[Marxism] Did Russian meddling swing the election? Does it matter?

[Anthony Boynton via Marxism]

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

John Reiman has misquoted me and misunderstood what I said in my recent
post (and probably what Mark Lause said as well). We can only guess why,
but to be charitable, he was probably just overly hasty to make a good
point.



And that is too bad, because I agree with his good point. Here it is



“One thing we have to realize is that in Russia, the "oligarchs" and the
Russian mafia are more or less one and the same. And I don't think we
really have to "guess" about Trump's connections: Trump IS connected with
the Russian mafia, he HAS served as a money launderer for them for years,
and there IS so much publicly known evidence that we don't have to "guess".
This has been in the public record for at least a year, if not longer.”



Just for the record, here is John’s unfortunate Bowdlerization:



"Anthony Boynton quotes Mark Lause approvingly: "Although we can only guess
based on what we know, Trump's behavior makes him look guilty as hell By
guilty, I mean deep-rooted financial ties between Trump and his circle with
the Russian oligarchs, among others."



But I did not write anything like that! Here is what I wrote,

“I agree with Mark Lause when he writes,



‘“I tend to think the entire issue (Russian intervention in the 2016 US
elections) as much more important than we tend to credit it. (But I tended
to think that we underestimated the importance of the impeachment question
on Nixon, too.)  Although we can only guess based on what we know, Trump's
behavior makes him look guilty as hell, and I'd bet that Mueller has
serious evidence against him . . . and is currently working to make the
case watertight.  By guilty, I mean deep-rooted financial ties between
Trump and his circle with the Russian oligarchs, among others.”

‘“The Republicans have generally demonstrated a complete lack of party
independence from the head of state . . . and the Democrats have shown a
complete inability to tie their shoes and take the most rudimentary steps.”’



“But, I think he misses what is happening in the world when he continues,

‘“All of which underscores the opportunities of which we could be taking
advantage, if we had genuinely independent social movements of any
persistence and scale . . . or any organizations more substantial than
social democratic bowling leagues.”’



“The fact of the matter is that a mass and multi-faceted social democratic
movement is growing

​in ​

the United States that includes the women’s rights movement (much more than
#MeToo), Black Lives Matter, the immigrants’ rights movement, the $15/hour
movement, the anti-gun movement and a much broader and deeper ferment.

​

“That deeper ferment is in part centered on the issue of democracy​ and is
deeply offended by the fact that Trump is in the White House despite having
lost the popular vote and patently having manipulated the vote in illegal
ways and with the aid of a foreign power.



“However you define “we” –the very broad left, the revolutionary left, the
Marxist left….- “we” are growing rapidly and are taking advantage of
opportunities. IMHO “We” includes much more than the old codgers who
graduated from the New Left of the 1960’s: “We” includes the new generation
of the left that is just coming to grips with the struggle.



“Rather than “Cheers”, I have to say, CHEER UP MARK, better days are
coming.”

Anthony
_
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] Did Russian meddling swing the election? Does it matter?

[Ken Hiebert via Marxism]

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

As has been pointed out, there are many instances of election meddling by the 
US.
Among others was their intervention in Italy against the Communist Party of 
Italy.

We know they intervened, but can we prove that they affected the outcome of the 
election?
How could such a thing be proved?  If a large sample of voters kept a months 
long diary of news they heard and how it affected their thinking, maybe we 
could prove that the US intervention affected the outcome.  How else could we 
know?
We must accept that such a thing would be difficult to prove.

The same would be true in a US election.

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

Re: [Marxism] Did Russian meddling swing the election? Does it matter?

[John Reimann via Marxism]

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

Anthony Boynton quotes Mark Lause approvingly: "Although we can only guess
based on what we know, Trump's behavior makes him look guilty as hell By
guilty, I mean deep-rooted financial ties between Trump and his circle with
the Russian oligarchs, among others."

One thing we have to realize is that in Russia, the "oligarchs" and the
Russian mafia are more or less one and the same. And I don't think we
really have to "guess" about Trump's connections: Trump IS connected with
the Russian mafia, he HAS served as a money launderer for them for years,
and there IS so much publicly known evidence that we don't have to "guess".
This has been in the public record for at least a year, if not longer. (I wrote
about it

back last April.)

