Re: [Marxism] What's a good novel for 13-14 year olds?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Thanks to everyone who's contributed ideas so far. Most I hadn't read but I'll pass all the suggestions on. Any further suggestions would also be welcome. I hated Animal Farm when I first read it at school in about 1978 and I hated it again when I had to reread it to take over teaching it about 10 years ago. The teacher i took over from was a rabid rightist who saw it as his duty to inoculate the world's youth against the evils of communism so it was pretty funny that he had to give his class to me . . . I hope I never have to teach it again. I read Ursula Le Guin's "The Dispossessed" and was really puzzled by the bit with the lead character going a bit berserk and sexually assaulting the woman with the naked breasts; given the society he came from, it seemed weirdly out of character and I wondered what Le Guin was trying to say, that ultimately the objectification of women was so deep rooted that it would never be fully overcome??? I was also wondering about Cory Doctorow's "For the Win", (again not really about communism but about the need for collective action at a trade union level - a bit of a cop out reformist ending though I thought) which has the advantage of being released under a creative commons licence, so no expense for a cash strapped high school to buy a class set. Older stuff that's out of copyright and legally available to download would be good in that regard too. I don't know why the original request was made for a novel for this age group dealing with communism but it seemed a good opportunity to get some alternative ideas for titles out there. I also have no idea of the reading ability of the class concerned. Thanks again for the ideas and keep 'em coming! Cheers, John 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's a good novel for 13-14 year olds?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == A teacher's forum I'm on had a request for a novel dealing with communism for kids of about 13-14 years old. of course everyone has trotted out Animal Farm but I wondered if anyone could suggest something a bit more sympathetic. Cheers, John 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] A scene from the new Libya
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Ken Wrote: > I think the point i am getting at is that a revolution (in Libya, in Iran, in > Syria) can be incomplete and suffer serious setbacks and yet be a genuine > revolution. Yes ,and if all people do is try to "prove" their case by trading good stories for bad, simply presenting anecdotes in lieu of real evidence and analysis, they won't be shedding any real light. They're really interesting to have and important in their own right, but not enough. Cheers, John ps. I'm not suggesting that that's what Louis did in posting this story (he's broadly sympathetic to the Libyan revolution after all), but it does happen with some posts. 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] A scene from the new Libya
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Mina wrote: > "Conservative dress code is a symptom of the conservative religious beliefs > of many people in the region... I was speaking on Friday to a young Iranian > woman (born since the revolution and growing up in a non-religious family > in Teheran). Wearing a full chador while at home in Iran was no big deal > for her even though she isn't the least bit religious and wears Western > clothing - skirts etc - while living in the West." > This argument seem to blame the "culture" (as if culture is homogeneous and > unified) for the mandatory Hijab forced onto women in Iran against which > they, secular and Muslim, have stood from as early as 1979. One example: > Iranian Women's March against Hijab in March 8th, 1979 > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odmlfa986mk I fully support the right of women to choose whether or not to wear the hijab. I was just making the point that some women don't have a problem with wearing it - the woman I was speaking to saw it as a cultural thing that she wouldn't normally follow but which, for her, was not something she'd campaign about. Personally, I find the Iranian mandatory dress code completely objectionable,as I do the French ban on the burka. The Libyan woman at the start of this thread should have had the absolute right to address the Parliament without a head scarf. Using that incident to attack the Libyan revolution though is to set it up as a straw man. No one here thinks the Libyan revolution was bringing socialism. What it might bring is a life for Libyans where expressing themselves politically is more possible. Unfortunately it'll probably be a mixture, at least in the short term, of gains and losses. Some of the secular features of the Gaddafi era will be lost. My hope is that overall, the possibilities afforded by the revolution will be much greater than the losses. I hope this is clear. Cheers, John 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] A scene from the new Libya
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Sorry, my previous post should have been under the subject line above. Cheers, John 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] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Ken Hiebert: > This set me asking myself what is the dress code for women in the Iranian > parliament. i have been unable to find determine that. If it turns out that > there is an Islamic dress code for women in the Iranian parliament, what > should > we conclude about the Iranian Revolution? Um, that it's a reactionary theocratic police state??? Conservative dress code is a symptom of the conservative religious beliefs of many people in the region. In the absence of an environment where politics can be openly discussed, religion has become a primary domain of organising. If there were a socialist revolution in the Middle East tomorrow, plenty of people would still live by religious traditions, including dress code. I was speaking on Friday to a young Iranian woman (born since the revolution and growing up in a non-religious family in Teheran). Wearing a full chador while at home in Iran was no big deal for her even though she isn't the least bit religious and wears Western clothing - skirts etc - while living in the West. Using incidents like the one in the Libyan Parliament as an "I told you so" is of no benefit to anyone. We all know the revolutions in the Arabic speaking world are not socialist revolutions so fixating on issues like these add nothing. I think Clay was wrong to liken the Libyan Parliament to various religious buildings where an outsider would observe customs out of respect, but to use an incident like this to condemn the Libyan revolution doesn't add anything. It simply tells us what we already knew - that there were and are reactionaries in leadership roles in the revolution. Abdul Jalil was a Gaddafi regime official after all. The debate about whether or not the ousting of Gaddafi and his multi-millionaire playboy "anti-imperialist" heirs from power was a nett good for the Libyan people is not really furthered by this. Cheers, John 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] Reuters: Obama authorizes secret U.S. support for Syrian rebels
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == So the Washington Post has discovered that the US has seen the writing on the wall in Syria. No one needs to be told that the US will support elements within the Syrian revolution if they think that's the way to gain influence; of course they will. And in the absence of a strong world wide socialist movement there is virtually no chance that the Syrians will build some kind of Socialist People's Republic of Arabia. None of that takes away from the Syrian people's right to get rid of the murderous regime that rules over them. Cheers, John 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] Maybe Zionists should rethink their new honesty-is-the-best-policy policy
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == To give credit where it's due, Haaretz can hardly be accused of "burying the quote, unremarked, in a late paragraph" when the article's subhead reads: "Interior Minister says migrants do not recognize that Israel 'belongs to the white man.'". Cheers, John 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] Class Dismissed
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Sorry, my post on the "Class Dismissed" thread had no subject line. Cheers, John 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] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Manuel wrote: > Marsh reply on the "achievement gap": " a good deal of the racial and ethnic > achievement gap disappears when you factor out class, but not all of it. And > I confess to having no more insight into why that should be the case than many > scholars who study the question, who have plausible theories but little by > way of definite conclusions. It remains a mystery and a challenge to our > ideals." > So, if you just "factor out" most of the people where there is a gap and only > talk about those privileged enough to benefit from a capitalist education > system, then it just goes away. "Class dismissed" indeed. Nice editing . . . That's not how I interpreted that statement. I took it to mean that if you factor out the bit of inequality that can't be explained by class, and he believes that "a good deal" of inequality is explained by class - he says if you factor out class and the picture looks less racially unequal - then it is clear that class (which is heavily racialised) is the key determinant of inequality. In other words if there is a huge overlap between racial and class inequality, dealing with class inequality will go a long way to dealing with racial inequality. He isn't saying it's the whole solution but I don't thin he's being nearly as dismissive as Manuel implies. He's not saying "factor out the working class, he's saying factor out the non-class based racial inequality (higher percentage poor working class blacks and Hispanics than whites) and you see that class is actually the biggest factor and the most pressing one. Cheers, John 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] Israeli spies killed in New Zealand
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == > The AP is reporting a story from New Zealand to the effect that an Israeli > spy ring was discovered in the aftermath of an earthquake in Christchurch > earlier this year. So, what were they conceivably spying on? Not much I would have thought. One of them was reportedly found wih at least 5 passports although that's now being denied . . . > This reminded me of the obscure news item from 9-11 about a group of Middle > Eastern men arrested in New Jersey and latter discovered to be part of a > Mossad network operating a moving company as a front. They were sent back to > Israel and the informed reporting had them as in America to spy on > Palestinian supporters in the US raising money for Hamas. This got me to > thinking of the pro-Palestinian movement in NZ, specifically the group > supporting the PFLP. Yes, well the PFLP campaign is based here in Christchurch but there's no indication that any surveillance or attempted infiltration had occurred. But then, maybe they'd only just arrived eh. > Do any of the NZ comrades have a take on this story? Were there any > indications that the pro-Palestinian movement there was being targeted for > surveillance or disruption? Ironically, the pro-Palestine movement in Christchurch hasn't been doing much at all. With our entire central city still a no-go area (and expected to remain out of bounds for months to come) it's been very difficult to organise anything. We couldn't even hold our annual Nakba event because normal venues were either "red-stickered" (condemned or temporarily off limits) or unavailable due to pressure on remaining facilities. Our normal location was in the "red zone". > Here in the 'land of the free' I know that Paypal and Facebook both suspended > the NZ PFLP solidarity group and of course the FBI raids in the Midwest > targeted the FRSO-FB group becasue of its international solidarity work > (including the PFLP). Yes, I mentioned the Paypal development on this list a few days ago. I was hoping someone might know of an alternative to Paypal (the Paypal suspension only just happened) but apparently that isn't the case. Cheers, John 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] Paypal and the PFLP
