date:20110331

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Lajany, you wrote:

 "His specious attempts at technical wonkery aside, anyone who speaks,
as DW, does
of the alleged technical "conservatism" of the Japanese regulators,.."

That was not me but an engineer who was writing about the
'conservatism' of the regulators there. I merely re-posted it because
I thought it informative. Glad "I can clear that up".

TEPCO got half-nationalized today:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/31/us-japan-tepco-idUSTRE72U7QH20110331

DW


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Energy and the Tsunami

2011-03-31 Thread Lajany Otum

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==

David W writes:

> Secondly, on the issue of 'what they knew about tsunamis'. On the
> nuclear list I'm on, contacts in the industry as just now getting
> information from their Japanese counterparts as to the issue of
> problamatic risk assemsent (PRA). Here is one informal reply we go
> this morning (this from a former GE BWR safety engineer): [NISA
> mentioned is their version of the NRC]
> 
> "I've not been personally engaged in discussions with the Japanese
> authorities, but through my work with my counterparts in Japan and
> supporting their efforts to move to more accurate modeling methods have
> insight into NISA approaches.
> 
> "In general the Japanese licensing authority has remained very conservative
> in their approach. By conservative, I mean unwilling to look at  new
> techniques or approaches to analysis. While they like more accurate modeling
> techniques, actually using them for licensing basis has proven a long hard
> acceptance process. For some analysis, they were still relying on methods
> developed in the 60's and 70's.
> 
> They have remained very deterministic in their approach and unwilling to
> consider probabilistic risk."
>
> So...while a few experts *may* have raised the question of tsunamis,
> clearly it was never a serious issue or raised to such a degree that
> even NISA decided to reject it...they never incorporated the methods
> into their assessing dangers.
>

Right, it it was never a serious issue.  Thank you for clarifying.

For the information of readers, the Japanese nuclear regulatory agency NISA is 
part of the Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry or METI, (formerly the 
Ministry of International Trade and Industry), the government department that 
is 
also responsible for promoting the Japanese trade and export in nuclear 
technology to countries such as Vietnam and the US, and whose senior 
bureaucrats 
frequently "retire" to sinecures with TEPCO, the company which owns an operates 
the Fukushima plant. This practice, a common transaction between Japanese 
industry and senior government bureaucrats and politicians, is referred to in 
Japanese as "amakudari" or "descent from heaven". 

http://jisho.org/words?jap=amakudari&eng=&dict=edict

His specious attempts at technical wonkery aside, anyone who speaks, as DW, 
does 
of the alleged technical "conservatism" of the Japanese regulators, while not 
taking into account the actual material interests and historical role of the 
Japanese bureaucracy, or its long and repeated record of collaboration with 
industry malfeasance, really doesn't have a clue what he or she is on about. 

A simple google search for the three terms METI TEPCO amakudari comes up with 
numerous articles, including the following: 

When Toru Ishida, a powerful advocate for the Japanese nuclear power industry, 
decided to leave his government post in 2010 for private industry, he didn't 
have to change his commute much at all.

Ishida, who had been director general of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and 
Industry, the agency overseeing nuclear power, was hired four months after he 
left his regulatory post by TEPCO.

In a sign of the close ties between the utility and the government agency that 
serves as its biggest patron, the now-darkened TEPCO headquarters is just a few 
blocks from METI's drab complex in the Kasumigaski neighborhood that houses 
much 
of the government bureaucracy.

The practice of former bureaucrats dropping into high-paid private sector jobs 
after retirement remains both relatively common and controversial in Japan 
where 
it is known as "amakudari," or "descent from heaven."

But the Ishida case attracted so much notice when his hiring by TEPCO became 
public earlier this year, that then METI Minister Akihiro Ohata felt compelled 
to concede it could show the need for reform.

"Something should be done to reassure public concern about this," Ohata told 
reporters in January, while arguing that Ishida had been hired by TEPCO for his 
"capacity, experience and intelligence" and nothing more.

Critics, including the lawmaker Kono, said the hire illustrates the deep-seated 
problems in a system that has made METI both nuclear power's biggest backer and 
home to the safety agency in charge of its regulation.

METI has guided Tokyo Electric's investment in nuclear power and provided an 
implicit backstop and financing. At the same time, the utility has provided 
jobs 
for some senior METI officials like Ishida and a network of sympathetic 
politicians, Kono said.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/world/9050247/special-report-fuel-storage-safety-issues-vexed-japan-plant/

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at:

Re: [Marxism] "Worse Than Chenobyl" - someone tell me that this is an over-reaction

2011-03-31 Thread Gary MacLennan

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


> Seriously? This guy is an I D I O T. You post totally unqualified fear
> mongering nonsense and you ask, Gary, is this an "over reaction"? I'll
> leave it to you to figure out.
>
> DW
>
> Well David this here, Gary, is  an old FUD who is heavily reliant on you
for the kind of informed analysis that calms him down.

But I feel another panic attack coming on to be very honest with you.  I
just hope you are right.

comradely

Gary

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Raimondo on Libya, Al Jazeera on Algeria

2011-03-31 Thread Andrew Brooks

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Raimondo:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/03/29/you-lie-mr-president/

 

Al Jazeera (from the link in Raimondo's article):

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/20113512417540287.html

 

Sorry if these have already popped up on here.

 

Andrew Brooks

 


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] new penguin edition

2011-03-31 Thread CallMe Ishmael

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


The Norton Critical Edition is still the best, I think.


> of the Communist Manifesto. Review FYI.
> http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/138097-the-communist-manifesto-by-karl-marx-and-friedrich-engels/


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] new penguin edition

2011-03-31 Thread Paula

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


of the Communist Manifesto. Review FYI.
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/138097-the-communist-manifesto-by-karl-marx-and-friedrich-engels/

Paula

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] "Friends of the imperialist attacks" (wasRe: Fidel Castro

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



lou thanx for this clear restatement of your view ..as a recent reader i needed 
this ..obviously most others here didn't 
 
 
 "Unlike in Egypt, Libya's revolutionaries have not appealed to the 
rank-and-file of the military to switch sides, nor have they sought to mobilize 
the country's workers to strike against the regime. This took social revolution 
off the table and confined the struggle between Gaddafi and the rebels to a 
purely military dimension, guaranteeing him the upper hand and setting the 
stage for the LNC's desperate plea for help from the region's most 
anti-revolutionary force: the U.S. government. This failure was no accident; 
many members of the LNC are top figures from Gaddafi's decrepit and brutal 
regime. Instead of mobilizing workers, they've issued proclamations honoring 
all contracts with foreign oil companies. "
 
a couple comments:
 
   the parallel  between libya and egypt breaks down as soon as security forces 
firing on demonstrators in tripoli  led to armed rebellion in benghazi not  
simply 
to more massive demos 
 
 the two different roads  egypt's and libya's both seem contextually sensible 
in hind sight
 
  though i might want to notice  the  empire's outcry against col Q's brutish 
response to the demos ie"them's crimes against humanity ...watch out bub" 
 seems to have chilled  col Q's tactics so far as i can see 
 
 
then again  as i recall 
the armed uprising in B preceeded the empire's dire warnings to col Q 
 
this  quite possibly indicates  a pre existing link between empire and benghazi 
rebels 
 
 if the demonstrations ala egypt had simply continued on however
the empire warnings might not have come as sharply or clearly ..ie  uncle speak 
might have sounded more   like  that fired at the yemeni  regime 
 
 on the other hand
 imagining no "overt /covert"  uncle backing  for a rebellion i think we'd 
still get an armed  rebellion
not more demos and broader mobilization efforts 
 the option you suggest  "Instead.. mobilizing workers.." suggests an 
alternative that  the rebellions leaders "correctly realized would not have led 
to much beyond  
more senseless blood shed in tripoli 
 
despite clear lower class urban support in tripoli for the upheavel  maybe an 
unwarned col Q looked ready and willing to slaughter the innocent 
in a fashion unavailible for what ever reasons to mubarak 
 
 


  

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] re What Syria has in common with Libya

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



lou this piece requires your framing b4  a new comer like me can grasp why you 
posted it
 
are you joining in this tear jerker agitprop  ???   
  

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Fidel Castro

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



 "Discussion has not happened"
 
well has it really happened  here or has there just been a lot of reflexive 
sanctimony 
 
seems all lots of critters here needed was to know col Q went neolib back there 
a few years 
 
for others more prim in their standards of acceptable state craft it was that 
nasty  massacre thing back when 
 
 if you are running a sovereign operation
and you figured next time this same  crimes against humanity game might have 
"my state" as its target 
then what ??  

