria during their flights in and out of Syrian airspace. In a written statement, Central Command said its forces had conducted more than 135 air strikes against Islamic State forces in Kobani. Central Command said: “Combined with continued resistance to Isil on the ground, indications are that these strikes have slowed Isil advances into the city, killed hundreds of their fighters and destroyed or damaged scores of pieces of Isil combat equipment and fighting positions.” _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/marvgand2%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: Here Are 5 Takeaways From The Harper's Anti-Clinton Story
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 Oct 20, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Ralph Johansen via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: Louis Proyect wrote Doug Henwood has a major article in the latest Harper's on Hilary Clinton, which is behind a paywall. I'd advise one and all, at least if you are in the USA, to pick it up at the newsstand and even consider taking out a sub. I have been a Harper's subscriber since the early 80s and really value it, warts and all. It has the guts to take on the Democrats, something that the Nation is loath to do. Short of buying the issue, this summary of Doug's article is useful: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/19/hillary-clinton-2016_n_6011954.html From this Huffington summary, I would say that yes, it's good to have at least that much of the story, and it's good Henwood was able to get it out there. But it's a hit piece about the personal development of one of the power hungry. It's precisely the type of criticism a large part of the liberal base of the party directed against Clinton in 2008 which deprived her of the nomination. Doug's article will provide useful talking points for the same constituency which now wants to see her coronation blocked by Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. I don't think a similar article attacking Warren or Sanders would be greeted with the same acclaim in these circles as the Clinton piece is likely to receive, assuming liberal publications like Harper's and Huffington Post would be willing to publish it, of course. _ 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] [ufpj-activist] Al Jazeera: After repelling ISIL, PKK fighters are the new heroes of Kurdistan
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 might be interested in a similar exchange Robert Naiman and I have been having on the Pen-L list: On Oct 18, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Robert Naiman nai...@justforeignpolicy.org wrote: Are you sure that what the article describes about PKK rule in Syria is absolutely determined by historical circumstance? Were areas of Spain under the security control of anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist militias between 1936-1939 like that? If not, should we be so quick to dismiss those concerns? I remember, as an activist opposing Reagan's war in Central America in the 1980s, hearing some really bad things about the FMLN. People around me said: oh, that's just propaganda against the FMLN. Later, after the war, people admitted that some of those things were true. Would it be so terrible to acknowledge that such things are sometimes true at the time, instead of waiting until later? Wouldn’t that increase our credibility with people who know at the time that such things are sometimes true? MG: The Spanish anarchists, in the heat of the struggle, also did not shrink from executing priests, landlords and industrialists, and suspected traitors in their communities and ranks (“Fifth Columnists”), which led to excesses (“extrajudicial killings”) described here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia#Crimes. However, I do think it’s true that the farther right you go along the political spectrum, the more organized and brutal is the application of terror and violence against civilians, largely because the ruling classes in revolutionary situations employ the army and right-wing paramilitaries against the mass of the population which is threatening their power and property under the leadership of left-wing movements. At least, it used to be that way. Today, most civil conflicts are less about class than about race, ethnicity, and religion, and murderous violence against non-combatants is equally distributed on all sides. I’m fully in agreement with you that these abuses should be acknowledged when they occur rather than denied or swept under the rug for the reasons you mentioned. In most cases, however, those in authority always feel it will weaken the belief of their followers that their cause is unsullied, with a resultant decline in motivation and defections from the ranks. Wasn’t that the rationale for many secondary leaders and supporters of the Stalinist CP’s who turned a blind eye to the persecution of their erstwhile anarchist and Trotskyist comrades under the most preposterous pretexts? On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Marv Gandall marvga...@gmail.com wrote: Basically the fear is that the PKK can be controlling and ruthless, but I think that is characteristic of all besieged movements and regimes across the political spectrum engaged in a war of survival. The need for strict discipline and loyalty comes to the fore and is widely accepted, but excesses invariably do occur. I don’t offhand know of any historical instance where this has not been the case. The article in weighted in favour of the PKK’s role and enhanced standing in Iraq, with proper mention given to a few dissident voices. On Oct 18, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Robert Naiman nai...