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == The New Zealand PFLP Solidarity Campaign has had its Paypal account closed. When asked what had happened they responded with a formal statement about sanctions against terrorist support etc, very much in the same vein as Facebook's response when they shut down the NZ PFLP solidarity Facebook page and other similar pages in support of the PFLP, FARC and other organisations. The campaign raises money for the PFLP. Obviously there is no chance that Paypal will change its policy but this makes it very difficult for the PFLP Solidarity Campaign to raise money by selling PFLP tshirts etc, especially to supporters outside New Zealand. Does anyone know of alternative means of facilitating payment that doies not involve businesses based in the US and willing to act against progressive acampaigns and groups like this? Incidentally, the PFLP is not currently on the New Zealand government's list of terrorist organisations. Cheers, John 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] Cuban CP rescinds expulsion of Esteban Morales
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Fred wrote: > I am sure that someone will interpret his statement that this has been a > "learning experience" as a Moscow-Trials style confession I guess that depends on who it has been a learning experience for . . . Cheers, John 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] Has imperialism changed its stripes?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Allan asked: > I've been following the debate over the war in Libya on the list, and have some > questions for those who generally put forward the "anti-pro-Qadaffi" position, > as I'll refer to it. > The Libyan opposition (the "rebels") are supported by NATO and the western > imperialist powers. If they represent a genuine force for democracy and > self-determination, why are the imperialists supporting them militarily and > politically? I think the reason they are being supported is pretty clear and I doubt there'd be much disagreement on this question taken broadly, although a lot in the detail. I think the West saw the Libyan situatio as one where they could get a win and reverse the process that was starting to spread right through the Arab world. Whereas people like Zine Abadin ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak were long-time loyal allies of the West, and it might have been expected that they would be supported, a number of things worked againnst it. Firstly the West was caught by surprise. Secondly, Tunisia, and Egypt even moreso, are much more complicated when it comes to intervening. They are so big and populous that an intervention would have needed much more planning. There was no time and a decision was made to cut them loose. Gaddafi was much flakier and didn't have the history of loyalty. In fact, despite his having been fully rehabilitated at an official and business level, it was easy to justify a campaign against him with a domestic population well used to his characterisation as a mad dog, terrorist etc, due to his past words and deeds, and actions attributed to him and his regime. The West will do all it can to support the "right" revolutionaries in Egypt, Tunisia and the rest of the Arab world too. It's already doing so, trying to make sure "its" revolutionaries control the process. In Libya, it was deemed appropriate to launch a military action, made easier by the fact that assorted ex-regime people and other ammenable figures were assuming top leadership positions. I wouldn't go so far as to say that they "represent a genuine force for democracy and self-determination". What I would say is that they had every right to try to ditch Gaddafi and the NATO intervention doesn't take away that right. Of course it does make it much much more difficult for a progressive result to emerge from the rubble of the war. > Would a victory for the opposition on the basis of the NATO intervention be a > positive step for democracy, self-determination, and ultimately for the > development of socialism in Libya and in the broader Middle East in general? That is not something I would be prepared to predict. Obviously if Gaddafi hadn't acted with guns to suppress the revolution - if he'd "gone quietly" like ben Ali and Mubarak, there would have been much greater cause for optimism. As it stands there is little cause for optimism in the short term in my view, in terms of Libya. As to the rest of the Arab world, obviously the West's intention is that the process will be arrested but I don't think there are any grounds to say that they have succeeded yet in that aim. A problem for me with the counter argument - that the rebels are rotten counterrevolutionaries (now at least if not from the start) due to their willingness to call for NATO support (which many emphatically did not do in the beginning) is that a) there will always be someone willing to call for Western intervention, and b) if all the West need do is mumble words of support for possible intervention (after all this debate began as soon as there was only pretty incoherant mutterings about a 'no fly zone') for the left to abandon the struggle, then we will be forever reactive. Just an additional point in response to Jamie. I'm not at all convinced that partition will occur, or is an objective. The bogey of possible partition has been raised many times, with all the attendant implied reference to past colonial occupations, Fascist Italy etc. But to my knowledge the rebels themselves have never indicated that they would settle for anything less than the territorial integrity of all of Libya. No Western figure of any significance is actually arguing for partition, and partition would be inherently volatile, so (while not entirely ruling anything out) I would be surprised if that is the outcome. I also think Jamie is a bit inaccurate when he suggests that the "Western powers replaced the genuine revolutionaries in the transitional council with the cuckold interim government". I think that atempts to cast the process in terms that are altogether too black and white. Those people got to their positions in the movement by a range of means. To suggest it was all down to Western scheming is in my view incorrect. Cheers, John ___
Re: [Marxism] Oppose NATO bombing of Libya
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Suresh wrote: > Plenty of Iraqi Arabs and Kurds took pro-Western and third-camp type positions > on the first Gulf War and the Iraq invasion as well. As did people in Serbia > and Bosnia. So what? John seems to think that leftists are obligated to > pander to people in the semi-colonial world who minimize the significance of > resisting imperialist aggression. Here's a thought Suresh - respond to what was actually written rather that making stuff up that fits with what you'd rather be arguing against. An entire Forum of primarily Arab leftists in Egypt opposes the NATO bombing and supports the right of the Arab peoples to revolution and freedom and you just decide that it's third-campism. Like Gaddafi's as significant as the USSR or something. And no, I don't "think that leftists are obligated to pander to people in the semi-colonial world", I just think that when when the left in the Arab world seem to be saying that the Libyans have a right to continue their revolution, while simultaneously opposing the NATO bombing, we should take note of that. To put the record straight, I don't believe everything I read in the Western press about Gaddafi. I think some of the claims are bullshit. I think the International Court at the Hague are making stuff up. I think they have no right to try the Gaddafis. I think NATO has no right to bomb Libya and that the intervention should stop. I think the Libyans have a right to throw Gaddafi out. And I think that just because the leadership of the Libyan revolution largely stinks does not mean the people's right to their revolution should be taken from them. And I think that just because the West sees an opportunity to subvert the Arab Revolution is no reason for the Libyans to have to sacrifice that revolution. The US (eventually) declared in favour of the revolution in Egypt. If they'd been smarter they would have done it sooner. Would that have meant we should have stopped supporting the Egyptian people's right to overthrow Mubarak, or suddenly go quiet about his regime? In the Arab world, by and large, people are not finding the dilemma of supporting the Libyan people and opposing NATO impossible to reconcile. > It's his right to believe this, but more resolute anti-imperialists will > continue to join folks like Fred, Eli, and ANSWER in putting opposition to > the West's neverending series of predatory wars first. Yep, so resolute anti-imperialists like Fred, Eli, and ANSWER have got this right and irresolute revolutionaries in Egypt, who've just overthrown a brutal dictator and are working to push the revolution on are just a bunch of third-campists. I wish the ANSWER people well with their demo. I have no objection to their demands. What I object to is the snide assertion that anyone who happens to agree with a whole bunch of Arab leftists who "condemned the NATO intervention in Libya" actually secretly want to, as Eli so succinctly put it, "KEEP BOMBING LIBYA". It may come as a surprise to you, and perhaps to Eli as well, but I don't want NATO to "KEEP BOMBING LIBYA". > Nevermind from a Marxist or anti-imperialist perspective, even from a simple > utilitarian standpoint, the U.S. and it's allies wars have caused hundreds of > thousands of more deaths and brought more poverty and misery than third rate > dictators like Qaddafi. That must be of immense comfort to the people of Libya. Look Suresh, I'd put money (if I had any) on the statement that there isn't a single person on this list who doesn't already know that the West has caused far more death and misery than Gaddafi. > But, hey according to people like John, we're supposed to (at best!) place > overthrowing the Libyan government on an equal level with ending the NATO war > against the country... while in reality putting more time and energy on the > former and constantly criticizing and nitpicking those seeking to prioritize > the latter. It's not about "putting more time and energy on the former and constantly criticizing and nitpicking those seeking to prioritize the latter." I spend far more time opposing NATO bombing than I do arguing with people who think I'm secretly in league with Obama and co. On this list, no one needs to convince anyone that the NATO intervention should be opposed. Everyone here opposes it. Some people on this list however believe that some of us want NATO to (quote) "KEEP BOMBING LIBYA". That claim is bullshit and unfortunately gets made with monotonous regularity. It's that claim, slanderous really, that I opposed, not people "seeking to prioritize" opposing the bombing. When the Gulf wars were on, and when the war in Serbia was on too, and around the war in Afghanistan, where troops from the country where I live are involved, I found it far better, and le
[Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Jay wrote: > The article, if one reads it, says 50% within 10 years and that the purpose > was not to obtain foreign capital, Libya having plenty of its own from the > petroleum industry, but to obtain foreign expertise to reduce dependency on > oil and gas. Sounds similar to what Cuba has done/is doing. Yes, it did say 50% within 10 years, but 100% ultimately. 100% straight away would be completely unrealistic I'm sure. But what are yo saying Jay? That selling off the economy when you don't even need to raise cash is somehow OK? They were doing it because they'd made an ideological decision that had nothing to do with protecting the family silver. They said they'd sell the lot and you can be sure the Gaddafi family were going to be *further* enriched in the process. The sons were already well aquainted with the multimillionaire lifestyle and as for the father's "bodyguard" of beautiful blonde women, I don't think that came cheap. It's just bizarre to compare what Gadaffi was planning to what Cuba is doing. Cuba, poor and broke, has been forced to look at making changes, which I'm not defending by the way, but Libya, according to that article and plenty of other evidence besides, was planning it when it had no need for capital!!! Don't you see a slight difference there? > In any case, there's some pretty funky logic operating here: Gaddafi's Libya > is going more towards neo-liberalism. So let's support imperialist > intervention -- or support the local flunkies on the ground, which amounts to > the same thing -- so that they can get to that goal faster. I don't see it. Well that logic would be "pretty funky" as you put it, if in fact that was what anyone here was doing but I think you'll struggle to find a single line posted on this list advocating that anyone "support imperialist intervention" or its "local flunkies on the ground", as I am sure you are already well aware. All that anyone has said is that Gaddafi's regime is a brutal one that cannot be supported. It had made its peace with the West. It just turns out that the West hadn't entirely made its peace with Gaddafi - presumably because he was deemed an expendable liability). But most importantly, we are saying that the origins of the Libyan rebellion were essentially the same as those in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere so that, despite the movement having been coopted by ex-Gadaffi regime leaders and other pro-Western figures, the situation there has to be understood in the context of that legitimate right to rise up against oppression, rather than be damned simply because Gadaffi once talked left and has now come under NATO attack. If the West had a left to speak of, the Libyan resistance might have turned to it for support. That it didn't speaks more about our failure in the West than it does of the Libyans who rose up, got gunned down, and turned to help where it was offered. We are under no illusions about the West's intention to roll back the Arab revolution. I am under no illusion that ther will not be opportunists and staunch supporters of the West who will try to rise to the top of these movements. But none of that invalidates the Libyan people's right to rebel. Cheers, John 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] The left and Libya
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == The evidence from the Libyan government itself makes clear that Gaddafi had no intention whatsoever of continuing with "national control of Libya's oil and water resources". http://sdapem.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/reuters-libya-to-privatise-half-of-economy-in-a-decade/ It's not like this is a new revelation I'm posting here. This link is to a story from April *last* year, and the information has been posted here before. There's been plenty of information posted here demonstrating how business and investment friendly Libya had already become. Any suggestion that Gaddafi planned to keep "national control of Libya's oil and water resources" in the light of their planned 100% privatisation of the economy seems to me devoid of credible supporting evidence. Unless private ownership by the Gaddafi family and cronies would count. Cheers, John 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] Gil Scott heron, RIP
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == > "There will be no highlights on the eleven o'clock news and no > pictures of hairy armed women liberationists and Jackie Onassis > blowing her nose." Maybe I'm being naive and Gil Scott Heron had views of the "the position of women after the revolution is horizontal" type, but isn't it possible that this is a condemnation of the media's portrayal of sensationalist stereotypes - women as crazy "hairy armed" feminists or glamourous celebrities, with no "normal" and certainly, especially when he wrote this, no black women? Women pigeon holed as particular kinds of commodities will be an anachronism just as ads for Coke and other vapid crap will be. So maybe that just means TV in all its forms of banality will be irrelevant because people should be out there making the revolution, not sitting on their arses watching it unfold on TV. After all, he did also write that: "Black people will be in the street looking for a brighter day. The revolution will not be televised" That interpretation would fit with the tenor of the rest of the piece. I'm prepared to be proven wrong of course. Cheers, John 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] Obama's Death
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Louis wrote: > The other thing that disgusts me is the business about how bin Laden is "being > buried at sea". I don't know about Muslim beliefs but this strikes me as a real > insult, not having a proper burial. I'm no expert but having been married to a practicing Muslim for 18 years I have attended a few Muslim funerals. As I heard it reported, they read some "appropriate" words out in English which were then translated into Arabic. This sounds like utter bollocks to me. The correct thing would have been to have a Muslim person read the correct passages from the Quran, which would, of course, already be in Arabic already and not need to be translated into that language. Burials at sea are permitted in the Muslim tradition but only for people who died at sea and where a safe option of landing and conducting a normal burial is impossible. This is a gross act of contempt and to me, it is akin to descration. The treatment of his body reminded me more of a mafia hit team disposing of a body - dipping his feet in concrete gumboots and dumping him in the harbour. The whole thing has been quite obscene in my opinion. The celebrations are ghoulish and sound more like the death of Guy Falkes than something you would expect in the 21st century. The utube clip of the failedchant was pretty heartening. One thing that has struck me in New Zealand is the degree of cynicism people are expressing. Even the "check-out chick" at the supermarket aked me "Do you think there's something fishy about this whole thing?" I think he probably is dead but I'm surprised by how many are saying they simply don't believe it. I'm not sure that that's a progressive thing necessarily, but it's certainly not a bad thing. Cheers, John 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] Dialectics (list member's name)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Since no one else seems to have raised it, just a reminder that one list rule is never to include a list member's name in the subject line. Cheers, John 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] Egypt arming Libya rebels, WSJ reports
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Matt wrote: > As in Iraq and Afghanistan, imperialist strategy will be to prolong the > conflict as long as possible to maximize the destruction and promote > partition, with Benghazi an Egyptian satellite. Except that's a really dangerous game for the imperialists to play when they don't really knowe if they've got control of Egypt any more. Sure, the army seized power, and the army is aligned with the US, but if I were a US official now, I wouldn't be assuming Egyptian loyalty. Again I ask, is there any actual evidence of an intention to divide Libya? I don't see how the West would benefit from the increased instability that partition would bring, remembering that the bit they would see as their natural ally, centred around Benghazi, is the region that sent the most fighters to shoot Americans in Iraq, and that sort of meddling would cause all kinds of outrage throughout the Muslim world. Why partition Libya when you can get back to business as usual with the whole country, regardless of who wins the civil war? If Gaddafi wins, they'll either work with him again or quietly get rid of him. If the rebels win, they'll just work with them instead, unless the mass movement manages to assert itself, which will depend on lots of things, but is obviously less likely now that intervention has been approved. If there's a partition, they've just got a new can of worms. Cheers, John 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] After Libya declares ceasefire, U.S. government lays bare its imperialist ambitions
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == In http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/after-libya-declares.html it is reported that "The Libyan governments unilateral cease-fire and call for negotiations with those in the armed rebellion who, in the words of the Foreign Minister, believe in Libyas territorial unity, have created an unanticipated hitch in the fast-track plans of British, French and U.S. imperialism to start bombing the country." In http://www.libyafeb17.com/ it would appear that Libyan rebels are struggling to distinguish between pre-ceasefire bombardments and post-ceasefire bombardments. Incidentally, I have seen no suggestion anywhere of a desire on the part of any of the rebels to accept any sort of partition, or of the West to advocate it. Is there actually any evidence at all for such a plan or is it merely speculation on the part of some Western leftists? Cheers, John 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] The character of the rebellion in Libya