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Fidel Castro

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==

Les Schaffer (schaf...@optonline.net) wrote on 2011-03-31 at 09:32:39 in  
about Re: [Marxism] Fidel Castro:
> 
> On 03/31/2011 07:31 AM, Lüko Willms wrote:
> > Discussion has not happened, since the friends of the imperial attacks
> > on  the Arab revolution like to slander seasoned revolutionary leaders
> > as Fidel  Castro, but do not take up his real arguments.
> 
> Lou:  look, this has got to stop or we should shut marxmail down.

   What is "this"? The slander thrown at seasoned revolutionary leaders like 
Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez, the slander thrown at me and other participants 
which dare to differ with the official line spread by CNN etc? Or what? 

   If you think that I should not have stated the fact that many people, even 
some participating on this list, actually do welcome the military attack by 
Imperialism on Libya, but that this would imply that you feel yourself be 
attacked, then you should say the same about other people's slander spread 
again and again on this list. E.g. the slander contained in the Subject line 
"Hugo Chavez and Israel agree on one thing at least". 

   Equal rights for everyone, or? Dictatorship of opinion, which excludes 
voicing support for independence for the country so long colonized, 
oppressed, plundered by the USA and the European colonialists? 

Cheers, 
Lüko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Millions of Syrians Rally for Syria and Bashar

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Einde O'Callaghan (eind...@freenet.de) wrote on 2011-03-31 at 14:23:53 in  
about Re: [Marxism] Millions of Syrians Rally for Syria and Bashar:

  making a good point: 

GMcL>>> I am opposed to dictators
> >
LW>> Aha, one more who is against the dictatorship of the proletariat.
> >
> Yawn! What a cheap debating point! Unworthy of you, Lüko!

  No, it was to elicit explanations as yours: 

> As you should know, what Marx (and indeed all 19th century historians, 
> politicians, theoreticians etc.) understood by the word "dictatorship" 
> is quite different from the everyday meaning it acquired during the 
> first half of the 20th century and continues to have today. 

   Exactly. Today "dictator" is a propaganda formula which is void of content, 
an ideological "Kampfbegriff", as we say in German. 

   Just like -- you know it yourself -- as the German bourgeois 
propagandists insist on calling the GDR an "Unrechtsstaat". 

   I wanted somebody else stumping McLellans nose on the fact that he is 
operating completely within the framework of  bourgeois ideology. 


Yours, 
Lüko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany



Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] "Friends of the imperialist attacks" (wasRe: Fidel Castro

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Lou Paulsen (loupaul...@sbcglobal.net) wrote on 2011-03-31 at 09:08:34 in  
about [Marxism] "Friends of the imperialist attacks" (wasRe: Fidel Castro:
> 
> Lueko, I think you're mistaken. I don't see any supporters of imperialist 
intervention here. At any rate Proyect is not one. I would suggest that you 
not call anyone else a "friend of imperialism", just as I would urge others not 
to call people "friends of massacring people in cold blood."
> 
  
   OK, let both sides return to a debate which does not spread denigratory 
remarks about others. 

  OK? But that should be valid for _all._ 


Cheers, 
Lüko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany



Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Fidel Castro

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



"we are dealing with the lingering effects of Stalinism on the left .it is 
okay to support dictatorship as long as it is the dictatorship of the 
proletariat
I plan to blog about ...these warmed-over Stalinist notions...when i get a 
chance " 



pardon the rescramble but  i found it all so delightfully silly 
 lets have a tea party and play church lady  trot 
 
who is  more humane and righteous and refined in their enlightenment ... then 
thou comrade stalinoid brute

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Libya

2011-03-31 Thread Dan

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


>From a military standpoint, what is worrying for the Rebels is the fact
that after each engagement, the number of Rebel casualties appears to be
over ten times that of Pro-Gaddafi fighters.

During the first battle for Bin Jawad (March 5th), the Rebels seem to
have lost 60 fighters against less than six for Pro-Gaddaffi forces.

All clashes since MArch 5th seem to have seen the same casualty ratio. 

During the battle for Ajbidya (MArch 16th), 275 Rebels died as opposed
to 30 members of Pro-Gaddafi forces

NATO air-strikes suddenly reversed the situation by destroying 30+
pro-Gaddafi tanks and killing "several dozen" (70-170 ?) Pro-Gaddaffi
soldiers. This triggered a mass withdrawl of pro-Gadaffi forces and a
corresponding advance of the Rebels. Which have since been checked and
rolled-back.




Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Hugo Chavez and Israel agree on one thing atleast,

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



lou :
"Just as the citizenry have a right to peacefully protest, vote, circulate 
petitions"
no that is a civil right not a rate of state 
and your attempt at fixing a parallel only gets worse:
"By your logic, Hitler had the right to put Marxists in concentration camps. "


that is of course  completely unrelated to internationally accepted rules of 
state armed  engagement with an armed rebellion 
but to answer you  on its own merits :
 
hitler's "right "as chancellor  to confine political opponents of the state  in 
 zek type  camps ie not death camps 
was about on a par with fdr's" right " to put ethnic opponents in camps about 
ten years later  
ie no basis for armed intervention 
 
in general you seem to dissolve here into a 18th century humanitarian universal 
rights type no different from a liberal 
that you draw a line between naughty motives for humane interventions and non 
naughty motives strikes me as too careful a distinction for mass consumption 
 
i doubt you'd use that in public  i suspect you'd stick with "hands off uncle " 
but none the less i detect a certain righteousness that frankly
is profoundly miss placed in matters of state craft and indeed hugop and fidel 
must deal on this level ...no ??
if an appeal to  a stand still and ce3ase fire has failed   in the past i 
suspect its because col Q gambled he could polish off this rebellion b4 the 
empire could intervene effectively 
 
he lost that bet 
 
but any observer that has decided col Q is not playing this as if he knew  
crimes against humanity were pending i syubmit is likely to be proven  a dupe
of the MSM media blitz 
col Q may well be capable of just about anything in the criminal act department
but in this interval since he was "warned" the whole world was watching " my 
guess he has played it by a set of rough and ready "rules of the game"
which is not to say he expected the empire to respect that fact 
  but he had nothing to lose given the feeble nature of this armed 
rebellion 
 
what might have been of deeper interest now is moot 
that is not an obvious empire move like we got but  say an egyptian 
intervention at least as a threat and resulting at least in a massive build up 
of troops at the border 
 with or without arab league sanction
 
it strikes me as the sort of posturing the egyptian military could benefit from 
internally

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Libya


==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 3/31/2011 2:43 PM, Dan wrote:

The rebels have tried to send an advanced-column 20 kms forward of the
main column so as to draw enemy fire and thus pinpoint the location of
Pro-Gadaffi artillery so as to counter-attack on one of the flanks in
direction of the artillery. This strategy has failed abysmally, due to a
lack of coordination within the Rebel ranks. Their best chance is now to
dig into defensive positions, far easier to defend than advancing in the
open, and wait for Gadaffi's forces.


One thing I picked up on in Jeremy Scahill's debate with Ed 
Schultz is the sheer paucity of numbers involved on the rebel 
side. He said that they have a thousand fighters and I remember 
earlier reporting (not sure from who) that Qaddafi's problem was 
that he could only muster 1500 troops. I am not sure of the 
political implications of all this but these numbers added 
together are dwarfed by the NYC police department.



Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Libya

2011-03-31 Thread Dan

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


The stretch of land between Bin Jawad and Brega is of course the most
important part of the country in terms of oil revenue.

NATO would like it to be in Rebel hands, Gadaffi would like it to be in
his hands.

Rebels seem incapable of holding on to it, but NATO has shown that it
will not allow the Rebels to be defeated militarily.

Until on side can decisively hold on to that stretch of ground, the
ultimate balance of power in the civil war is uncertain.

Gadaffi's forces can't really push much further East than Brega without
coming under NATO fire. The Rebels can't push West of Bin Jawad without
meeting intense artillery fire.

Both sides will be considering inflitration techniques, trying to get
their forces close to the ennemy and surround them. However, prolonged
desert operations, aimed at enveloping the adversary, seem to be beyond
the operational capacities of both the pro- and anti-Gadaffi forces.

Whe it comes to manoevering, the Rebels are clearly at a disadvantage.
Pro6gaddafi forces are consistently able to outflank their oppoenents
and the rebels lack cohesiveness. In each confrontation so far,
Pro-Gadaffi forces appear to be able to launch combines attacks along
the sea-side and along the desert-side and threaten to encircle the
Rebels in a pincer movement. This pincer movement tactic seems to have
succeeded in all armed clashes so far.