@justforeignpolicy.org wrote: This is a strikingly great article, in the sense that it shows you not only that the PKK fighters are now viewed as heroes by many Kurds who did not view them so before because of their recent role in saving Kurdish civilians from ISIS, but also shows you why many Kurds have perfectly legitimate reasons to fear rule by the PKK. This is outstanding journalism of a type that we often don't get to see, presenting a nuanced picture that is more complicated than good guys and bad guys. On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Marv Gandall marvga...@gmail.com wrote: Below is the link to a report in today’s English language edition of Al Jazeera describing how the heroic defence of Kobane by the YPG/J, the militia allied to the Kurdish left-wing parties in Syria (PYD) and Turkey (PKK), has been drawing strong support from Iraqi Kurds. The latter have hitherto been generally loyal to the more conservative party of Masoud Barzani which heads Iraq’s Kurdish Regional Government. But the Barzani government’s close commercial and diplomatic ties with Turkey and the US has been reflected in its hesitant support of the YPG/J, eroding the government’s base of support among Iraqi Kurds inspired by Kobane and themselves directly threatened by the Islamic State. This development very likely contributed to the accelerated use of American air
Re: [Marxism] [ufpj-activist] Al Jazeera: After repelling ISIL, PKK fighters are the new heroes of Kurdistan
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 might be interested in a similar exchange Robert Naiman and I have been having on the Pen-L list: On Oct 18, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Robert Naiman nai...@justforeignpolicy.org wrote: Are you sure that what the article describes about PKK rule in Syria is absolutely determined by historical circumstance? Were areas of Spain under the security control of anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist militias between 1936-1939 like that? If not, should we be so quick to dismiss those concerns? I remember, as an activist opposing Reagan's war in Central America in the 1980s, hearing some really bad things about the FMLN. People around me said: oh, that's just propaganda against the FMLN. Later, after the war, people admitted that some of those things were true. Would it be so terrible to acknowledge that such things are sometimes true at the time, instead of waiting until later? Wouldn’t that increase our credibility with people who know at the time that such things are sometimes true? MG: The Spanish anarchists, in the heat of the struggle, also did not shrink from executing priests, landlords and industrialists, and suspected traitors in their communities and ranks (“Fifth Columnists”), which led to excesses (“extrajudicial killings”) described here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia#Crimes. However, I do think it’s true that the farther right you go along the political spectrum, the more organized and brutal is the application of terror and violence against civilians, largely because the ruling classes in revolutionary situations employ the army and right-wing paramilitaries against the mass of the population which is threatening their power and property under the leadership of left-wing movements. At least, it used to be that way. Today, most civil conflicts are less about class than about race, ethnicity, and religion, and murderous violence against non-combatants is equally distributed on all sides. I’m fully in agreement with you that these abuses should be acknowledged when they occur rather than denied or swept under the rug for the reasons you mentioned. In most cases, however, those in authority always feel it will weaken the belief of their followers that their cause is unsullied, with a resultant decline in motivation and defections from the ranks. Wasn’t that the rationale for many secondary leaders and supporters of the Stalinist CP’s who turned a blind eye to the persecution of their erstwhile anarchist and Trotskyist comrades under the most preposterous pretexts? On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Marv Gandall marvga...@gmail.com wrote: Basically the fear is that the PKK can be controlling and ruthless, but I think that is characteristic of all besieged movements and regimes across the political spectrum engaged in a war of survival. The need for strict discipline and loyalty comes to the fore and is widely accepted, but excesses invariably do occur. I don’t offhand know of any historical instance where this has not been the case. The article in weighted in favour of the PKK’s role and enhanced standing in Iraq, with proper mention given to a few dissident voices. On Oct 18, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Robert Naiman nai...@justforeignpolicy.org wrote: This is a strikingly great article, in the sense that it shows you not only that the PKK fighters are now viewed as heroes by many Kurds who did not view them so before because of their recent role in saving Kurdish civilians from ISIS, but also shows you why many Kurds have perfectly legitimate reasons to fear rule by the PKK. This is outstanding journalism of a type that we often don't get to see, presenting a nuanced picture that is more complicated than good guys and bad guys. On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Marv Gandall marvga...@gmail.com wrote: Below is the link to a report in today’s English language edition of Al Jazeera describing how the heroic defence of Kobane by the YPG/J, the militia allied to the Kurdish left-wing parties in Syria (PYD) and Turkey (PKK), has been drawing strong support from Iraqi Kurds. The latter have hitherto been generally loyal to the more conservative party of Masoud Barzani which heads Iraq’s Kurdish Regional Government. But the Barzani government’s close commercial and diplomatic ties with Turkey and the US has been reflected in its hesitant support of the YPG/J, eroding the government’s base of support among Iraqi Kurds inspired by Kobane and themselves directly threatened by the Islamic State. This development very likely contributed to the accelerated use of American air