It is not surprising that the US capitalist class is trying to avoid the
issue. Not only would this depth of criminal behavior of a president be
embarrassing to them but, more important it would tend to open up a whole
other can of worms: The fact that the real estate industry is rampant
with money
laundering

for other such criminal syndicates, especially the drug cartels. Should
this start to be exposed in a big way, it could easily lead to a massive
political crisis for US capitalism. For one thing, the politics of most
major cities are dominated by the real estate industry. Imagine if it came
out that the major donors to many mayors and city council members were in
effect mobbed up, were involved in such money laundering.

So, it's no wonder this is being kept under wraps, but it is quite
disconcerting that the socialist left has more or less ignored this. Maybe
more of it than we know still has some romantic notions about the original
home of the workers state or some such. If that is the issue, then they are
living in the past.

John Reimann

-- 
*“How can we expect righteousness to prevail when there is hardly anyone
willing to give himself up individually to a righteous cause? Such a fine
sunny day, and I have to go, but what does my death matter, if through us
thousands of people are awakened and stirred to action?” *Sophie Scholl,
executed by the Nazis 2/22/1943. She was 21 years old.
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook
_
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] Did Russian meddling swing the election? Does it matter?

[Mark Lause via Marxism]

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

What you're asking for is an an analysis where we don't really have very
much on which an analysis can be based.

Let me try this another way, following your points . . . .

1. We don't know much of the mechanics of the hacking and its extent.  We
probably will at some point, but there's nothing solid to digest at this
point.

2. The stuff about social media isn't clear and probably can't be clear.  I
don't think the Russians or anyone else has to be silent about what they
want us to do politically.  And while the Russian government seems to have
been less than honest about identifying the sources of the "news" they were
disseminating, that simply playing by the rules of corporate involvement in
mass politics today.

3. Nobody really has the evidence to decide what impact all of this had on
the election.  Nobody.  And unless there is credible evidence that the
Russians got into the computerized election counts, nobody ever will.
There is no solid way of determining what this or that argument--"fake" or
no--had on how people voted (or didn't vote)..

Finally, Maddow and the other  entertainers offer nothing worth calling an
analysis about these things.  What they do is more like juggling acts based
on what can maximize their viewing audience and keep them.  Some offer more
facts than others, but which ones have priority have to do with what they
think will play best with their viewers and not what will fit an analysis.
Certainly, some are better than others on this question, having been
lawyers.  Still, a few days back, the most "liberal" of the "liberal
media"--Rachel's MSNBC--was showcasing their fond farewell to Billy Graham
and this morning they were lauding William F. Buckley.

I think we're generally as likely to get anything like a thought-out
analysis from a Ouija board . . .








On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:27 AM, MM  wrote:

> On Feb 26, 2018, at 11:13 PM, Mark Lause  wrote:
>
> I tend to think the entire issue as much more important than we tend to
> credit it. (But I tended to think that we underestimated the importance of
> the impeachment question on Nixon, too.)  Although we can only guess based
> on what we know, Trump's behavior makes him look guilty as hell, and I'd
> bet that Mueller has serious evidence against him . . . and is currently
> working to make the case watertight.
>
>
> I agree with you that the issue as important — I think it’s incredibly
> important, no matter whether the outcome of the election was affected. I
> also tried to make clear that it seems to me beyond serious questions that
> Trump is guilty.
>
> What I don’t understand is why the debate over it — at least, everything
> I’ve seen — has focused almost exclusively on whether it made a difference
> in the outcome of the election. Maddow et al take it as given — all legally
> obligatory caveats being observed — that the reason Trump’s seemingly
> obvious collusion is a problem is that it swung the election. Doug Henwood,
> for instance, talks like it’s mostly irrelevant because it couldn’t have
> done so. I’d like to read the best analysis that’s been done on its likely
> impact on the actual outcome of the election — mainly to know how to
> respond to people who make either Maddow’s or Henwood’s kinds of arguments.
> I do think it’s a big deal, no matter which of them is closer to the truth.
>
_
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] "Did Russian meddling swing the election? Does it matter?"