The rebels have tried to send an advanced-column 20 kms forward of the
main column so as to draw enemy fire and thus pinpoint the location of
Pro-Gadaffi artillery so as to counter-attack on one of the flanks in
direction of the artillery. This strategy has failed abysmally, due to a
lack of coordination within the Rebel ranks. Their best chance is now to
dig into defensive positions, far easier to defend than advancing in the
open, and wait for Gadaffi's forces. 




Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Jeremy Scahill takes Ed Schultz apart on Libya intervention


==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXDZ2AogetA&feature=player_embedded#at=14



Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] On the "Raymond Davis" affair and the perils of a strategic partnership with the U.S.

2011-03-31 Thread newsletter

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


[An Analytical Monthly Review editorial, published at Sanhati.]

March 22, 2011

The early months of 2011 will surely be remembered for the spectacular
mass uprisings in the Arab world. And yet, all the while that the worlds
attention has been captured by these events, a much less talked about and
yet highly significant story has been unfolding in Pakistan. This
editorial from the Analytical Monthly Review outlines in detail the
Raymond Davis Affair. The story of a CIA operative who shot and killed
two young men in broad daylight on a busy Lahore street. His escape
vehicle, in a bid to spirit him away ran over another man, a street
trader, and killed him too. James Bond anyone? This article outlines the
lies and deception of the US establishment as it tried to do damage
control by claiming that Davis was a diplomat and hence had immunity
from prosecution by Pakistani courts.

Since this article was written Davis release has been secured by offering
blood money to the families of his victims. It has also emerged that
Davis was working with Tehrik-e-Taliban in Pakistan. A recent article in
Counterpunch gives more details on the story unfolding since after the
piece below was written.

The world of CIA, ISI, RAW and international diplomacy is usually
impenetrable, mysterious. However the recent Wikileaks revelations have
given the ordinary citizen a rare glimpse into this world. Leaked cables
clearly indicate the servility of Indian politicians as well as
bureaucrats to US interests. This article is a pointer to the dangers of
such servile behaviour. - Ed.

The United StatesIndian strategic partnership is an ongoing background
fact of our lives. For a moment in 2007 national attention was focused on
the growth of this far-from-equal military relationship, with the presence
of a U.S. fleet in the Bay of Bengal making use of Indian bases in the
so-called Malabar exercises. The left parliamentary parties gathered
effective demonstrations against the presence of U.S. warships and, with
the concurrent opposition to the unequal U.S. nuclear treaty, achieved a
high-water mark in recent anti-imperialist mobilisations.

In the years since, joint U.S.-Indian military and security operations
have continued and indeed increased, but the regime has used its resources
to keep such events out of the news, and the diminished energies of the
parliamentary left have been focused elsewhere. In the coming weeks naval
exercises with the U.S. fleet will take place far from our shores, buta
deliberate provocationin the East China Sea and together with the
Japanese fleet. A further shame to the Indian fleet is that this
participation shall be based on Okinawa, dominated by vast U.S. bases that
the brave natives of that island have valiantly sought to be rid of for
fifty years. The Obama administration has, in this regard, as in all
others, been a continuation rather than a change. In October 2009
Exercise Yudh Abhyas 2009 brought to India many hundreds of U.S. troops,
and was primarily focused around Counter Insurgency/Counter Terrorism
strategies in a semi-urban scenario, according to The Hindu [1]. The 2010
Obama visit was marked by new arms deals, and secret talks on further U.S.
assistance to India in capacity building to strengthen physical
security and megacity policing.

It has always been understood that this strategic partnership is
directed against China, and from the viewpoint of world peace that is bad
enough, but it is the vast increase in U.S. intervention in purely
internal security matters (counter insurgency or megacity policing)
that should be a primary concern.

Of course the United States has a parallel strategic relationship with
Pakistan, and exactly how that impacts the U.S.-India strategic
partnership is a delicate matter largely left unexamined by our
mainstream press. We have no desire to speculate about the ploys and
secrets of RAW, ISI and CIA , and can claim no expertise in finding our
way in that world of night and fog. Yet the sudden unplanned eruption of
the Raymond Davis affaire in Lahore has, we believe, significant
implications for our sovereignty and independence in the context of a
strategic partnership with the United States.

On January 27, 2011 a U.S. national, who later identified himself as
Raymond Davis, driving in a crowded district of Lahore had an encounter
with two youths on a motorbike. From inside his car he shot and killed the
passenger, 19 year-old Muhammad Faheem. The driver of the motorbike, 22
year-old Faizan Haider, attempted to run away. The U.S. national got out
of his car and pursued Faizan Haider. A postmortem showed that Faizan had
been shot twice in the back. Witnesses report that Davis calmly took
photographs of the

Re: [Marxism] "sycophants" against Libya

2011-03-31 Thread Andrew Pollack

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==

Well as a matter of fact Omowale, the author of the quoted piece in
praise of Qaddafi (NOT one sentence, the whole thing), was at our
UNAC-NYC meeting last night to announce the demo. And he once again
praised Qaddafi, and mentioned the coming together of a number of left
groups which still look to him as an ally.
I sat silently, and clapped politely at the end.
I'm glad he came. I'm even gladder that he and other crucial community
leaders got anti-intervention quotes in the Amsterdam News for their
earlier demo.
But a forum like this, for self-proclaimed Marxists, is exactly the
place to raise political differences like this, and not in a coalition
where there's no advantage to arguing over them.
And since Lou signs himself as a WWP member I should add for the
record that working with the WWP comrades in UNAC here has been
fantastic, they are incredibly hard-working and sensible about
coalition building.
Andy

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Lou Paulsen  wrote:
> This is the kind of thing I don't understand. Andrew takes a "hands off 
> Libya" position in his article in International Viewpoint. He is building for 
> the April antiwar mobilizations and intends to raise Libya slogans at them. 
> Presumably he wants people other than his own organization to come to them. 
> Presumably he would like the oppressed communities to be represented there.
>
> So along comes December 12, a group based in the Black community in Brooklyn, 
> which is organizing for a demonstration against the intervention which Andrew 
> opposes. Is he happy about this? Does he see this as a good thing? Does he 
> see himself as being in a bloc with December 12? Not so you could notice it! 
> He seizes upon a sentence in their statement which is favorable to Gadhafi's 
> past support of the ANC and other organizations and just condemns them as 
> "sycophants". The statement actually quotes Mandela who is apparently also a 
> "sycophant". What kind of movement-building is this? How will this go over at 
> the coalition meeting? What is the danger that is so extreme that he feels 
> the need to issue this public anathematization in this setting?
>
> As for d'Escoto, it's unfathomable what the heck Andrew even means. He isn't 
> quoted in the NYT article on the subject of Gadhafi AT ALL. Or does it make 
> him a "sycophant" that he is willing to represent the existing government of 
> Libya at the UN at all? Doesn't Libya deserve an anti-NATO voice before this 
> hanging tribunal? (Not that the US intends to let Gadhafi have the attorney 
> of his choice, apparently - see the link. ) Who is supposed to speak for 
> Libya there? Andrew himself?
>
> Lou Paulsen
> Member, WWP
> 
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 
> http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/acpollack2%40gmail.com
>

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] NATO Warns Rebels Against Attacking Libyan Civilians


==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 3/31/2011 2:18 PM, Bonnie Weinstein wrote:


NATO Warns Rebels Against Attacking Libyan Civilians
By THOM SHANKER and CHARLIE SAVAGE
March 31, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/world/africa/01civilians.html?hp

WASHINGTON — Members of the NATO alliance have sternly warned the
rebels in Libya not to attack civilians as they push against the
regime of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, according to senior military
and government officials.

As NATO takes over control of airstrikes in Libya and the Obama
administration considers new steps to tip the balance of power
there, the coalition has told the rebels that the fog of war will
not shield them from possible bombardment by NATO planes and
missiles, just as the regime’s forces have been punished.




Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

Concluding lines of "Dover Beach" by Matthew Arnold


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] "sycophants" against[sic, should be for] Libya

2011-03-31 Thread Lou Paulsen

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Sorry, I botched the title of that last post because it ran off the iPhone 
screen. It's not some opaque reference.

Also the autocorrect on here has odd results sometimes. I hit a U instead of an 
I and it tried to turn "Libya" into "Lubyanka"! I bet some people would have 
laughed at THAT.