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Eli wrote: > I wonder if those of you who seem to take it as an article of faith that what > is happening in Libya is a "revolution" are given any pause whatsoever by the > fact that the newly-acknowledged military commander of the rebellion is the > just-resigned Interior Minister under Gaddafi. > http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/15/3163945.htm > Not to mention the composition of the entire Transitional National Council: > http://www.npr.org/2011/03/14/134452475/leaders-of-the-libyan-opposition-emerge Actually Eli, I think everyone here has been very aware of the nature and composition of what we have broadly refered to as the self appointed leadership of the movement there. I certainly have. I've also tended (but I may on occasion have erred) to refer to it as a revolt. Sometimes we just have to trust people to get on with it and trust that they will reckon with the faux revolutionaries, opportunists and traitors in their ranks as things progress. There are reactionaries in the leadership in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and I assume in Yemen etc too. That's how it is in a revolution. As I said the other day, if we judged every movement on the basis of whether or not it included some reactionary element, we'd never support any movement. Stalin was a bolshevik, Eden Pastora was a Sandinista (in fact I think he coined the name) Deng was part of the Chinese revolution etc. The question is, did the Libyan people have genuine grievances, and no option but to rise up to overcome them? I believe that is so. That the West will try to use that is a "no brainer". Of course they will, and of course some ex-regime people will jump on the band wagon. It looks now as though Gaddafi may pull off a victory, although I am not completely convinced of that. I do not see the West feeling in the least threatened by that prospect. What I haven't yet seen from anyone who is so skeptical of the revolt, is a credible case for what the West actually loses by a Gaddafi win. Thjere's plenty of talk about how the rebels will let Imperialism in the door, but not much recognition that Gaddafi had already opened that door - to 100% privatisation! You can't get more imperialist-friendly than that. Blair made multiple trips to Libya to meet with Gaddafi. Saif al Islam described the Blairs as family friends. That lecher Berlusconi was on great terms with Gaddafi. Where is the anti-imperialist reality that was going to be lost if Gaddafi fell? Cheers, John 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] Yemen expels four foreign journalists amid fears of clampdown
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Gary wrote: > Well of course > Saleh has looked at Libya and seen how the glorious anti-imperialist > struggle can be advanced. Massacre upon massacre with a discrete number of > disappearances and tortures on the side. As have the al Khalifas in Bahrain, and their immediate overlords, the house of Saud... Cheers, John 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] Socialist Alternative's slander of Socialist Alliance on Libya
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 3/13/11 7:41 AM, Nick Fredman wrote: > > Theres nothing at all wrong with serious criticism and debate among > > socialists, about either current issues or historical and theoretical > > questions. But sanctimonious hyper-factionalised screeds, that are > > factually wrong if not dishonest, that are hypocritical whether > > consciously so or not, and that are full of hyperbolic language, are > > not useful. Louis replied: > But you have to understand. Having the correct position on Libya is a litmus > test for revolutionaries. Surely you must be aware of Lenin's 1911 article "The > Tasks of the Libyan Workers", all the more remarkable in light of the fact that > there was no such country at the time. I believe the appropriate response in these times is LOL or some similar acronym. What I find interesting about this whole Libya debate, as it is unfolding on this list - the debate between: "Hands off Libya; Victory to the revolution", "Victory to the revolution; Hands off Libya", "Victory to the revolution", or "Hands off Libya" seems not to have its equivalent amongst the Middle Eastern left. The Angry Arab doesn't appear preoccupied with this issue, the PFLP doesn't seem preoccupied with this issue, the Arab Left Forum doesn't seem preoccupied with this issue, the revolutionaries in Egypt, Tunisia, Iran etc don't seem preoccupied with this issue. They all seem blisfully unaware of the mortal danger we face by breathing a word of sympathy or support for the Libyan revolt. Rather, they see more of their brothers and sisters, coreligionists and fellow workers standing up to another of their region's dictators against high unemployment, declining living standards, neo-liberal reforms and in favour of more freedom and democracy. Yes, in Libya, as everywhere, there is a risk that the revolution will be hijacked or derailed, but it seems to me they're just getting on with it, and all power to them for that. Cheers, John 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] Omar Al Mukhtar's grandchildren.
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == >From http://www.libyafeb17.com/ on the death of the Al Jazeera cameraman Ali Hassan Al Jabir. While we can't read too much into the fact that "someone's grandchildren think this...", I still thought it worth posting for the interest value. Cheers, John 22:16 Al Jazeera Arabic reporter Bayba Wld Mhaadee explains the events that led to the death of his crew member Ali Hassan Al Jabir: We were doing our job and completed the last interview in this spot (Benghazi) at 4pm local time. Then we moved towards the city of Salloug which is 40km south west Benghazi. There was a demonstration led by grandchildren of Omar Al Mukhtar stating that they were still with the Libyan Revolution, and debunking the claim that they were with the Gaddafi Regime. On our way back to Benghazi, we were surprised with heavy gunfire. Three bullets hit the cameraman Ali Hassan Al Jabir in the back, one went through his pure heart. I was next to him, my body was next to his in the car. We tried to revive him, but by the time we reached the hospital, he had passed away. A fourth bullet hit another crew member Nassir Al Haddar clipping him on the top of the ear and went through the car window. The type of bullet used is the penetrating and explosive type. 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] Final Statement Issued by the Exceptional Meeting of the Arab Left Forum
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I don't think this has made it to the list so far, If it has, my appologies for reposting. I couldn't help noticing that the Arab Left Forum statement mentioned Libya in the same context as Egypt, Bahrain, Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan, Yemen and Iraq. The Forum seems to have no problem taking up a call for genuine democracy and simultaneously opposing Western intervention: "This programme is based on ... resisting occupation and imperialist aggression headed as usual by the USA and the Zionist movement." ... "The Arab Left Forum expressed its support with the people of Bahrain, Algeria, Libya, Jordan, Yemen, Kuwait and all Arab people in their struggle for achieving democratic change." Cheers, John ps. I can only assume that in point 4 below, Sundance is suppoed to read Sudanese . . . (Ooops!) http://www.politicalaffairs.net/middle-east-progressive-change-is-possible/ Middle East: "Progressive change is possible" *Final Statement Issued by the Exceptional Meeting of the Arab Left Forum* The Tasks of the Arab Left during the Current Social Revolutions and the Steps for the Confrontation of the Imperial-Israeli Assault The Arab Left Forum met in Beirut on the 18th and 19th of February, in response to a call by the Lebanese Communist Party to hold an exceptional meeting of the Forum under the banner The Tasks of the Arab Left during the current social revolutions and the steps for the confrontation of the Imperial-Israeli Assault. The meeting came during the exceptional conditions which are unfolding in our region after the success of the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions in the overthrow of Zein Al-Abideen Bin Ali and Hosni Mubarak. Discussions during the meeting focused on the importance of the continuation of the two revolutions to confront counter-revolutionary plots being organized by reactionary Arab forces and backed by Imperialist powers at the forefront of which is the USA and the Zionist movement. These counter-revolutionary plots aim to thwart the young revolution movements in order to prevent them from achieving their full objectives which they declared at the onset, namely to overthrow the despotic regimes and to build a democratic country where social justice, equality and national independence will be built and safeguarded. These two revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt have formed a qualitative jump in the Arab political life, as they have demonstrated that progressive change is possible. Indeed these two revolutions have shown that victory over despotic regimes characterized by oppression, exploitation, impoverishment of the people, complete subservience of national economies to the IMF and the World bank, and complete subservience of their policies to the Imperial- Zionist project in the region is also possible. And so we witness the winds of change shaking the thrones of the rulers of Yemen, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Algeria and Libya amongst other Arab Countries as well. The mass movement and militancy that we are witnessing has opened up a new horizon for the Arab world. A horizon created through the struggle of the youth and the workers of Tunisia and Egypt, and with significant and effective participation by Arab women. This raises the opportunity and the challenge for the forces of the Arab Left to unify themselves under a program for democratic and social change with two main and related tasks. Firstly, such a program is necessary to confront reactionary internal forces attempting to exploit the mass popular awakening in Egypt and Tunisia in order to serve their own agendas which does not entail any radical change from the current status in the Arab world. On the contrary, these reactionary agendas would reproduce the same regimes albeit in a novel shape and form. Secondly, such a program for the unification of the Arab left forces is also necessary to effectively confront the Imperialist American plots and Zionist occupation and assaults under a banner for real and effective change. In the current revolutionary moment we are witnessing, the Arab leftist forces and parties gathered in Beirut decided to entitle their exceptional meeting The Martyrs of the Tunisian and Egyptian Revolution and the Other Arab Intifadas. Those present agreed on the following: 1. The Arab Left Forum in its exceptional meeting stressed its support and backing, and the backing of the Arab left parties, to the Revolutions of Tunisia and Egypt and reiterated that these revolutions were an inevitable conclusion to the accumulation of years of struggle beginning from the late seventies of the last century against these two regimes characterized by dictatorship corruption and subservience to USA. Those gathered also extended their respectful salutes to the martyrs and the injured of the two re
[Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Dave wrote: > Also it is worthwhile noting that France has recognized the gov in > Benghazi now, though their thinking appears to be very much in the > minority among imperialist nations Presumably France aims to get additional favour with the new government if Gaddafi is overthrown, so they're prepared to go out on their own. They won't suffer any repurcussions of note if they got it wrong. maybe some French firms would pay a price but the potential benefit is much greater - first dibs on any reconstruction projects etc due to the good will they hope to gain. I note in Juan Cole's report, he indicates tha Az Zawiyah is still at least partly in rebel hands. That appears no longer to be the case, according to a Reuters report posted on http://www.libyafeb17.com/ so unfortunately I suspect his report may be over optimistic. Cheers, John 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] NYT: Rebels defiant as Qaddafi forces gain momentum