[Alan Ginsberg via Marxism]

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

MM has inquired about analyses as to whether Russian meddling affected the
outcome of the U.S. Presidential election.

For whatever it's worth, here's a link to an article by two New York Times
reporters, "Indictment Leaves No Doubt: Russia Backed Trump. But Was It the
Difference?"

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/us/politics/trump-election-russia.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] Did Russian meddling swing the election? Does it matter?

[MM via Marxism]

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

> On Feb 26, 2018, at 11:13 PM, Mark Lause  wrote:
> 
> I tend to think the entire issue as much more important than we tend to 
> credit it. (But I tended to think that we underestimated the importance of 
> the impeachment question on Nixon, too.)  Although we can only guess based on 
> what we know, Trump's behavior makes him look guilty as hell, and I'd bet 
> that Mueller has serious evidence against him . . . and is currently working 
> to make the case watertight.


I agree with you that the issue as important — I think it’s incredibly 
important, no matter whether the outcome of the election was affected. I also 
tried to make clear that it seems to me beyond serious questions that Trump is 
guilty.

What I don’t understand is why the debate over it — at least, everything I’ve 
seen — has focused almost exclusively on whether it made a difference in the 
outcome of the election. Maddow et al take it as given — all legally obligatory 
caveats being observed — that the reason Trump’s seemingly obvious collusion is 
a problem is that it swung the election. Doug Henwood, for instance, talks like 
it’s mostly irrelevant because it couldn’t have done so. I’d like to read the 
best analysis that’s been done on its likely impact on the actual outcome of 
the election — mainly to know how to respond to people who make either Maddow’s 
or Henwood’s kinds of arguments. I do think it’s a big deal, no matter which of 
them is closer to the truth.
_
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] Did Russian meddling swing the election? Does it matter?

[Mark Lause via Marxism]

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

There is absolutely no way of ever realistically measuring the impacts of
#2 . . . or #3.  And no way of doing so for #! . . . at least now.

The "liberal media" hasn't taken anything for granted about the impact of
Russian "meddling" in the U.S. elections. In fact, they've generally made a
point of not discussing it at all until very recently.

I tend to think the entire issue as much more important than we tend to
credit it. (But I tended to think that we underestimated the importance of
the impeachment question on Nixon, too.)  Although we can only guess based
on what we know, Trump's behavior makes him look guilty as hell, and I'd
bet that Mueller has serious evidence against him . . . and is currently
working to make the case watertight.  By guilty, I mean deep-rooted
financial ties between Trump and his circle with the Russian oligarchs,
among others.

The Republicans have generally demonstrated a complete lack of party
independence from the head of state . . . and the Democrats have shown a
complete inability to tie their shoes and take the most rudimentary steps.

All of which underscores the opportunities of which we could be taking
advantage, if we had genuinely independent social movements of any
persistence and scale . . . or any organizations more substantial than
social democratic bowling leagues.

Cheers,
Mark L.



On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 9:47 PM, MM via Marxism  wrote:

>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> *
>
> I take it as basically established beyond reasonable doubt that the
> Russian government or proxies took various actions with the purpose of
> influencing the outcome of the 2016 election, and of influencing U.S.
> political discourse more broadly — particularly to exacerbate social
> divisions and undermine people’s ability to know what is true. As I
> understand it, those efforts took place along three distinct trajectories:
>
> 1. hacking of sensitive / strategically important computers and strategic
> release of any goods obtained (e.g., Podesta emails)
> 2. targeted political advertisements on FB and maybe elsewhere (as
> reported on)
> 3. use of fake profiles on social media to plant stories, shape
> narratives, drive trends; these were either managed by actual humans or
> driven by AI bots
>
> There may be some overlap between the second and third — the fake profiles
> were used to purchase ads — but the distinction seems worth making since a
> lot of the activity under number 3 seems to have been unrelated to 2.
>
> I take it as similarly established that people connected to the Trump
> campaign most likely cooperated or colluded with them. Others might be
> interested in debating that; I’m not. If it isn’t true, I’ll eventually
> learn something that will change my opinion (since I don’t have a problem
> admitting when I’m wrong). But if there is exculpatory evidence like that
> in existence, I don’t think it’s public yet, so I don’t think it’s worth
> spending time on.
>
> It also seems pretty clear to me that those efforts have had at least some
> impact on U.S. political debate, that they have succeeded to some degree in
> exacerbating existing divisions, and generally making a bunch of people who
> were already laboring under considerable misinformation and maleducation
> even less able to draw sound conclusions about what is true and what isn’t.
> Again, probably not worth debating at the moment, and I’m not interested in
> doing so.
>
> What I’m far less sure about is whether those actions actually materially
> influenced the outcome of the election. And frankly I’m also a bit
> mystified that I haven’t seen anyone from the ranks of the establishment
> make what seems to me like an obvious point: that even if Russian meddling
> didn’t materially affect the outcome, the existence of the attempted
> collusion itself would leave Trump completely, fundamentally, radically
> compromised. It would invalidate whatever electoral mandate he might
> otherwise have claimed (since you can’t claim to have been legitimately
> elected if you didn’t tell the people who voted for you that you were
> colluding with a foreign power to influence the outcome of the election
> when they did so).
>
> My question is this: Does anyone know what is the best available analysis
> of the likely impacts of those efforts on the election outcome? Of course,
> the 

[Marxism] Did Russian meddling swing the election? Does it matter?

[MM via Marxism]

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

I take it as basically established beyond reasonable doubt that the Russian 
government or proxies took various actions with the purpose of influencing the 
outcome of the 2016 election, and of influencing U.S. political discourse more 
broadly — particularly to exacerbate social divisions and undermine people’s 
ability to know what is true. As I understand it, those efforts took place 
along three distinct trajectories:

1. hacking of sensitive / strategically important computers and strategic 
release of any goods obtained (e.g., Podesta emails)
2. targeted political advertisements on FB and maybe elsewhere (as reported on)
3. use of fake profiles on social media to plant stories, shape narratives, 
drive trends; these were either managed by actual humans or driven by AI bots

There may be some overlap between the second and third — the fake profiles were 
used to purchase ads — but the distinction seems worth making since a lot of 
the activity under number 3 seems to have been unrelated to 2.

I take it as similarly established that people connected to the Trump campaign 
most likely cooperated or colluded with them. Others might be interested in 
debating that; I’m not. If it isn’t true, I’ll eventually learn something that 
will change my opinion (since I don’t have a problem admitting when I’m wrong). 
But if there is exculpatory evidence like that in existence, I don’t think it’s 
public yet, so I don’t think it’s worth spending time on.

It also seems pretty clear to me that those efforts have had at least some 
impact on U.S. political debate, that they have succeeded to some degree in 
exacerbating existing divisions, and generally making a bunch of people who 
were already laboring under considerable misinformation and maleducation even 
less able to draw sound conclusions about what is true and what isn’t. Again, 
probably not worth debating at the moment, and I’m not interested in doing so.

What I’m far less sure about is whether those actions actually materially 
influenced the outcome of the election. And frankly I’m also a bit mystified 
that I haven’t seen anyone from the ranks of the establishment make what seems 
to me like an obvious point: that even if Russian meddling didn’t materially 
affect the outcome, the existence of the attempted collusion itself would leave 
Trump completely, fundamentally, radically compromised. It would invalidate 
whatever electoral mandate he might otherwise have claimed (since you can’t 
claim to have been legitimately elected if you didn’t tell the people who voted 
for you that you were colluding with a foreign power to influence the outcome 
of the election when they did so).

My question is this: Does anyone know what is the best available analysis of 
the likely impacts of those efforts on the election outcome? Of course, the 
mainstream “liberal” media and “intelligentsia" take it for granted that Trump 
won because of those efforts. A fair number of people on the left snearingly 
dismiss the possibility as ridiculous. Again, it seems to me pretty well 
established that there’s a huge problem either way — both for U.S. elites who 
are not well aligned with Trump, and for the rest of us, although for different 
reasons. Although I’m fully convinced of the attempt, I’m actually somewhat 
disinclined to believe it had a decisive impact on the result, although I 
certainly don’t rule it out. But I’d like to know more.
_
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