Lou Pa.

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Robert Reich: we are headed for a double-dip


==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


http://robertreich.org/post/4218613020

The Truth About the Economy that Nobody In Washington Or On Wall 
Street Will Admit: We’re Heading Back Toward a Double Dip


Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Why aren’t Americans being told the truth about the economy? We’re 
heading in the direction of a double dip – but you’d never know it 
if you listened to the upbeat messages coming out of Wall Street 
and Washington.


Consumers are 70 percent of the American economy, and consumer 
confidence is plummeting. It’s weaker today on average than at the 
lowest point of the Great Recession.


The Reuters/University of Michigan survey shows a 10 point decline 
in March – the tenth largest drop on record. Part of that drop is 
attributable to rising fuel and food prices. A separate Conference 
Board’s index of consumer confidence, just released, shows 
consumer confidence at a five-month low — and a large part is due 
to expectations of fewer jobs and lower wages in the months ahead.


Pessimistic consumers buy less. And fewer sales spells economic 
trouble ahead.


What about the 192,000 jobs added in February? (We’ll know more 
Friday about how many jobs were added in March.) It’s peanuts 
compared to what’s needed. Remember, 125,000 new jobs are 
necessary just to keep up with a growing number of Americans 
eligible for employment. And the nation has lost so many jobs over 
the last three years that even at a rate of 200,000 a month we 
wouldn’t get back to 6 percent unemployment until 2016.


But isn’t the economy growing again – by an estimated 2.5 to 2.9 
percent this year? Yes, but that’s even less than peanuts. The 
deeper the economic hole, the faster the growth needed to get back 
on track. By this point in the so-called recovery we’d expect 
growth of 4 to 6 percent.


Consider that back in 1934, when it was emerging from the deepest 
hole of the Great Depression, the economy grew 7.7 percent. The 
next year it grew over 8 percent. In 1936 it grew a whopping 14.1 
percent.


Add two other ominous signs: Real hourly wages continue to fall, 
and housing prices continue to drop. Hourly wages are falling 
because with unemployment so high, most people have no bargaining 
power and will take whatever they can get. Housing is dropping 
because of the ever-larger number of homes people have walked away 
from because they can’t pay their mortgages. But because homes the 
biggest asset most Americans own, as home prices drop most 
Americans feel even poorer.


There’s no possibility government will make up for the coming 
shortfall in consumer spending. To the contrary, government is 
worsening the situation. State and local governments are slashing 
their budgets by roughly $110 billion this year. The federal 
stimulus is ending, and the federal government will end up cutting 
some $30 billion from this year’s budget.


In other words: Watch out. We may avoid a double dip but the 
economy is slowing ominously, and the booster rockets are 
disappearing.


So why aren’t we getting the truth about the economy? For one 
thing, Wall Street is buoyant – and most financial news you hear 
comes from the Street. Wall Street profits soared to $426.5 
billion last quarter, according to the Commerce Department. (That 
gain more than offset a drop in the profits of non-financial 
domestic companies.) Anyone who believes the Dodd-Frank financial 
reform bill put a stop to the Street’s creativity hasn’t been 
watching.


To the extent non-financial companies are doing well, they’re 
making most of their money abroad. Since 1992, for example, G.E.’s 
offshore profits have risen $92 billion, from $15 billion (which 
is one reason it pays no U.S. taxes). In fact, the only group 
that’s optimistic about the future are CEOs of big American 
companies. The Business Roundtable’s economic outlook index, which 
surveys 142 CEOs, is now at its highest point since it began in 2002.


Washington, meanwhile, doesn’t want to sound the economic alarm. 
The White House and most Democrats want Americans to believe the 
economy is on an upswing.


Republicans, for their part, worry that if they tell it like it is 
Americans will want government to do more rather than less. They’d 
rather not talk about jobs and wages, and put the focus instead on 
deficit reduction (or spread the lie that by reducing the deficit 
we’ll get more jobs and higher wages).


I’m sorry to have to deliver the bad news, but it’s better you know.


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] NATO Warns Rebels Against Attacking Libyan Civilians

2011-03-31 Thread Bonnie Weinstein


==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


NATO Warns Rebels Against Attacking Libyan Civilians
By THOM SHANKER and CHARLIE SAVAGE
March 31, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/world/africa/01civilians.html?hp

WASHINGTON — Members of the NATO alliance have sternly warned the  
rebels in Libya not to attack civilians as they push against the  
regime of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, according to senior military and  
government officials.


As NATO takes over control of airstrikes in Libya and the Obama  
administration considers new steps to tip the balance of power there,  
the coalition has told the rebels that the fog of war will not shield  
them from possible bombardment by NATO planes and missiles, just as  
the regime’s forces have been punished.


“We’ve been conveying a message to the rebels that we will be  
compelled to defend civilians, whether pro-Qaddafi or pro- 
opposition,” said a senior Obama administration official. “We are  
working very hard behind the scenes with the rebels so we don’t  
confront a situation where we face a decision to strike the rebels to  
defend civilians.”


The warnings, and intense consultations within the NATO-led coalition  
over its rules for attacking anyone who endangers innocent civilians,  
come at a time when the civil war in Libya is becoming ever more  
chaotic, and the battle lines ever less distinct. They raise a  
fundamental question that the military is now grappling with: Who in  
Libya is a civilian?


In the early days of the campaign, the civilian population needing  
protection was hunkered down in cities like Benghazi, behind a thin  
line of rebel defenders who were easily distinguishable from the  
attacking government forces.


That is no longer always the case. Armed rebels — some in organized  
militias, as are other young men who have picked up rifles to fight  
them — have moved out of Benghazi in an effort to take control of  
other population centers along the way, they hope, to seizing Tripoli.


Meanwhile, fresh intelligence this week showed that Libyan government  
forces were supplying assault rifles to civilians in the town of  
Surt, which is populated largely by Qaddafi loyalists. These civilian  
Qaddafi sympathizers were seenchasing rebel forces in nonmilitary  
vehicles like sedans and trucks, accompanied by Libyan troops,  
according to American military officers.


The increasing murkiness of the battlefield, as the freewheeling  
rebels advance and retreat and as fighters from both sides mingle  
among civilians, has prompted NATO members to issue new “rules of  
engagement” spelling out when the coalition may attack units on the  
ground in the name of protecting civilians.


It was unclear how the rules are changing — especially on the  
critical questions surrounding NATO’s mandate and whether it extends  
to protecting rebels who are no longer simply defending civilian  
populated areas like Benghazi, but are instead are themselves on the  
offensive.


“This is a challenge,” said a senior alliance military officer. “The  
problem of discriminating between combatant and civilian is never  
easy, and it is compounded when you have Libyan regime forces  
fighting irregular forces, like the rebel militias, in urban areas  
populated by civilians.”


Oana Lungescu, the senior NATO spokeswoman, emphasized that NATO was  
taking action because Qaddafi’s forces were attacking Libyan  
civilians, including shelling cities with artillery. She said that if  
the rebels do likewise, the organization will move to stop them, too,  
because the United Nations Security Council resolution “applies to  
both sides.”


“Our goal, as mandated by the U.N., is to protect civilians against  
attacks or threats of attack, so those who target civilians will also  
be targets for our forces, because that resolution will be applied  
across the board,” she said.


But it is no simple matter to follow that logic.

“Qaddafi is trying to take advantage of this mixing of combatants and  
noncombatants to deter NATO from striking,” said one Obama  
administration official who was briefed on the intelligence reports.


Even though rebel forces were in retreat on Wednesday, the civil war  
has seen repeated advances and retreats by both sides, and that is  
expected to continue. The highest concern is not how to deal with  
fighters who are loyal to the regime, but how NATO would respond to  
rebels firing on a town of Qaddafi sympathizers, like Surt.


Calls by some NATO members to provide heavier weapons to the rebels  
suggest that these worries will only intensify.


The deliberations about where to draw the line, going on at the  
highest levels of allied nations and among senior officials across  
the Obama administration, show how an intervention to stop a  
potential massa

[Marxism] "sycophants" against Libya

2011-03-31 Thread Lou Paulsen

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==

On Mar 31, 2011, at 11:52 AM, Andrew Pollack  wrote:

> =
> 
> 1. Miguel d'Escoto goes to bat at the UN for Qaddafi:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31nations.html
> 
> 2. Ultraleft nationalists hail the Great Proletarian Internationalist
> Leader Qaddafi; 

This is the kind of thing I don't understand. Andrew takes a "hands off Libya" 
position in his article in International Viewpoint. He is building for the 
April antiwar mobilizations and intends to raise Libya slogans at them. 
Presumably he wants people other than his own organization to come to them. 
Presumably he would like the oppressed communities to be represented there.