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Fred writes: > The issue I have posed is whether the Benghazi leadership's advocacy of > acts of military aggression against Libya, so that the imperialists can > decide the Libya conflict in their favor, has contributed to undermining the > political self-confidence of their rank and file and strengthening the > morale and political self-confidence of the Gadhafi forces. I think the > rebel leadership has lost the image of speaking for the nation that they had > in the beginning - rather like the Egyptian revolt - and that the Gadhafi > forces are gaining some of the moral advantage that the rebel leaders have > thrown away. But Fred, the argument you and others have been running has never claimed that the Council leadership initially had "the image of speaking for the nation". One thing we have actually all agreed on is that the "Benghazi leadership" are not representative of the whole movement, are quite possibly quite out of touch, and are comprised of a narrow layer of Libyans that are highly educated, professional, and or defectors from Gaddafi's government. People who tend to be more supportive of the rebellion refer to that Benghazi leadership as self-appointed, not necessarily representative, and part of an evolving process. They have maintained a highly skeptical view of the "Benghazi leadership". So there hasn't been any "ducking and weaving to avoid dealing with the evolution of the lleadership of his "people's revolution." required. I support the right of the Libyan people to rise up against Gaddafi, and I support their having chosen to exercise that right. I'll put my hand up and say I was wrong if "wikileaks documents" or some other proof emerges that the Gadaffi government lied about aiming to privatise 100% of the economy, or if there is substantially *more* imperialist involvement in Libya in the event of a rebel victory, which I guess means more than 100% privatisation, or the establishment of military bases, which I very much doubt will happen. But I certainly feel no inclinination to start "ducking and weaving to avoid dealing with the evolution of" a leadership I have never supported. And in that respect, there is no difference ther to my position regrding Egypt etc. The revolution has progressive possibilities but may yet be derailed. If we're not prepared to take that risk, we may as well pack up and go home. Cheers, John 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] Oh Nuclear David, Nuclear David! Wherefore Art Thou Today?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == > Another comrade, Phil Ferguson--I should mention--was in Christchurch, New > Zealand when a massive earthquake hit there. Phil is okay but inconvenienced. I can confirm that. I've had coffee with Phil a couple of times since the earthquake and he brought me water when my house was without water for about a week. I really appreciated the support. While it has been a tragedy for many people here,I think our problems here in Christchurch, and mine especially, pale into insignificance compared with what some other people, in places as diverse as Japan and Libya, are enduring. Cheers, John 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. war, lies, and business, by Fidel Castro
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Eli writes: > I, for one, am "intimating" no such thing, I merely said my mind is open to > the possibility, such that years from now, when WikiLeaks reveals some secret > documents, I won't be shocked if it turns out that was the case. And again, > although I don't speak for the PSL, I think you will search articles like the > one by Brian Becker in vain for any such "intimation." I think it is more than possible that the CIA have their grubby mitts in there - it's what they do. But the fact that the CIA "might" fund some opposition figures in Benghazi does not delegitimate the people there's struggle for freedom. If it did, all the CIA would have to do is write a cheque to every revolutionary group on the planet. Earlier, Eli also wrote: > Who is doing the fighting and even moreso, what they are fighting for is > decisive. > The PSL (as I see it) opposed the Green Movement not because "the Iranian > people do not have the right to revolution," but because the "revolution" in > question was one which was headed in the direction of imperialism, that is, > pushing Iran into the imperialist camp. It seems to me that every statement that comes from the opposition in Libya stresses the need to be free of a tyrant who has brutally suppressed the people for many years. The (self appointed) leadership may want close relations with the West, although how much closer you can get than Gaddafi's promise of 100% privatisation, I'm not sure. Gaddafi wanted his "very" Western friendly son, Seif-al-Islam to inherit his father's position, something that might yet still happen. Months ago I was reading in our local papers, stories about who would succeed Gaddafi senior, and the stories were very sympathetic to Seif, and his urbane, cultured Western ways, and his commitment to Western ideals, values and ... business. He would be reinvented, just ass happened hith Bashir al Assad in Syria. Yet the CIA will give Assad junior the shove too if need be. So there was little need for such a risky move by the CIA or the West in general. If it was a CIA plot, it could only have been activated because events out of their contro had begun to emerge in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, Algeria, Jordan, Morocco, Oman, Saudi ... In other words, right through the Arab world, as well as in Iran. As Tunisians were saying back when they gave Zine Abidin ben Ali the heave ho, "One down, twenty two to go". That's not what the US wanted to hear. That the Libyans should be seen as exceptions does them no justice. Who else gets to be an exception. Assad? Ahmadinejad? (well he's already earned that status). If there's a region wide movement to get rid of the dictatorships running virtually every country in the region, why should we get to decide that the Libyans don't count. And the point is that, saying, "Like Fidel, I'm just keeping an open mind", doesn't really cut it, because withholding support for the Libyans and Iranians while extending support to the process everywhere else in the region, but saying they might be OK is like damning with faint praise. The point surely is that at some point we have to trust the people there. They are speaking out strongly against the repression they have experienced and they want something better. We can't expect that the opposition will come out with a printed manifesto that looks just like they downloaded a template by Marx and Engels. Hell, Fidel couldn't have produced that either in 1958. Cheers, John 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] Libyan shame
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == sobuadhaigh wrote: > The target of the empire right now is the Libyan > regime which should therefore must supported as > a means of mobilizing the American people against > our own bourgeoisie. As regards the people of > Libya, they may indeed be suffering under the > regime but they do not have the right to revolution > (as in Iran). Such a revolutionary movement, > confronting a regime to which the US has been > hostile, inexorably becomes a tool of imperialism. And this is the key flaw in this approach. According to this argument, people subject to any oppressive regime or leader anywhere in the world, be it Kim Jong Il, the SLORC in Burma, Mugabe, Iran, Libya, anywhere that has been (and is) subject to threats from imperialism, are denied the right to their democratic revolution, or at least to international support from the left, such as it is. They can never be supported, regardless of their oppression, or the justice of their cause, because their leadership is under attack from imperialism. I will always campaign against imperialist attacks on these sorts of governments, but not to the exclusion of supporting their own revolutionary impulses. That's the real, material issue with Libyan exceptionalism. The people of the Middle East don't appear to be taking this view. The Arab left appear to be uniformly in support of the Libyan opposition. Having said this, I do not believe that those people on this list who are on the opposite side of the debate from me, those who see actively, or more realistically, vocally supporting the resistance as weakening the anti-imperialist tasks of the Western left as counterrevolutionary. If they banned placards from an event, that would raise issues but I haven't heard Nestor or anyone else advocating that. If they ran a counter-picket or turned up to denounce people campaigning on a "Support the resistance & No to Imperialism" platform, that would raise issues. But short of that, holding what I consider to be the wrong position on this question is well short of counterrevolutionary. Nestor, Eli, Fred and others believe as passionately as any of us on this list in the struggle for international socialist revolution. To disagree on a strategy, especially from afar on an elist is not counterrevolution. Cheers, John 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: a tale of two headlines 8th March 2011
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == The military probably have a term for these light trucks - what we in New Zealand call a ute (utility truck). I think the issue is more one of the journalists (and, to be honest the listening public) don't know all the technical jargon. For example, many of the "tanks" that we see reports of aren't tanks either, they're armoured personnel carriers (APCs, or armoured vehicles designed to move infantry around). But to someone who doesn't take much of an interest in military hardware, "tank" is a word they understand, because they're big, armoured, painted in a camoflage pattern and have tracks or lots of big wheels. There isn't any intended deception in this sort of inaccuracy in my opinion, just a lack of precision in the use of language. Likewise, plenty of people get knocked over by the blast of an explosion that's too far away to do any real injury. Cheers, John 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] U.S. Wavers on 'Regime Change'
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Arguments in support of the Gaddafi regime and "Libyan exceptionalism" hinge on the idea that what we do or say in relation to criticism of Gaddafi or support for the opposition might help open the door to imperialist intervention in Libya. For a pretty honest assessment of how much the US adminstration is already trying to cynically manipulate the various revolts/revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa, we need look no further than the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580004576180522653787198.html U.S. Wavers on 'Regime Change' "WASHINGTONAfter weeks of internal debate on how to respond to uprisings in the Arab world, the Obama administration is settling on a Middle East strategy: help keep longtime allies who are willing to reform in power, even if that means the full democratic demands of their newly emboldened citizens might have to wait. "Instead of pushing for immediate regime changeas it did to varying degrees in Egypt and now Libyathe U.S. is urging protesters from Bahrain to Morocco to work with existing rulers toward what some officials and diplomats are now calling "regime alteration."" Robert Fisk's latest is also important. He claims that the US is endeavouring to get arms to the rebels via Saudi Arabia, and argues that this will allow the Saudis a free rein to suppress their own protest movement, which is planning for a "day of Rage" this Friday: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels "Desperate to avoid US military involvement in Libya in the event of a prolonged struggle between the Gaddafi regime and its opponents, the Americans have asked Saudi Arabia if it can supply weapons to the rebels in Benghazi... "Washington's request is in line with other US military co-operation with the Saudis..." Yes. The presence of a rebellion against Gaddafi presentse the US with opportunities, but it also presents them with problems. No revolt in Libya would have meant a perfectly satisfactory "business as usual" arrangement with Libya - rapidly expanding privatisation, a A Western educated heir-apparent, and a strong leader, in Gaddafi senior, in the phony war against Al Qaeda. The fact of the rebellion presents dilemmas but also the opportunity to aim for a more palatable strongman in charge in Libya, if only for the reason that Gaddafi carries with him a lot of inconvenient, though out of date, baggage. We can't do much about any of it. We certainly can't do anything to shape how the Libyan people decide their leadership, and neither should we. But we can oppose Western intervention in a principled way, by not lending unearned support to the born-again Western stooge Gaddafi. Cheers, John 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] Gadhafi's militia storms key town (NYT), and my comments