[Marxism] Growing support among Iraqi Kurds for PKK and PYD
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. * Below is the link to a report in today’s English language edition of Al Jazeera describing how the heroic defence of Kobane by the YPG/J, the militia allied to the Kurdish left-wing parties in Syria (PYD) and Turkey (PKK), has been drawing strong support from Iraqi Kurds. The latter have hitherto been generally loyal to the more conservative party of Masoud Barzani which heads Iraq’s Kurdish Regional Government. But the Barzani government’s close commercial and diplomatic ties with Turkey and the US has been reflected in its hesitant support of the YPG/J, eroding the government’s base of support among Iraqi Kurds inspired by Kobane and themselves directly threatened by the Islamic State. This development very likely contributed to the accelerated use of American air power during the past week to help prevent the fall of Kobane and the inevitable destabilizing cries of betrayal which would have been directed against Barzani from outraged Kurds inside as well as outside of Iraq. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/10/17/pkk-s-rise-in-iraqikurdistan.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] YPG claims it is now winning the battle for Kobane
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == From the late edition of today's Washington Post, encouraging news which could mark a decisive turn in the battle for Kobane. I don't give a rat's ass if US air power has made the difference, as the YPG has itself acknowledged in several reports. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/kurds-claim-to-have-turned-tide-against-islamic-state-in-kobane/2014/10/15/af9b5726-547f-11e4-809b-8cc0a295c773_story.html [...] Kurdish fighters and activists on the ground said that two days of relentless attacks have turned the tide in their favor. Ihsan Naasan, the deputy foreign minister of Kobane’s self-proclaimed government, saidKurdish defenders had pushed the jihadists back more than four miles from the western edge of the town by nightfall Wednesday and were advancing into the eastern and southern neighborhoods of the city. He claimed that Kurdish fighters with the People’s Protection Units, or YPG, now control 80 percent of Kobane after losing more than half of it in heavy fighting in past days. “The YPG now have the initiative,” Naasan said, speaking from inside the town. “They are on the counteroffensive against the Islamic State.” If the Kurdish fighters manage to retake Kobane, it would be the first time that U.S. strikes have helped eject the Islamic State from territory in Syria since the air war was expanded to include the northern and eastern parts of the country a little over three weeks ago. The border town, nestled amid rolling farmland in a remote part of north-central Syria, has limited strategic significance. Islamic State fighters had advanced toward it unimpeded, capturing scores of tiny villages across a large swath of territory along the way and sending more than 200,000 people fleeing in panic into Turkish territory. Although daily U.S. airstrikes had begun in Kobane over a week earlier, it was only on Tuesday, as militant reinforcements were said to have arrived, that coalition sorties sharply escalated. On Wednesday, the U.S. Central Command said it had carried out 18 strikes in the previous 24 hours, on top of 21 reported the previous day. Ground-shaking explosions reverberated repeatedly across the countryside spanning the Syria-Turkey border Wednesday, sending plumes of smoke billowing from the town. Kurdish activists said that the bodies of “tens” of Islamic State fighters lay strewn around the streets of bombed neighborhoods that they said were subsequently retaken by defenders. The Islamic State, which typically boasts about its conquests in videos and statements on social media, has fallen silent on the Kobane battle, amid unconfirmed reports that some of its more senior commanders have been killed. Among those mentioned are leaders known as Abu Khattab al-Kurdi, from the town of Halabja in Iraq’s Kurdish region, and Abu Mohammed al-Amriki, a Chechen who was said to have lived in the United States for a decade before leaving to fight in Syria. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] YPG Spokesman Polat Can: We are Working with the Coalition against ISIS