So along comes December 12, a group based in the Black community in Brooklyn, 
which is organizing for a demonstration against the intervention which Andrew 
opposes. Is he happy about this? Does he see this as a good thing? Does he see 
himself as being in a bloc with December 12? Not so you could notice it! He 
seizes upon a sentence in their statement which is favorable to Gadhafi's past 
support of the ANC and other organizations and just condemns them as 
"sycophants". The statement actually quotes Mandela who is apparently also a 
"sycophant". What kind of movement-building is this? How will this go over at 
the coalition meeting? What is the danger that is so extreme that he feels the 
need to issue this public anathematization in this setting?

As for d'Escoto, it's unfathomable what the heck Andrew even means. He isn't 
quoted in the NYT article on the subject of Gadhafi AT ALL. Or does it make him 
a "sycophant" that he is willing to represent the existing government of Libya 
at the UN at all? Doesn't Libya deserve an anti-NATO voice before this hanging 
tribunal? (Not that the US intends to let Gadhafi have the attorney of his 
choice, apparently - see the link. ) Who is supposed to speak for Libya there? 
Andrew himself?

Lou Paulsen
Member, WWP

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Black bloc makes its case


==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 3/31/2011 1:11 PM, MARGARET WYLES wrote:

Charlie Veitch.don't snitch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nroZMHBlui4


Here's something that is far more useful:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E946rBhH6GM&feature=related


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] sycophants for Qaddafi


==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 3/31/2011 12:52 PM, Andrew Pollack wrote:


1. Miguel d'Escoto goes to bat at the UN for Qaddafi:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31nations.html



This was an eye-opener:

"The unlikely alliance between Libya and Nicaragua can be traced
in part to a kinship between Mr. Ortega and Colonel Qaddafi, 
diplomats said. Mr. Ortega has said that he sought the Libyan 
leader’s help in financing his presidential campaigns."


That isn't the only help that Daniel Ortega needs.


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Black bloc makes its case

2011-03-31 Thread MARGARET WYLES

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Louis Proyect  wrote:

> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ==
>
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/31/black-bloc-anti-cuts-protest
>
> 
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
> Set your options at:
> http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/kaliyuga%40wildblue.net
>

Charlie Veitch.don't snitch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nroZMHBlui4

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] FWD: Algeria

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


So...what does this have to do with Algeria? It seems all about Syria.


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] "Worse Than Chenobyl" - someone tell me that this is an over-reaction,

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Dennis, it's not about what I like or don't (I don't like RMBK
reactors, the ones in military craft, CANDU reactors that is, the
whole fleet in Canada and I think the *entire* worlds fleet of atomic
reactors be phased out and replaced with newer, safer, models) but if
you post this sort of stuff, you might as well post equally silly
stuff from Larouche to 'balance' it out. I'm asking people to
seriously look at what is *actually* going on there and not with posts
with the "I think what is going on..." because that is a poor method,
at least from people who clearly are simply blurting out their fear,
finding links from non-technical sources to back their fear up. There
is plenty, or some, sophisticated stuff out there that raises serious
concerns and dangers based on *reality* and not fantasy. You should
know better. Les has done this, so have others.

David


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] sycophants for Qaddafi

2011-03-31 Thread Andrew Pollack

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


1. Miguel d'Escoto goes to bat at the UN for Qaddafi:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31nations.html

2. Ultraleft nationalists hail the Great Proletarian Internationalist
Leader Qaddafi; see their statement below. Note the list of African
and other liberation groups whom Qaddafi supposedly supported. But
then so did the Soviet Union and China.
And where did it get any of them?

Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:56:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: ama...@aol.com
Subject: RALLY FOR ARICA! U.S. HANDS OFF LIBYA - FRIDAY

PRESS ADIVISORY
For Immediate Release
Contact:  (917) 495-6979

When Africa Called, Libya Answered
by Omowale Clay, for the December 12th Movement International Secretariat

Today, under the banner of "Col. Qaddafi is killing his own people"
the U.S. and European armed forces are bombing   another developing
country - Libya. Once again the Western "Fourth Estate", the well
organized and financed corporate media is telling a one sided story
redundantly. So, today, many people who had little independent
knowledge about Libya are now experts, trained and licensed by the
New York Times, Daily News, NBC, etc. Even many who had supported
Libya are now vacillating under the influence of the media blitz and
America's first Black President.

However, in evaluating what weight to give President Obama's position
on Libya, one should remember it was just eight years ago that
another brilliant Black man, representing the highest levels of the
United States Government and having garnered international respect
and credibility, set before the world community and definitively told
them what he had come to know was a lie - Saddam Hussein had ?Weapons
of Mass Destruction." It was February, 2003, and the man was then
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell reporting to the United Nations.
This is what Secretary Powell later revealed about his U.N.
testimony, which history has well established was the decisive factor
in getting U.N. approval to invade Iraq.

In speaking to the The British Guardian newspaper regarding his U.N.
report, Sec'y Powell called on the CIA and Pentagon to explain how he
was given unreliable information which proved key to the US case for
invading Iraq. The Guardian reported that Powell's landmark speech to
the United Nations on February 5, 2003, cited intelligence about Iraq
leader Saddam Hussein's bio-weapons program gained from a defector,
codenamed Curveball. But the defector, real name Rafid Ahmed Alwan
al-Janabi, admitted in an interview with The Guardian he lied to topple Saddam.

Speaking to the same newspaper, Powell said: "It has been known for
several years that the source called Curveball was totally
unreliable", and he went on to say, "The question should be put to
the CIA and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) as to why this
wasn't known before the false information was put into the (report)
sent to Congress, the president's state of the union address and my 5
February presentation to the UN."
This is a critical time for the Libyan people and I think it
important to frame the country and its leadership in the words of
South Africa's first Black President and Freedom Fighter, Nelson
Mandela, who called Muammar Qaddafi "one of this century's greatest
freedom fighters, and insisted that the eventual collapse of the
apartheid system owed much to Qaddafi and Libyan support. Mandela
said that in the darkest moments of their struggle, when their backs
were to the wall, it was Muammar Qaddafi who stood with them.

One must remember that as Col. Qaddafi is demonized by the West, it
was his vision and resources that brought together revolutionaries
and freedom fighters from every corner of the globe to share ideas
and develop their revolutionary knowledge. Many liberation groups
throughout the world received education, training and support from
Muammar Qaddafi and the Libyan revolution including  ANC, AZAPO, PAC
and BCM of Azania (South Africa), SWAPO of Namibia, MPLA of Angola,
The Sandinistas of Nicaragua, The Polisario of the Sahara, the PLO,
The Native American Movements throughout  the Americas and the Nation
of Islam led by Louis Farrakhan to name but a few.

The situation in Libya right now is complex but there are five
important perspectives to understood:

1. There is no reliable or accurate count as to the number of
people, inclusive of so-called opposition rebels from Benghazi.,
Government troops or civilians that have been killed or wounded in
Libya. The press is reporting what ever is told to them by the
"so-called rebels" without independent verification. While very
little news from the government of Libya is allowed to come through.
Two things are clear, however. First, there is a very fluid
definition of who is a "civilian" in Libya today. The Western press
is

Re: [Marxism] "Worse Than Chenobyl" - someone tell me that this is an over-reaction

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:31 PM, DW  wrote:

> 
>
>
> OK, it's an over reaction. The warning signs should be: "A nuclear
> meltdown is a self-sustaining reaction." About half way down.
>
>
> Seriously? This guy is an I D I O T. You post totally unqualified fear
> mongering nonsense and you ask, Gary, is this an "over reaction"? I'll
> leave it to you to figure out.
>
>


> I was hoping for an explanation from someone other than a comrade who has
> never met a nuclear power plant he didn't like.
>

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Trailer for a New Film, "Marx Reloaded"

2011-03-31 Thread Jay Moore


==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


http://www.marxreloaded.com/


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] FWD: Algeria

2011-03-31 Thread Marla Vijaya kumar

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Dear Comrades,
Here is a piece forwarded by my friend, purported to have been sent by Com. 
Ashok Rao, a prominent Indian Leftist intellectual.
I neither endorse nor deny it. I am only wondering about the authenticity of 
this report.
You can debate it if interested.
Vijaya Kumar Marla


“I am giving below a plan drwan up to destabilise Syria. It is actually being 
implemented these days. Please read it with the potential of a similar 
excercise 
being carried out for India sooner or later.”
Ashok Rao


The plan, which was first broadcast on the Iranian Arabic-language television 
station Al-Alam, was formulated in 2008 by the Saudi national security advisor, 
Prince Bandar bin Sultan and Jeffrey Feltman, a veteran U.S. diplomat in the 
Middle East who was formerly ambassador to Lebanon and is currently the 
assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs. 