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Néstor Gorojovsky wrote: > I am saying that the rebellion is proving, minute after shitty minute, > a wonderful ground for imperialist agents to plant their murderous > vegetables. And I'm saying that Imperialism can and will try to do that in every revoltionary upsurge anywhere in the world. They are trying to manipulate the Egyptian, Tunisian, Yemeni, Bahraini and every other movement. The only thing that makes Libya different is that people want to hold onto the idea that Libya still has anti-imperialist credentials worth something. But when the Libyan government has not only promised, but begun enacting the 100% privatisation of the economy, there is nothing anti-imperialist left to salvage. Cheers, John 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] NYT: U.S. Weighs Options, on Air and Sea
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == The NYT is salivating about the options for intervention, running through all the cool technology that Obama has at his disposal, including "muscular" ships and other gadgets, drooling over the possibility of a bit of "gunboat diplomacy" and enthusing that "Rebel commanders have begged for American strikes". They wish ... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/world/middleeast/07military.html?_r=1&src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fworld%2Fmiddleeast%2Findex.jsonp Of course it is still possible that Gaddafi will be history before a US response is ready. The situation is too fluid to know, but the army seems to have been singularly ineffective to date in using its superior firepower to retake any rebel-held locations bigger than a village, and that only temporarily. And all this Ramboesque fantasising seems right out of step with the confused and cautious approach being taken by the leadership of the West. Cheers, John 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] Libyan Republic Declared?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Lajany Otum wrote: > No surprise here, if this report turns out to be accurate. On the contrary, I > found the speculation posted earlier on the list about the Libyan uprising > being in support of a restored "emirates" under British tutelage to be quite > fantastic. Even bearing in mind that they have lived under Qaddafi's stifling > dictatorship for 42 years, it is an astounding orientalist slander against the > Libyan people to imagine they have been so isolated from the anti-colonial and > freedom struggles in the Arab world since WWI, that they would come out en > masse and sacrifice their lives today, for such a retrograde political > project as the restoration of a British imposed emirate. On that subject, here's a BBC assessment of the significance of tribalism in Libya today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12528996 I found it interesting because I've been suspicious of all the talk about the essentially tribal nature of Libyan society, which has a distinct whiff of Orientalism about it. It reminds me of the huge focus on tribalism in Imperialist commentaries about Iraq, which just happened to be the most developed country in the Arab world before it was bombed back to the stoneage (and presumably therefore to tribalism...) It's just that for all the talk of tribalism, it simply never seemed to have much real meaning beyond the accounts of the journalists themselves. Anyway, the BBC report makes what appears to be a measured assessment of its significance in Libyan society today, and the verdict seems to be, Well not much really. Cheers, John 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] Richard Becker video on Libya
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Pat wrote: > Richard Becker is knowledgeable about the Middle East and makes some > interesting remarks about the current situation Yes, there is some interesting stuff. But he starts by saying, "With regard to Libya, what's happening in Libya today..." and then he spends most of the talk discussing how great Gaddafi *was*, before "bourgeois forces got stronger" and Gaddafi moved away from support for the national liberation movements. What he says is really interesting, although he himself admits that his knowledge of Libya is limited. Of course, the background history is really important, but what's glaringly absent is any attempt to *actually* talk about what's happening in Libya today. There is nothing about whether or not the oposition might have genuine cause for rebellion, nothing about who the opposition are, just an exposition on "Libyan exceptionalism". That aspect of the talk, and those key omissions, were a disappointment. I really think these people need to stop covering for Gaddafi. Then their anti-Western intervention calls would carry far more weight. I mean does he really believe that Al Qaeda have sneaked into pantries and cafe store rooms right throughout Libya in the night to spike everyone's coffee with halucinogenic drugs??? Cheers, John 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] Libyan "Ambassador" issues demand for immediate U.S. bombing campaign
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == In reply to: > > Ali Aujali, the Libyan Ambassador to the U.S. who says he no longer > > represents the Gaddafi government (but still claims to be the Ambassador), > > just issued a plea on live TV (Fox News with Shep Smith) for immediate U.S. > > military action in the form of bombing military bases and headquarters loyal > > to Gaddafi. Néstor Gorojovsky asks: > Has any Egyptian ambassador taken same step? > Doesn´t this imply anything? This is the sort of thing I'm finding frustrating. A Gaddafi appointee turned defector calls for the bombing of his own country and we're supposed to read this as proof that the struggle against Gaddafi is somehow riddled with reaction. We could equally interpret it as meaning Gaddafi's regime is more closely aligned with imperialism since he chose this guy to represent him. A perhaps more likely explanation is that with the Egyptian army deciding it wouldn't shoot at the demonstrators, the situation never arose. This was also true in Tunisia. The Egyptian army has now attempted to sieze control and as far as possible keep business as usual and retain close ties with the West. Elements within the Libyan army and broader resistance will attempt to do the same. They may succeed in both cases but the revolutionary attempt to rid a people of the (pro-Western) dictator is no less valid for having tried. Plenty of revolutions fail. If these ones fail that will be a set back the anti-imperialist struggle. But people will learn and perhaps will be more capable of keeping the reactionaries out next time, whenever that is. On the other hand they may succeed, in which case those who abstained will have a lot of catching up to do. Cheers, John 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] Latin America and the Arab revolution: the bankruptcy of Chavism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Ataulfo Riera, from the Belgian 4th International is understandably pessimistic about the stand taken by Castro and Chavez, which has been weak at best. In the post by Eli of Fidel Castro's latest reflections though, Castro seems to have shifted a little. He describes the rebels in the following terms: > No doubt, the faces of young people protesting in Benghazi, men and women, > with veils and without, expressed real indignation. Damning with faint praise? Well perhaps, except that he then goes on to quote University of Benghazi Political Science professor Abeir Imneina saying "There is also the feeling that this is our revolution and that it is up to us forge ahead." That doesn't sound like a pro-Gaddafi statement to me. In relation to the media's coverage of the conflict, he also asks us "Why the effort to present the rebels as prominent members of society demanding U.S. and NATO air strikes to kill Libyans?" Clearly he considers that a distortion. Is this a shift in his position from simple fence-sitting to acknowledging the genuine nature of the revolution? Clearly he is still obviously preoccupied with the (real) risk of Western intervention. Whether this is just him running to catch up or not I don't know, but I sincerely hope it represents a real shift, and that Chavez moves the same way. Cheers, John 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] A moderator's immoderate comment
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Louis Proyect wrote: > Upon further reflection, I have decided to unsub Walter Lippmann. I feel that Louis might have reacted a bit quickly here but then, I know Walter is like a red rag to a bull and I find myself responding when I probably should just shut up. I think there is generally scope for differences of opinion on the list and Louis, crotchety as he is, generally manages it pretty well. Cheers, John 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] PL: Mass Pressure Leads Egyptian Prime Minister to Resign