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == In an exclusive interview with the daily Radikal, Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) Spokesperson Polat Can says they are officially working with the International Coalition against ISIS, and their representative is in the Joint Operation Command Center. Q. Mr. Polat Can, you have been leading a fierce struggle against ISIS in Kobane for almost month. The world is watching Kobane. What is the situation there? In the morning, the Kobane resistance will be on its 30th day and a new, long-winded process will start. Everyone knows that the resistance that YPG put up against ISIS is unprecedented by the forces in the region, especially in comparison to the Iraqi army. Cities ten times the size of Kobane surrendered to ISIS in a few days and those cities were not even besieged with considerable force. However, when they started attacking Kobane, they gathered their forces from around the region, from places including Minbij, Raqqah, Jarabulus, and Tal Hamis. What I mean by considerable force is tanks, cannons, heavy artillery and thugs whose numbers were in the tens of thousands. They wanted to capture Kobane within a week, but they did not succeed. Then, they wanted to say their Eid prayers in Kobane, and they could not do that either. Since last week, they seized some streets in East Kobane, and now they want to capture the whole city, but they can’t advance. As they try to make their way, they sustain considerable losses. Especially within the last few days, both YPG attacks and the air strikes against ISIS terror led by international coalition forces have increased. They sustained major losses, many of their bodies and weapons passed into the hands of the YPG. Q. So, can we say that Kobane is relatively safe from danger? No, saying this would be major heedlessness. Because ISIS still controls a large portion of Kobane. In addition, all of the villages in Kobane are occupied by ISIS. The resistance we started both within and around Kobane is ongoing. ISIS continues to receive renewed assistance. This war is a matter of life and death for us in every way. Thus, it is not yet possible to say that there is no danger. Q. You are saying that ISIS consists of tens of thousands of people and constantly renewed support. Your numbers are very small in comparison. Do you receive any kind of support? Kobane has been under an embargo for the last year and a half. None of the major forces from other cantons have been able to reach Kobane. Kobane is resisting with its own efforts. Some Kurdish youth have been able to reach Kobane from the north of Kurdistan, especially through Suruç. Some arrived Kobane in small groups from the cantons of Afrin and Jazira. In addition, some of the youth from Kobane who were living abroad came to Kobane to protect their city. Some of the small groups from the Free Syrian Army (FSA) are here under the name of “The Volcano of Euphrates.” This is all of our power and support. Unfortunately, we did not receive any additional military support, neither from the South, nor from other places. Q. What can you tell us about the air strikes by the coalition led by the United States? For the last few days, the air strikes have been numerous and effective. We can clearly state that, had these attacks started a couple weeks ago, ISIS would not have been able to enter Kobane at all. ISIS would have been defeated 10-15 kilometers away from the city, and the city would not have turned into a war zone. Full interview: http://civiroglu.net/2014/10/14/ypg_usa/ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Inside Kobani
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == A vivid eyewitness account of the street fighting in the centre of Kobani and the hit-and-run tactics being employed by the People's Protection Units (YPG). The parallels to the Paris Commune and Stalingrad are inescapable. http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=31fmzrT2utm_source=Sailthruutm_medium=emailutm_term=%2ASituation%20Reportutm_campaign=SitRep1013 Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] [Pen-l] Now this is an interesting question: Why did Israel target and kill Hebrew speakers in Gaza?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I’m skeptical that this incident(s) was the premeditated execution of a “new practice” in Gaza ostensibly ordered by the Israeli high command. No doubt militants who know the language of the enemy make more effective combatants in close quarter fighting and on raids, and in that sense pose a greater threat to Israeli security. But this was a 54 year man. The accounts sound more like random acts perpetrated by angry, stressed and trigger happy troops in the field who will seize on any pretext to commit violence, including murder, against civilians. As well as in Gaza, many and perhaps more West Bank Palestinians speak Hebrew. Many have been shot, not for speaking Hebrew, but for throwing stones and other acts of resistance. You would think if there was evidence of such targeted “linguisticide” we would be seeing confirmation of the practice in media reports and from various Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations. You live over there and are better situated than any of us to establish whether anyone other than Max Blumenthal, whom I greatly respect BTW, has reported in the same vein? On Oct 11, 2014, at 1:20 AM, Joseph Catron jncat...@gmail.com wrote: According to several different eyewitnesses [Max Blumenthal] spoke to, offering corroborating accounts of different incidents, it seems that Israeli soldiers were executing a new practice during this latest Gaza war. As Max puts it: 'wanton targeting of Palestinian civilians who spoke Hebrew'. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/inquiry/14582-why-did-israel-target-and-kill-hebrew-speakers-in-gaza -- Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað. ___ pen-l mailing list pe...@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Malala's Trotskyist sympathies