The plan as reported divides Syria into large cities, towns and villages. It 
proposes establishing five recruitment networks: The "fuel" made up of educated 
and unemployed youths; the "thugs" comprised of criminals, "preferably 
non-Syrians"; the "ethnic-sectarian" network of young people from ethnic groups 
who are no older than 22; the "media" network, which will be joined by 
journalists or activists in civil organizations funded by European countries 
but 
not by the United States; and a "capital" network of businesspeople from the 
large cities. 


Each network would be provided with slogans suited to the type of its activity 
and will go through training aimed at preparing them for street actions and 
violence. 


Thus, for example, the thugs would be trained in sniper fire, arson and 
"murdering in cold blood." The members of the ethnic network would act to 
advance interests of their communities, show proof of ethnic discrimination and 
incite against the regime. 


The journalists would operate the network by means of satellite telephones that 
can't be monitored, would be depicted as human rights activists who are 
demanding not the regime's fall, but civil society in Syria and they will 
receive additional training in operating social networks as a means for 
recruitment. 


As for the businesspeople, the plan reportedly proposes "Holding luxurious 
parties to be attended by businessmen and during which exclusively Arab Gulf 
deals and investments are to be made and threatening them with certain sexual 
relations that are filmed for later blackmailing them." 


After the recruitment and training phases, which would be funded by Saudi 
Arabia 
for about $2 billion, they would be given suitable communications equipment and 
when about 5,000 activists had been recruited in the large cities, 1,500 in the 
towns and 500 in the villages, they would begin to act in public. 


The plan also offers answers to revolt-refusers. For example, "If someone says 
there is a change, the response must be: 'There is no change at all. This is 
all 
a lie.' If he says change is coming, then the response must be: 'We have heard 
this for more than 40 years.'" 


Activists would have to come to central places to create a suitable backdrop 
for 
TV and cell phone cameras. 


The "shouters" would have to prepare for two situations. If the security forces 
start dispersing the assembled demonstrators, their helpers who have hidden in 
the surroundings must gather quickly and tell the security forces to leave them 
alone, and if the security forces do not show up then the helpers must create a 
provocations as though it is they who are dispersing the demonstrators. 


If the security forces start beating up the shouters or any of their 
supporters, 
it would have to be filmed for full exploitation. 


It is necessary to prevent any attempt by the regime to reach a compromise by 
burning the Ba'ath Party offices and damaging symbols of the regime like 
smashing statues and destroying pictures of Hafez and Bashar Assad. 


The plan also suggests igniting ethnic tensions between groups around the 
country to stir unrest.

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] "Worse Than Chenobyl" - someone tell me that this is an over-reaction

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


OK, it's an over reaction. The warning signs should be: "A nuclear
meltdown is a self-sustaining reaction." About half way down.

It is not that. We already now what happens with a melt down because
of TMI which melted about half the core of that reactor: it poured
into a glob spreading out on the floor of the containment vessel,
penetrated abut 5/8" inch into that floor and cooled. The unit is not
'cricial' during the meltdown. More...

"If reactor 3 is in meltdown, the concrete under the containment looks like
lava."

Really? How does he know that? What is his source?

"Pouring concrete  on a critical reactor
makes no sense – it will simply explode and release more radioactive
particulate matter."

What does this even mean? "On the reactor..."?? On top of it? To seal
it in? The only proposal around this was with the spent fuel pond on
Unit 4 and that was quickly dropped as unnecessary.

On nuclear reactions:

"Nothing can stop it except stopping the reaction. And that would
require a nuclear weapon."

Seriously? This guy is an I D I O T. You post totally unqualified fear
mongering nonsense and you ask, Gary, is this an "over reaction"? I'll
leave it to you to figure out.

DW


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] "Worse Than Chenobyl" - someone tell me that this is an over-reaction

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


*Worse Than Chenobyl.*
*When the **Fukushima** Meltdown Hits Groundwater*

*By Dr. Tom Burnett

**March 29, 2011** "**Hawai'i
News*
*-" -- **March 27, 2011** --  **Fukushima* is going to dwarf
Chenobyl. The
Japanese government has had a level 7 nuclear disaster going for almost a
week but won’t admit it.

The disaster is occurring the opposite way than Chernobyl, which exploded
and stopped the reaction. At Fukushima, the reactions are getting worse. I
suspect three nuclear piles are in
meltdownand
we will probably get some of it.

If reactor 3 is in meltdown,  the concrete under the containment looks like
lava. But Fukushima is not far off the water table. When that molten mass of
self-sustaining nuclear material gets to the water table it won’t simply
cool down. It will explode  – not a nuclear
explosion, but probably enough to involve the rest of the reactors and fuel
rods at the facility.

Pouring concrete  on a critical reactor
makes no sense – it will simply explode and release more radioactive
particulate matter. The concrete will melt and the problem will get worse.
Chernobyl was different – a critical reactor exploded and stopped the
reaction. At Fukushima, the reactor cores are still melting down. The ONLY
way to stop that is to detonate a ~10 kiloton fission device inside each
reactor containment vessel and hope to vaporize the cores. That’s probably a
bad solution.

A nuclear meltdown is a self-sustaining reaction. Nothing can stop it except
stopping the reaction. And that would require a nuclear weapon. In fact, it
would require one in each containment vessel to merely stop what is going on
now. But it will be messy.

Fukushima was waiting to happen because of the placement of the emergency
generators. If they had not all failed at once by being inundated by a
tsunami, Fukushima would not have happened as it did – although it WOULD
still have been a nuclear disaster. Every containment in the world is built
to withstand a Magnitude 6.9 earthquake; the Japanese chose to ignore the
factthat
a
similar 
earthquakehad
hit that same general area in 1896.

Anyway, 
hereis
the information that the US doesn’t seem to want released. And
here  is a chart that might help with
perspective.

Making matters worse is the MOX in reactor 3. MOX is the street name for ‘mixed
oxide fuel‘
which uses ~9% plutonium along with a uranium compound to fuel reactors.
This is why it can be
used
.

The problem is that you don’t want to play with this stuff. A nuclear
reactor means bring fissile material to a point at which it is hot enough to
boil water (in a light-water reactor) and not enough to melt and go
supercritical (China syndrome or a Chernobyl incident). You simply cannot
let it get away from you because if it does, you can’t stop it.

The Japanese are still talking about days or weeks to clean this up. That’s
not true. They cannot clean it up. And no one will live in that area again
for dozens or maybe hundreds of years.

*http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27788.htm*

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] After unscripted Arab drama, the west sneaks back on set


==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 3/31/2011 11:47 AM, Dennis Brasky wrote:

Then we need MORE "religious reformists"!!


I think comrade anon was referring to her father, as if that 
compromises her.


My father was a Rosicrucian member of the John Birch Society but I 
turned out okay, at least in some peoples' eyes.



Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] After unscripted Arab drama, the west sneaks back on set

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Anon Anon  wrote:

> 
>
>
> FWIW, the author of this piece is the daughter of Rashid Al-Ghannushi,
> the leader of Tunisia's main Islamist party.  Basically, a religious
> reformist.
>
>
Then we need MORE "religious reformists"!!

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] The Real News interviews Ali Ahmida on Libya

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6418

(Video can be seen at link above. Transcript below as well.)

Bio

Ali Ahmida is a professor and chair of the Department of Political
Science at the University of New England in Biddeford, Maine. His
specialty is political theory, comparative politics, and
historical sociology of power, agency and anti-colonial resistance
in North Africa, especially modern Libya. He is the author of The
Making of Modern Libya: State Formation, Colonization and
Resistance (1994) in addition to numerous articles. He is editor
of Beyond Colonialism and Nationalism in the Maghrib: History,
Culture and Politics (2000).

English
allow a few seconds for the translation to complete
Transcript

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network.
I'm Paul Jay in Washington. And welcome to the first part of our
series on the modern history of Libya. And joining us to discuss
this is Ali Ahmida. He's a professor and chair of the department
of political science at the University of New England in
Biddeford, Maine. He specializes in the anti-colonial resistance
of--and the history of modern Libya. He's the author of The Making
of Modern Libya: State Formation, Colonialization and Resistance
and Forgotten Voices: Power and Agency in Colonial and
Post-Colonial Libya. Thanks for joining us, Ali.