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I don't post here that often, and I know Walter, whose comments prompted this thread has been unsubbed, but here goes anyway. David's post brings together a few things that are kicking around in the discussion of the Libyan revolution. The first is the issue of who the revolutionaries are. To me this is intimately comnnected to the issue I moaned about a week or so ago, about trying to shoehorn any new upsurge into a 1917 mould. No one should be surprised that the revolution includes a wide range of participants, some of whom are reactionary advocates of a return to the monarchy. Nothing short of the prior emergence of a suitable "Libyan Lenin" would satisfy some people's minds that this is a genuinely progressive movement. In fact it isn't "genuinely progressive" if by that it is meant that the movement is unanimously focussed on an end to capitalism. There miht acually be bugger-all conscious anti-capitalists in it, but I support it anyway. When it comes to Egypt, we're prepared to accept that the movement will have shortcomings, but in Libya the revolution must spring forth fully formed from the head of, who? Marx? The main reason for this is presuambly illusions in Gaddafi. I've had a soft spot for the mad Colonel in the past too, but I've always felt that, for all the rhetoric, there was something not quite right. It's like he only ever had one foot tentatively in the anti-imperialist camp but the other was dancing all over the place. So he funded some genuine movements, some of whom now feel they owe him a debt of loyalty. But he also, at the same time, engaged in mad adventurism, acts of assassination that have more in common with the worst forms of anarchism than with Marxism, and also acts of supreme betrayal, such as his expulsion of the Palestinians from Libya, as has been mentioned on this list. Of course any remaining anti-imperialist cred that he might have retained was surely jettisoned when he embraced the IMF and began his sweeping program of economic reforms (read privatisation). And as for his latest pronouncement about drug-spiked milk and coffee, if that's true, where can I get some??? There comes a time when we have to realise that we were mistaken in backing certain figures. In the 80s I placed a lot of faith in the ANC and in Mugabe. On both counts, although in quite different ways, I was wrong. I can try to understand what went wrong, but ultimately I have to accept that I got it wrong. So the revolution in Libya is, and will continue to be, messy. It will include all kinds of reactionaries along with the progressives. Just like everywhere else, it will stall if the reactionaries win out, it will have the potential to bring about genuine liberation if the progressives win out. It is our role surely to support the process and protect it from imperialist intervention, while at the same time doing whatever little we can to bolster the left forces within the movement. Playing "spot the reactionary in the movement" will not do us any credit. Buying the NYT's assessment of who the leadership is in Libya when we critically assess their claims in any other country's revolutionary process does us no credit either. The West will always try to find and promote people within a revolution who can serve their cauise and protect their interests. It is our job to try to see through that, not blindly and naively, but critically, employing our best ability. So I support David's cry of: "ALL HANDS OFF LIBYA & VICTORY TO THE PEOPLE'S REVOLUTION". Cheers, John 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. == I think the point where Paula and I (and others) part company is when she states that "... as more and more former colonies become independent states ... they usually join the ranks of the "smaller" imperialist states ..." Firstly, treating the post-colonial histories of countries as diverse as Libya and Australia in the one breath is a serious error. Australia has traditionally (since its earliest colonisation, been one of the most heavily urbanised, developed and wealthiest countries in the world. A white settler colony, it declared independence on its own terms without the need for any form of independence struggle and was welcomed immediately into the ranks of the white, wealthy, imperialist world. Libya was a desperately poor country that had to fight a long war of resistance against the colonial power - Italy. Between independence and the revolution of 1969, its primary source of foreign exchange was scrap metal, obtained by scavanging the desert for armoured vehicles destroyed or abandoned during the second world war. Sure, Libya has since developed an oil industry and Libyan money has been used in investments outside its borders and as funding for the African Union, as the map Paula posted laid out. But to claim therefor that Libya has "join[ed] the ranks of the "smaller" imperialist states" is to deny the big picture of Libya's post-colonial history. Secondly, such a sweeping statment, that newly independent countries "usually join the ranks of the "smaller" imperialist states" takes no account of the history of the vast bulk of those countries, such as the vast majority of, for example, African countries, which have remained desperately poor and have no meaningful characteristics of imperialism. To that list could be added the Island states of the Pacific, the majority of SE Asian countries, Latin America etc, ie virtually every country to gain formal independence in the post WWII era. Cheers, John 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] Libya and Western intervention
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == The media are starting to say that in the light of the successful defence of Al Brega, near Benghazi, the opposition are now united in calling for Western intervention. Here's an Al Jazeera report on the fighting, which apparently saw large numbers of well equipped loyalist forces break into the town before being repelled by the rebels. ironiically, te call for aid comes after awhat appears to have been a significant defeat of Gaddafi loyalists. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/20113219238494697.html But reports of this unanimous clamour for intervention might well be exagerated. The National Libyan Council has called for a no fly zone over Libya and pin-point airstrikes on targets in Tripoli but has categorically stated that it is opposed to the deployment of ground forces, saying it does not want another Iraq. This is, I think, a naive position, since it is unlikely that, having been given the green light for intervention, the West would not claim it needed special forces on the ground to target raids etc, and that would be the think end of the wedge. The NLC is hardly the "united voice of the Libyan revolution", it is one body that is being promoted in the West. Certainly it is getting a profile and I imagine it carries some weight, but it was only formed in Benghazi 4 days ago. It was always going to be the case that some Libyans would want Western aid. I think, or at least I hope, it is significant that even the NLC has made it clear that they do not want Western troops in Libya. Cheers, John 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] Two items on prospects for imperialist intervention in Lib
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == My view is that imperialism is always active everywhere and Libya is no exception, so of course when Fred suggests that the imperialist vultures are circling, he is correct. I'm not sure that anyone on this list would disagree with that. The concern is where the threat of imperialist intervention leads to people taking the view that support for Gaddafi against possible US/NATO action is more important than the success of the Libyan uprising. I don't advocate a "plague on both their houses" stance. My sympathy is with the uprising but I would absolutely oppose any outside intervention. I try not to blindly follow the pronouncements of any single organisation in these matters but I do think it significant that the PFLP's position is to categorically oppose the Gaddafi regime and to express solidarity with the opposition. http://www.pflp.ps/english/?q=comrade-jamal-recent-events-libya-mean-fascist-dic Cheers, John 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] NYT: U.S. Readies Military Options on Libya
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Fred Feldman wrote: > Arguments that the imperialists have no need for intervene because the > leadership is bourgeois forget that Gadhafi crew was a bourgeois leadership > and they were virtually at war with him for many years. The imperialists > need to get control of this process in the Middle East and North Africa, The > idea that they are happy as clams as long as there is a bourgeois leadership > is a leftist fantasy. I don't think either "no need" or "happy as clams" arguments have been the dominant arguments. Rather, people have been saying that a) Imperialism was caught off guard, and b) intervention is a certainty but it may not take the form of direct military intervention. Imperialist interests have already been playing both sides in Libya, rehabilitating Gaddafi and simultaneously courting opposition figures. That is a given in any situation where imperialist interests exist. The question is, will they deem a military intervention necessary. If yes, they will be risking a region-wide conflict so that won't be an easy call. In Iraq, they could call on support from their Arab puppet allies. In Libya, while the task might be much simpler in strictly military terms, they would no longer have the support of the rest of the Arab world. Any Arab government that supported US or other Western intervention would be courting disaster. Cheers, John 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. == John wrote: > > New Zealand has had direct imperial colonies in the past, and has even > > perpetrated its own massacre (in Samoa). > Thats not a global empire. Its about regional influence, which Libya also > has, including in military terms. Take a look again at this map: > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/gadhafis-influence- > on-africa/article1915484/?from=1915485 Russia only had a regional empire too before the revolution. Fascist Italy only had regional influence too. It just doesn't work to think in such mechanistic ways. We have to be able to look at the whole picture. Russia inherited its empire from its feudal past. If it hadn't had it back then, it never would have been able to compete due to its backwardness. New Zealand gets first world prices for its primary products (coal and dairy). Australia gets first world prices for its mineral exports. The workers working in those industries get 1st world wages (especially in Australia), and the workers working in them are primarily Australians and New Zealanders. The economies of both countries are 1st world economies. The same can be said for Norway. In Libya on the other hand, the oil industry is significantly operated by expats from 1st world countries and the vast bulk of Libyans don't even get the trickle-down. The latter was also true in Venezuela, although under Chavez, a significant part of the oil revenue is funding development, health etc. I really don't see how anyone could confuse Libya, which has only shared a bit of its oil wealth around since Gaddafi came to power, and increasingly less since his rapprochement with the West, with highly developed and industrialised 1st world countries like Norway. Louis wrote: In the case of Venezuela, you have had mineral extraction and export agriculture for its entire history. With Norway, you have industries that use the raw materials of places like Venezuela, Chile, Congo and the Philippines. Actually, manufacturing makes up a greater proportion of GDP in Venezuela than in Norway: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ind_man_val_add_cur_us_pergdp-added-current-us-per-gdp And if you went and stood in a typical manufacturing plant in Venezuela for a few minutes and then compared that to one in Norway, you'd stop making those comparisons. Or if you tried living on a Venezuelan's wage in Oslo. Cheers, John 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] All quiet in Tripoli -- today's NYT on protests, revolts, and other CIA plots
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == > Bang on, Fred!! And don't forget those flags. The official flag of > Qaddafi's Libya -- all green, for Islam and the Green Book -- is > nowhere to be seen in the photos of mass demonstrations; instead, they > are waving the flag of King Idris, of the "Kingdom of Libya"! > (Monarchists, indeed!) Which just happens, of course, to be the first > flag of independent Libya, adopted in the early 1950s (in case anyone > raises this again): > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Libya. ;-) Actually, as Louis has pointed out, and there's a link in the archives, the red, black and green flag with the star and crescent is NOT "the flag of King Idris" at all. It is the flag of Libya, which was then the "Kingdom of Libya", which the rsistance fought under when resisting the Italian fascists. The "flag of King Idris" is an all black field with the creascent and star, which are of course common Islamic images. Cheers, John 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] Wisconsin: Cops for Labor??!!