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Here’s the interesting sidelight that is (not suprisingly) absent in most mainstream media biographical sketches of Malala Yousafzai celebrating her Nobel peace prize. She’s a socialist and identifies with the radical wing of the movement. Or at least she did as recently as last year. In March, 2013, she sent the following message of solidarity to the Pakistani section of the International Marxist Tendency which described her as a “sympathizer” who had spoken at one of their summer schools the previous year. Comrade Javed Iqbal, a Pakistani comrade from Birmingham in the UK, intervened to read out a message that had been sent from Malala Yousafzai, the young sympathiser of the Marxist Tendency famous for her part in the struggle for the right to education for girls in Pakistan. She had taken part in the national Marxist Summer School in July of last year in Swat. She was tragically shot in the head in a barbaric attack by fundamentalists, and made headlines worldwide. She is now thankfully recovering in the UK. The message she sent reads as follows: 'First of all I’d like to thank The Struggle and the IMT for giving me a chance to speak last year at their Summer Marxist School in Swat and also for introducing me to Marxism and Socialism. I just want to say that in terms of education, as well as other problems in Pakistan, it is high time that we did something to tackle them ourselves. It’s important to take the initiative. We cannot wait around for any one else to come and do it. Why are we waiting for someone else to come and fix things? Why aren’t we doing it ourselves? 'I would like to send my heartfelt greetings to the congress. I am convinced Socialism is the only answer and I urge all comrades to take this struggle to a victorious conclusion. Only this will free us from the chains of bigotry and exploitation.’ This was also one of the several moving moments of the congress. A close friend of Malala was also present at the congress, who was on the bus when the girls were attacked. She spoke, making some comments and reading out a poem.” See: http://www.marxist.com/historic-32nd-congress-of-pakistani-imt-1.htm Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] The PYD, the regime, the FSA and the ICG report
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Superb capsule analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the PYD and PYG/Y and why they warrant unconditional support. Karadjis alone gives this list its value. -Original Message- From: Andrew Pollack via Marxism The ICG earlier this year issued a report which basically called the Kurdish PYD collaborators with the Syrian regime who are only able to govern the autonomous areas thanks to physical regime withdrawal but continued funding. ICG also claims that the self-governance structures everyone is raving about are PYD-appointed fronts; and that PYD repression against opponents continues. I put Arbour in the subject line because she was head of ICG at time of this report (May 2014) http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/Middle%20East%20North%20Africa/Iraq%20Syria%20Lebanon/Syria/151-flight-of-icarus-the-pyd-s-precarious-rise-in-syria.pdf I don't think the issue is Louise Arbour. The report is by the ICG, which is a relatively level-headed group of pro-imperialist analysts. They produce well-researched analysis which, however, is obviously written from a particular point of view. I don't think they go out of their way to doctor facts but of course their spin is there. The fact that the PYD is only able to govern the autonomous areas thanks to physical regime withdrawal is simply a statement of fact, but whether it is also due to continued funding by the regime, let alone low-level collaboration or even alliance, with the regime, as the report suggests, enters seriously into the area of interpretation and spin. As the report shows, it was the PYD that led the uprising in 2004, and suffered fierce repression from the regime. When the uprising began in 2011, naturally they again tried to take over Kurdish regions. When the regime withdrew in mid-2012, was this because the regime loved the PYD or vice versa and they were entering into an alliance with each other? No, the regime withdrew because it looked at a map, saw the Kurdish regions were the furthest thing away, the jihadist-controlled regions were the next furthest away, the FSA and other rebel controlled regions were much closer, including right under their noses in the major cities. By leaving the Kurds be, the regime could focus on the more immediate dangers. Was the PYD complicit with the regime by accepting the withdrawal and trying to build its society, rather than sending its fighters to aid the resistance elsewhere? I don't that criticism is valid, though part of the bad blood between the FSA and PYD is due to that feeling. From the point of view of self-determination, you can't blame the Kurds for getting what they could in the circumstances. I guess you don't actively invite barrel bombs when you can avoid them for a while. The PYD knew very well they would come eventually, if Assad finished off everyone else. The report also says the regime continued to pay salaries in the PYD controlled region. I know nothing about this, but I assume it is based on research. In some instances where the FSA has signed truces with the regime, the regime has agreed to pay salaries. What can we say about this? It is desperation. It is a question of tactics. The report also makes a number of concrete accusations against the PYD for instances of collaboration with the regime, a more serious thing. Some of this seems anecdotal, some more solidly based. It does not appear to be of a systematic nature, but here and there, opportunistic. Question: Is the PYD a perfect organisation that has NEVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG? Were the Bolsheviks? Is there such a thing? In a recent discussion on the GL list, I warned against the tendency to suggest that the FSA were a huge (or tiny, whatever your fancy) morass of