ALI AHMIDA, POLITICAL SCIENCE CHAIR, UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND :
My pleasure, Paul.

JAY: So to understand what's going on today in Libya, one
obviously needs to know the history. So let's start with
pre-Gaddafi coup. Gaddafi comes to power in 1969. Set the stage
for us. How do we get to the conditions in 1969 that gives rise to
the--Gaddafi's successful coup?

AHMIDA: Okay. Let's try to make sense of, in a few words, a
complex and long, long period. What the viewers need to know is
Libya had a different colonial experience. It was colonized
between 1911 and 1943 by Italy, the only North African Arab
country that was colonized by Italy. And it was really not like
the colonization of Tunisia and Egypt or Morocco. This is one of
the most brutal colonial experiences, especially under the
fascists, than any other experience in Africa, with the exception,
maybe, of Algeria and the Congo.

JAY: What's an example of what you're calling the most brutal
colonialization?

AHMIDA: We know that between 1911 and 1943, half a million Libyans
perished due to this colonization, including, we think, between
65,000 in concentration camps in the region that was called Surt
desert. And, actually, the town of Agheila, which is being
mentioned in the news quite often. And people were put--the whole
civilian population of eastern Libya that's revolting against the
Gaddafi's regime were moved, deported by ships and on foot to the
desert of Surt, and they were put there for four years. The
Italian did not gas them. Many of them died, including children
and elderly, because they had no food, and they died because of
diseases. The cemeteries that I had researched in the last ten
years, every year there were horrific. So the first thing we need
to realize: this is a very vicious, brutal, genocidal
colonization. The consequences of this colonization did not die.
Actually, when Libya was--became an independent state,you know,
[inaudible] by the United Nations and the UK and the United States
in 1951, they created a federal monarchy, a very conservative,
very pro-West. And it had given military bases to the United
States and UK. The memory, the scars, and the trauma of the
Italian colonization has been suppressed. You don't talk much
about it, just in brief, and you try to [inaudible] move on.

JAY: But when was it clear, the extent of Libyan oil reserves?

AHMIDA: The oil was discovered in 1960. And then Libya
became--changed from one of the poorest countries in the whole
continent of Africa and the Middle East to one of the richest in
the 1960s. And oil helped the monarchy create a unified state and
unified Libya, the three region of Libya, Tripolitania in the
west, Cyrenaica or Barqah in the east, and Fezzan in the south.
Now, the monarchy started a tremendous modernization program,
especially in education and health. But because it was very, very
much conservative and pro-West, it's really the forces of the
youth that educated as Gaddafi [inaudible] as Gaddafi now, where
really--were swept by the memory of their grandmothers and
grandfathers, and also by the Arab nationalism, you know,
advocated by Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt. So political parties
were banned. You know, suppression of that trauma and scars of the
colonial period were not really expressed much. And the junior

[Marxism] Venezuela: The Embattled Future


==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


This is a long article by Frederic F. Clairmont:

http://www.zcommunications.org/venezuela-the-embattled-future-by-frederic-f-clairmont

His book "The Rise and Fall of Economic Liberalism" is an absolute 
masterpiece, especially in its discussion of British railroads in 
India in the 19th century.



Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Black bloc makes its case


==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/31/black-bloc-anti-cuts-protest


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] After unscripted Arab drama, the west sneaks back on set

2011-03-31 Thread Anon Anon

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


FWIW, the author of this piece is the daughter of Rashid Al-Ghannushi, 
the leader of Tunisia's main Islamist party.  Basically, a religious reformist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_Al-Ghannushi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_Party

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/31/arab-revolution-economics-politics

> After unscripted Arab drama, the west sneaks back on set

> People were not rebelling solely against dictators but the economic model. 
> Yet foreign interests may again be calling the shots

> by Soumaya Ghannoushi


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] What Syria has in common with Libya


==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


NY Times February 20, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
The Torturers Win
By BOB HERBERT

Justice? Surely you jest.

Terrible things were done to Maher Arar, and his extreme suffering 
was set in motion by the United States government. With the awful 
facts of his case carefully documented, he tried to sue for 
damages. But last week a federal judge waved the facts aside and 
told Mr. Arar, in effect, to get lost.


We're in a new world now and the all-powerful U.S. government 
apparently has free rein to ruin innocent lives without even a nod 
in the direction of due process or fair play. Mr. Arar, a Canadian 
citizen who, according to all evidence, has led an exemplary life, 
was seized and shackled by U.S. authorities at Kennedy Airport in 
2002, and then shipped off to Syria, his native country, where he 
was held in a dungeon for the better part of a year. He was 
tormented physically and psychologically, and at times tortured.


The underground cell was tiny, about the size of a grave. 
According to court papers, "The cell was damp and cold, contained 
very little light and was infested with rats, which would enter 
the cell through a small aperture in the ceiling. Cats would 
urinate on Arar through the aperture, and sanitary facilities were 
nonexistent."


Mr. Arar's captors beat him savagely with an electrical cable. He 
was allowed to bathe in cold water once a week. He lost 40 pounds 
while in captivity.


This is a quintessential example of the reprehensible practice of 
extraordinary rendition, in which the U.S. government kidnaps 
individuals — presumably terror suspects — and sends them off to 
regimes that are skilled in the fine art of torture. In terms of 
vile behavior, rendition stands shoulder to shoulder with contract 
killing.


If the United States is going to torture people, we might as well 
do it ourselves. Outsourcing torture does not make it any more 
acceptable.


Mr. Arar's case became a world-class embarrassment when even 
Syria's torture professionals could elicit no evidence that he was 
in any way involved in terrorism. After 10 months, he was 
released. No charges were ever filed against him.


Mr. Arar is a 35-year-old software engineer who lives in Ottawa 
with his wife and their two young children. He's never been in any 
kind of trouble. Commenting on the case in a local newspaper, a 
former Canadian official dryly observed that "accidents will 
happen" in the war on terror. The Center for Constitutional Rights 
in New York filed a lawsuit on Mr. Arar's behalf, seeking damages 
from the U.S. government for his ordeal. The government said the 
case could not even be dealt with because the litigation would 
involve the revelation of state secrets.


In other words, it wouldn't matter how hideously or egregiously 
Mr. Arar had been treated, or how illegally or disgustingly the 
government had behaved. The case would have to be dropped. 
Inquiries into this 21st-century Inquisition cannot be tolerated. 
Its activities must remain secret at all costs.


In a ruling that basically gave the green light to government 
barbarism, U.S. District Judge David Trager dismissed Mr. Arar's 
lawsuit last Thursday. Judge Trager wrote in his opinion that 
"Arar's claim that he faced a likelihood of torture in Syria is 
supported by U.S. State Department reports on Syria's human rights 
practices."


But in dismissing the suit, he said that the foreign policy and 
national security issues raised by the government were 
"compelling" and that such matters were the purview of the 
executive branch and Congress, not the courts.


He also said that "the need for secrecy can hardly be doubted."

Under that reasoning, of course, the government could literally 
get away with murder. With its bad actions cloaked in 
court-sanctioned secrecy, no one would be the wiser.


As an example of the kind of foreign policy problems that might 
arise if Mr. Arar were given his day in court, Judge Trager wrote:


"One need not have much imagination to contemplate the negative 
effect on our relations with Canada if discovery were to proceed 
in this case and were it to turn out that certain high Canadian 
officials had, despite public denials, acquiesced in Arar's 
removal to Syria."


Oh yes, by all means, we need the federal courts to fully protect 
the right of public officials to lie to their constituents.


"It's a shocking decision," said Michael Ratner, president of the 
Center for Constitutional Rights. "It's really saying that an 
individual who is sent overseas for the purpose of being tortured 
has no claim in a U.S. court."


If kidnapping and torturing an innocent man is O.K., what's not O.K.?


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economi

[Marxism] David Walsh on Elizabeth Taylor


==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


http://wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/tayl-m31.shtml


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Fidel Castro

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Les Schaffer wrote:

> 
>
>
>
> On 03/31/2011 07:31 AM, Lüko Willms wrote:
> > Discussion has not happened, since the friends of the imperial attacks
> > on  the Arab revolution like to slander seasoned revolutionary leaders
> > as Fidel  Castro, but do not take up his real arguments.
>
> Lou:  look, this has got to stop or we should shut marxmail down.
>
> Les
>


Stop what Les? Luko will just deny that he meant anyone on this list.