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Something I didn't think I'd ever see. http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/breaking-wisconsin-police-have-joined-protest-inside-state-capitol/ Cheers, John 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. == I just wrote: > Venezuela and Libya, while disproportionately wealthier than similar countries > due to their wealth, have not been able to move into the imperialist camp. Of course what this nonsensical sentence was supposed to say was "...due to their *oil* wealth..." Countries like Norway get raw materials from countries like Libya or Venezuela. New Zealand is a little different because although our government hypes the importance of innovative tech companies like Weta Digital (a movie special effects firm), our economy is underpinned by a raw materials extraction industry - dairy farming. But just like the wool/sheepmeat industries it has supplanted, NZ's dairy industry is a highly advanced and capital intensive operation. Fonterra, the NZ Dairy Farmers' Producer cooperative, is the largest dairy trade in the world and NZ dairying interests are continually investing throughout the world, including in Uruguay and China. Having said that, there are Marxists in New Zealand who think they are living in a semi-colony. I suspect if they actually went and lived in one for a while they might start to see the difference. Cheers, John 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. == That "second tier" of Western countries like Norway or New Zealand are imperialist because they form part of the system of imperialism and they benefit from a share of the take of imperialism. Countries like Venezuela or Libya are the targets of imperialism. Raw comparisons of GDP or GNP, or trying to find an imperial colony tells only a small part of the story, even though that information is itself important and relevant. But it's like looking at someone's wages and declaring a well paid skilled worker to be a capitalist because they're "rich" but a small scale and unsuccessful capitalist as a worker because their income is small. There are plenty of capitalists who are not taking home much income and there are workers on good salaries. Yet those facts don't affect their objective class position, though it may well impact on their (especially the high paid workers') class consciousness. New Zealand has had direct imperial colonies in the past, and has even perpetrated its own massacre (in Samoa). But primarily, it is part of the imperialist world because it has a highly advanced capitalist economy and is able to participate in the extraction of wealth from the less developed world. Venezuela and Libya, while disproportionately wealthier than similar countries due to their wealth, have not been able to move into the imperialist camp. Cheers, John 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] US war plans on the Libyan people taking shape
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Stansfield: > It's great you Marxists on this list can keep directing attention on what a > discreditable guy Gaddafi is, while avoid exposing US war plans on Libya. > Isn't something more required of Marxists than being lemmings jumping an the > imperialist bankwagon? and > Boy, all this talk about the outrages against the people of Libya by Qaddafi > just melts away when we are asked to stand up against imperialist > intervention against them. That's quite a lesson in the phoniness and > hypocrasy of the people on this list. Actually this thread exists because some of us "Marxists on this list" did post on that subject. The fact that not everyone agrees on the likelihood of US or NATO intervention doesn't mean some of us aren't real Marxists. And the fact that people on this list criticise Gaddafi and would like to see him deposed by a popular uprising doesn't mean we're not real Marxists either,or that we're jumping on an imperialist bandwagon. Here are a few quotes from a staunch anti-imperialist organisation that most of us take seriously as a group based in and operating in the Middle East, constantly under fire (literally, not metaphorically) for their opposition to imperialism generally and its local agents specifically, speaking on the subject of Gaddafi and the current rising against him. Are they a bunch of imperialist-tailing lemmings? Is this "quite a lesson in the phoniness and hypocrasy of" the Palestinian resistance? "PFLP condemns Gaddafi regime's massacres against the Libyan people "The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine demanded an immediate end to the bombardment and massacres against the heroic Libyan people, condemning the killing of demonstrators committed by the Gaddafi regime. "The PFLP demanded the protection of the Libyan people and thei rights, and emphasized its support for the demands of the people of Libya and the Arab masses for freedom, human and national dignity, democracy, social justice, and the fight against corruption and dictatorship. "The Front demanded an immediate end to the bloody aggression and oppression and called upon all forces for rights and human dignity in the Arab world and relevant international institutions to act immediately to stop the shedding of Arab blood in the fields and streets of Libya, saying that the criminal regime cares for nothing but its own rule and livelihood at the expense of the enslavement of the homeland and its people. "The Front called for broad humanitarian and national solidarity with the people of Libya, calling upon all to participate in the rally callled for by the Network of NGOs and National and Islamic Forces in Manara Square, calling for an end to occupation and division and solidarity with the Arabs in Libya and the Arab masses in all countries." http://www.pflp.ps/english/?q=pflp-condemns-gaddafi-regimes-massacres-against-li Cheers, John 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] Supporting Gaddafi
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Greg wrote: >> PFLP condemns Gaddafi regime's massacres against >> the Libyan people > I imagine this may have more than a little to do with the relationship > between Healy and Gaddafi, which involved the betrayal of the PLO. Really Greg? You think one of the most serious, long-standing and principled left movements in the world, and certainly one of the most highly regarded factions in the Palestinian struggle, decides its approach to revolution in the Arab world by reading up on something Healy wrote? I'd have thought something written by George Habbash might carry more weight. Something like: "Not one Arab state has enjoyed an active civil society, genuine legislative authorities, a competent, independent judicial structure, and a peaceful transfer of authority from one leader to the next. The worst thing is the failure to attain true independence and true sovereignty." or "Arab society is gravely ill. The dominant forces, relations, and ideas have grown old, while the alternative forces of revolution have failed to be born." or "The current Arab situation is extremely bad; but it contains tremendous potentials. The popular forces need only seize political command with their mass, democratic, patriotic options for vast gates to open up before the prospect of development and revival." http://www.pflp.ps/english/?q=palestine-between-dreams-and-reality-are-we-closer I have a bit more confidence in people like Leila Khaled and Ahmad Sa'adat than to assume they get their political direction from the dusty writings of Mr Healy. Cheers, John 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] Supporting Gaddafi
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == From: sobuadha...@hushmail.com > For at least one group on the left in the Arab world, > there is no ambiguity or silence. On the PFLP's > English language site the support for the Libyan > people against Gaddafi has been clear for several > days now. The PFLP's position regarding the uprisings throughout the Middle East have been consistent and principled in their support of the protests right since the beginning of this process. I hope they gain in support from the Palestinian people as a result of their stand but it is the correct approach regardless. Support for a person like Gaddafi is the same as support for someone like Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il or Robert Mugabe. If he's under attack from imperialism we should oppose the imperialists and defend his right to resist, but that's as far as it goes. In this case he's not under attack from imperialism, whatever he might claim. He's under attack from his own population. I do not hold with the conspiracy theorists who think the West is orchestrating these revolts. The West was happy with the status quo and are far from happy with even the weakest of possible outcomes that could emerge from this situation. Some of the countries where revolts are taking place may end up with new reactionary regimes but for the West, that's no better than the old reactionary regimes. But the danger to the West is enormous. If they did unleash this (which I do not believe) then they surely had no idea what they were doing. Cheers, John 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] Egyptian Revolution Muslim Face, Marxist Brain?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Arthur Maglin wrote: > An interesting document: > http://noisyroom.net/blog/2011/02/03/egyptian-revolution-muslim-face-marxist- > brain/ Trevor Loudon is certifiable. He's a New Zealand crackpot who hunts for reds under every bed. He went to the States during the last US presidential election to advise the Republicans on Obama's Marxist credentials. He tries to "out" people on the left in New Zealand as communists in the most lurid and sensationalist terms, in order to alert New Zealanders to their peril. I should be offended that as far as I know I've remained under his radar (fellow marxmail member Philip Ferguson has a "file" on Loudon's blog) but I really can't be bothered seeing what he has to say. I wouldn't believe a word he writes. Cheers, John 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] Egyptian Revolution Muslim Face, Marxist Brain?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Arthur Maglin wrote: > An interesting document: > http://noisyroom.net/blog/2011/02/03/egyptian-revolution-muslim-face-marxist- > brain/ Trevor Loudon is certifiable. He's a New Zealand crackpot who hunts for reds under every bed. He went to the States during the last US presidential election to advise the Republicans on Obama's Marxist credentials. He tries to "out" people on the left in New Zealand as communists in the most lurid and sensationalist terms, in order to alert New Zealanders to their peril. I should be offended that as far as I know I've remained under his radar (fellow marxmail member Philip Ferguson has a "file" on Loudon's blog) but I really can't be bothered seeing what he has to say. I wouldn't believe a word he writes. Cheers, John 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