smugglers, warlords, swindlers, jihadist, US puppets, bandits, thieves etc, on account of the fact that the sheer anarchy of revolutionary situations, combined with the extraordinary level of counterrevolutionary regime violence, means that a significant number of violations absolutely do happen. If you make those kinds of sweeping generalisations then there has never been anyone worth supporting, ever. I also made the opposite point: while we rightly look at the model of the Rojava revolution (above and beyond the fact that we should defend Kurdish self-determination even if they were run by Kurdish Black Hundreds), we need to avoid romanticisation, the complete opposite attitude to demonisation. The PYD has any number of skeletons in its closet as do most organisations which consist of human beings. It is thus possible that some of what is in the report is right; but organisations in a revolutionary
[Marxism] Fwd: The PYD, the regime, the FSA and the ICG report
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Correction: That should read YPG/YPJ. Begin forwarded message: From: Marv Gandall marvga...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Marxism] The PYD, the regime, the FSA and the ICG report Date: October 12, 2014 at 12:27:43 PM EDT To: Michael Karadjis mkarad...@gmail.com, Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Superb capsule analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the PYD and PYG/Y and why they warrant unconditional support. Karadjis alone gives this list its value. -Original Message- From: Andrew Pollack via Marxism The ICG earlier this year issued a report which basically called the Kurdish PYD collaborators with the Syrian regime who are only able to govern the autonomous areas thanks to physical regime withdrawal but continued funding. ICG also claims that the self-governance structures everyone is raving about are PYD-appointed fronts; and that PYD repression against opponents continues. I put Arbour in the subject line because she was head of ICG at time of this report (May 2014) http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/Middle%20East%20North%20Africa/Iraq%20Syria%20Lebanon/Syria/151-flight-of-icarus-the-pyd-s-precarious-rise-in-syria.pdf I don't think the issue is Louise Arbour. The report is by the ICG, which is a relatively level-headed group of pro-imperialist analysts. They produce well-researched analysis which, however, is obviously written from a particular point of view. I don't think they go out of their way to doctor facts but of course their spin is there. The fact that the PYD is only able to govern the autonomous areas thanks to physical regime withdrawal is simply a statement of fact, but whether it is also due to continued funding by the regime, let alone low-level collaboration or even alliance, with the regime, as the report suggests, enters seriously into the area of interpretation and spin. As the report shows, it was the PYD that led the uprising in 2004, and suffered fierce repression from the regime. When the uprising began in 2011, naturally they again tried to take over Kurdish regions. When the regime withdrew in mid-2012, was this because the regime loved the PYD or vice versa and they were entering into an alliance with each other? No, the regime withdrew because it looked at a map, saw the Kurdish regions were the furthest thing away, the jihadist-controlled regions were the next furthest away, the FSA and other rebel controlled regions were much closer, including right under their noses in the major cities. By leaving the Kurds be, the regime could focus on the more immediate dangers. Was the PYD complicit with the regime by accepting the withdrawal and trying to build its society, rather than sending its fighters to aid the resistance elsewhere? I don't that criticism is valid, though part of the bad blood between the FSA and PYD is due to that feeling. From the point of view of self-determination, you can't blame the Kurds for getting what they could in the circumstances. I guess you don't actively invite barrel bombs when you can avoid them for a while. The PYD knew very well they would come eventually, if Assad finished off everyone else. The report also says the regime continued to pay salaries in the PYD controlled region. I know nothing about this, but I assume it is based on research. In some instances where the FSA has signed truces with the regime, the regime has agreed to pay salaries. What can we say about this? It is desperation. It is a question of tactics. The report also makes a number of concrete accusations against the PYD for instances of collaboration with the regime, a more serious thing. Some of this seems anecdotal, some more solidly based. It does not appear to be of a systematic nature, but here and there, opportunistic. Question: Is the PYD a perfect organisation that has NEVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG? Were the Bolsheviks? Is there such a thing? In a recent discussion on the GL list, I warned against the tendency to suggest that the FSA were a huge (or tiny, whatever your fancy) morass of smugglers, warlords, swindlers, jihadist, US puppets, bandits, thieves etc, on account of the fact that the sheer anarchy of revolutionary situations, combined with the extraordinary level of counterrevolutionary regime violence, means that a significant number of violations absolutely do happen. If you make those kinds of sweeping generalisations then there has never been anyone worth supporting, ever. I also made the opposite point: while we rightly look at the model of the Rojava revolution (above and beyond the fact that we should defend Kurdish self-determination even if they