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Fidel Castro


==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 3/31/2011 9:32 AM, Les Schaffer wrote:


Lou:  look, this has got to stop or we should shut marxmail down.

Les



I actually think that Luko helps to undermine his own cause. As I 
stated the other day, we are dealing with the lingering effects of 
Stalinism on the left even though the CP today does not really use 
the logic of the Moscow Trials.


Luko, who was at one time a supporter of the American SWP, just 
told us that it is okay to support dictatorship as long as it is 
the dictatorship of the proletariat.


This use of the term is a grotesque and *Stalinist* misuse of what 
Marx had in mind, as Einde pointed out. The Paris Commune 
represented a full flowering of democracy even though this was 
arguably the first instance of a proletarian dictatorship in 
Marxist terms.


Speaking of which, I hope that comrades get a chance to look at 
Vince Copeland and Sam Marcy's articles from the 1950s where a lot 
of Trotskyists got these warmed-over Stalinist notions. I plan to 
blog about them when I get a chance.



Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Fidel Castro

2011-03-31 Thread Les Schaffer

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==




On 03/31/2011 07:31 AM, Lüko Willms wrote:
> Discussion has not happened, since the friends of the imperial attacks
> on  the Arab revolution like to slander seasoned revolutionary leaders
> as Fidel  Castro, but do not take up his real arguments.

Lou:  look, this has got to stop or we should shut marxmail down.

Les


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] re: Hugo Chavez and Israel agree on one thing atleast

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



fred f might spend too much time trying to keep his revolutionary cuffs 
clean(not an unusual happenstance here)
but surely any call for a cease fire and negotiations  over in the desert of no 
return versus in effect cheering on the empire's flying monkeys 
is solid anti empire talk 
 
fans of  armed struggle :
 
the  democratic revolutio  in any national context  ---great and world 
historical as it may be--- often loses ..and often ..bb4 it wins eh ??and much 
blood  ...innocent blood... runs and runs and runs   that's why they call 
it a serious business in red circles 
 
nothing suggests a rout and vicious mop up of the rebels by col Q 's "forces"  
means game over eh ??? trying to take one on the cheap with a rag tag near 
spontaneous  uprising ??
a foolish 'safe rooters'  fantasy 
-- in fact the footballing around of the term 'democratic revolution ' (with 
the big D) has reached in my estimation a point of un useful reification on 
this list 
--- evidence lou's video of the left forum panelist on lenin "looking back "--
 
at any rate we all doubtless agree 
  adding even one marginal left  voice  to the media chorus now singing " get 
col Q "   can only be motivated by  preening self righteousness 
 
MSM  choices for "  crimes against humanitygobblen  pin up  of the month " 
oughta be resisted at all costs
 
for that matter so far as the  third party  record shows so far ..in this 
interval :
 col Q prior to humantiarian intervention hadn't  broken any "rules" of 
engagement with unarmed crowds that say  LA swat teams didn't break  back in 
1992 
 
as to facing poorly armed rebels ..well a state has its privileges no ??? like 
a certain "right" to defend itself  commonly recognized by its fellow legal 
bandit outfits
  one thinks of Waco or the bomb dropped in 1985 on MOVE etc etc   the 
extermination of the panthers ..must one go on here ??
 
clearly the drag queen of the mahgreb  deserves equal standards to uncle slambo 
 
 
i say fidel and hugo are on strong ground as leaders of state systems 
a distinction lost on the don q's of hardened red meat marxism here 
  

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Fidel Castro

2011-03-31 Thread Leonardo Kosloff

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



Luko Willms wrote:
"Discussion has not happened, since the friends of the imperial attacks on the 
Arab revolution like to slander seasoned revolutionary leaders as Fidel 
Castro, but do not take up his real arguments. "

Well. I'll speak for myself, but if I haven't discussed (and probably will not 
discuss) with you, who are I'm sure Fidel's most sober emissary, it's because 
your formulations are retarded (and repetitive at that). Like this little 
quip..."friends of the imperial attacks"..., you hear, show yourselves CIA 
marxmail infiltrates!
LK

  

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Millions of Syrians Rally for Syria and Bashar

2011-03-31 Thread Rajesh Roy

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


There is often a tendency on this list to view unfolding events in MENA through 
the prism of personal dislike for dictatorships.. I must guess it is related to 
the so-called liberal tradition of the West Europeans and Americans, where 
there 
is such a thing called liberty, almost the liberty fetish.. the very question 
of 
what liberty actually means can be debated to no end.. what liberty means for 
an 
American at a certain epoch in time need not be the same in another.. so this 
agenda of liberty is often seen here to intermingle with the actual existing 
situation at a given time in a given country.. if you bring in your foreign 
military into a country and murder the hated dictator, are you bringing liberty 
to the people ? what about the numerous interconnections and realities on the 
ground, and the unforeseen and often tragic consequences of your 
"well-intentioned action" of bringing to fruition your own fetish of imposing 
your self-imagined ideal of liberty on another country ?





- Original Message 
From: Gary MacLennan 
To: rajeshcher...@yahoo.co.in
Sent: Thu, 31 March, 2011 10:13:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Millions of Syrians Rally for Syria and Bashar

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


I despise the
Assad regime in the same way I despise all dictatorships. There is no
special animus towards the Assad clan. I do not like any dictators. 



Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] 'Guardian': Can Libya "revolutionary" troops cut the mustard?

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Fred Feldman (ffeld...@bellatlantic.net) wrote on 2011-03-30 at 23:41:18 in  
about [Marxism] 'Guardian': Can Libya "revolutionary" troops cut the mustard?:

   quoting an article from the British Guardian newspaper: 

> On the ground, rebels appeal for bigger rocket launchers, artillery 
> and more air strikes. [...] "We need what Gaddafi has," said 
> Ghanem Barsi at a rebel checkpoint. 
> Like many revolutionaries, he blamed their difficulties on weaponry 
> rather than training and tactics. 
and politics...
> "We need Grads [rockets] like Gaddafi has. We need
> tanks like Gaddafi has. We need weapons that can kill his rockets and
> tanks."

  This shows the tragic problem of the Libyan part of the revolutionary wave 
which is shaking the Arab countries: the abandonment of mass mobilisation 
replacing political arguments by deadly bullets. Killing the political opponent 
instead of winning his mind with arguments and the power of millions 
mobilized people. 

   This was certainly more difficult in Libya than in e.g. Egypt, because of 
the 
brutality of the repression by the Qadhafi regime and the weaker different 
social fabric. It had required a stronger, I mean more political savvy, 
revolutionary leadership. Well, this wasn't there, so we have to continue with 
the unfortunate situation which actually had arisen: the rebellion against the 
pro-capitalist regime has ended up to be the "useful idiots" for the 
imperialist 
effort to stop and roll back the revolutionary wave shaking the Arab 
countries: 

> The revolution's de facto finance minister, Ali Tarhouni, claims that there
> are 1,000 trained fighters among the rebels but there is little evidence of
> it on the battlefield where the anti-Gaddafi forces appear capable of
> advancing only when the way is cleared by foreign air strikes.

   The next step forward out of this mess will have to come by the 
emergence of forces which struggle to re-unify the Libyan people in a 
struggle for sovereignty and a constituant assembly, and this will be 
confronted right away not only with the outgoing regime of Colonel Qadhafi, 
but also the imperialist powers and their local allies. The following from the 
"Guardian" might tell the future revolutionaries what is in stock for them: 

> The lack of control over Libya's rebel army also raises questions 
> about how it might behave as an occupying force 
> were it to take over a town such as Sirte 
> which has not risen up in support of the revolution 
> and where the Libyan leader is believed to retain some support.
> 
> Killings of alleged mercenaries in Benghazi, the rebels' de facto capital,
> as well as the large numbers of young men who have assumed 
> an authority over ordinary citizens apparently only granted by their guns, 
> will raise questions about how an ill disciplined and unaccountable force 
> will behave on taking control of a potentially less welcoming city.

> It would be embarrassing, to say the least, if even some of the rebels 
> armed by Britain or the US were to carry out the kind of atrocities 
> the west says it is intervening in Libya to prevent.

   But which the imperialist and pro-imperialist forces will be pushed to, if 
they want to achieve their goal, i.e. putting Libya back under full imperialist 
control and to stop and roll back the ongoing Arab revolution. 



Cheers, 
Lüko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany



Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Abd el Krim