Re: [Marxism] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 03/13/2014 07:25 AM, Marv Gandall wrote: You, Louis, Clay, and others do not take this into account. You approach the issue as though you do have a dog in this fight - if not in the government than at the level of the masses. But you're seeing a revolution or a revolutionary process where one does not presently exist. Unless that improbably changes, your enthusiasm to engage in polemics with those who have a more skeptical view of what is transpiring in Ukraine is entirely without foundation. You may be interested in kibitzing. I am interested in what develops the revolutionary consciousness of the masses and how that can be enhanced. To that I offer this: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116960/letter-donetsk-not-pro-russia-its-menaced-russian-tourists This is a letter from Donetsk, in southeastern Ukraine, which you have probably been told is the pro-Russian part of the country. My name is Irina, and I speak Russian, just like most people here. I am a philologist by profession; I graduated from a local university. I have worked as a schoolteacher with small kids. Right now I work in IT. I never joined the protests at the Maidan and I don't support any existing political party. I'm passionately interested in languages, movies, dresses, shoes and makeup. I cannot say that I am ordinarily a very political person. Before our Ukrainian revolution started, I was devoting my energies to learning how to blend eyeshadow. I'd love to brush up on my Spanish and start learning Italian. In summer my boyfriend and I were thinking of traveling somewhere nice. Donetsk, where I live, was the political base of Viktor Yanukovych, the former president of my country. Donetsk gave (political) life to Yanukovych. Donetsk will (politically) smash him. This opinion has been common in Kiev since the beginning of the Ukrainian revolution. Today it has become a reality. There are zero Yanukovych supporters in Donetsk these days. People are angry because they have been massively fooled by him and his regime. People are also mildly confused, which is a good sign, because it means that they are thinking. I believe that people here in Donetsk are about to restart their value system and recharge their senses. This process needs time. Because taking responsibility for your freedom means doing something—learning, working (often for yourself, not some oligarch), controlling the government instead of choosing another power-hungry “czar.” And I am sure that soon they will understand and accept this freedom with gratitude. The revolution gives us this chance, but the counter-revolution has come, and come from abroad, from Russia. Russia has invaded the Crimean peninsula, as I am sure you know. This is the revolutionary process that you say doesn't exist. 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Mar 13, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Clay Claiborne clayc...@gmail.com wrote: You may be interested in kibitzing. I am interested in what develops the revolutionary consciousness of the masses and how that can be enhanced. Collosal bluster. I can't believe I've wasted so much time on this posturing bullshitter. 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == what the fuck are you talking about? On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, sha...@aol.com wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Yeah. Andrew Pollack said that. My grandmother would tell Andrew Pollack to have his head examined. Has he ever read a shred of Lenin on the National Question. Doubtful, no evidence of it shows. Wayne Collins -Original Message- From: Andrew Pollack acpolla...@gmail.com To: Wayne M. Collins sha...@aol.com Sent: Mon, Mar 10, 2014 7:37 pm Subject: Re: [Marxism] Fascism? == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == serious as a heart attack Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/acpollack2%40gmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 03/11/2014 05:00 PM, sha...@aol.com wrote: Yeah. Andrew Pollack said that. My grandmother would tell Andrew Pollack to have his head examined. Has he ever read a shred of Lenin on the National Question. Doubtful, no evidence of it shows. Is it possible to turn off the aesopian language and be a bit more specific? 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Am 12.03.2014 14:08, schrieb Andrew Pollack: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == what the fuck are you talking about? I wondered exactly the same! Einde O'C allaghan 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 3/12/14 12:27 PM, Einde O'Callaghan wrote: I wondered exactly the same! I have a feeling that Wayne was talking about Pham Binh's unfortunate article and mistakenly used Andrew's name. Let's hope so. 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Clay, Louis, and others have also denounced those who point to the interimperialist rivalry between the West and Russia, dismissing the international context as largely irrelevant to the development of the Maidan movement and an effort by their political opponents to undercut it. Sorry, but largely irrelevant are weasel words, implying the partial relevance of the international context in general and the Triad/Russia interimperialist rivalry in particular, to the formation of the Maidan movement, certainly with respect to its ideological formation. The question to Louis and Clay is then, WHAT is that relevance, however partial, of the above? IOW, what is the analysis here? I've yet to hear much of one concerning the political and economic designs of the EU/NATO/US with regard to Ukraine. And in addition, as people commenting from afar, mostly from the US, one of the imperialist contenders, our own interventions are by material definition internationalist from the get-go. In this vary real context, it is a violation of the most elementary revolutionary morality to not analyze and denounce the actions of your own imperialist countries as they pertain to the situation, which on this list is likely the US/UK/ANZAC/CN. AS A FIRST PRIORITY, because that is where you live and communicate from, not Ukraine. Stop trying to represent yourself as the ordinary people of Ukraine, American! That is what Leon Trotsky did as journalist in the 1912 Balkan Wars before he was a Trotskyist, writing for a Russian readership, despite that the only real imperialist power involved was the crumbling Ottoman Empire. He bashed (tsarist) Russia, his own imperialism even though not a single Russian soldier was sent there by the Tsarist regime (quite a few Russians volunteered, in fact the very first airplane even shot down in war was flown by a Russian volunteer). Perhaps what we have here is a defensive overreaction (AKA denunciation :-D) to the so-called anti-imperialists who have now been exposed as simply pro-Russian imperialists (and that, and not white supremacy, was behind their stance on Libya and Syria). However as I have already denounced on UM and perhaps here, this tendency towards Manichean juxtaposition is not exactly what I'd call the Marxist method. So I keep seeing such juxtapositions as: Objective analysis generally, considerations of the international chessboard, etc. VS ordinary people, the real movement, etc., and now, The international or inter-imperialist context VS the Maidan movement. In short, a classic reduction. As if ordinary people or real movements (especially!) aren't interested in objective analysis! Really? I call BS on that! You are hereby charged with elitism towards the masses. -Matt 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Honestly, I don't have such a problem with this as a tactic. I was taught that revolutionaries should enter even fascist-organized trade unions to agitate, and in the case of the Ukraine street the point is to intervene to compete with the fascists for the loyalty of the mass vanguard of the movement. Under slogans against Russian imperialism, obviously, but also against EU/NATO imperialism as well. Note that the Euro Far Right generally and the Ukranian Pravy secktor in particular hates the EU. Svoboda is opportunistically pro-EU for the moment, though. Doing this while attacking honest (if wrong-headed) leftists is a problem, as in tactically wrong. -Matt serious as a heart attack http://notgeorgesabra.tumblr.com/post/78848780314/2-russias-1-ukraine Wow, so he went from the North Star to this? I'm confused, but this is striking development. 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 03/12/2014 05:25 PM, Matthew Russo wrote: The question to Louis and Clay is then, WHAT is that relevance, however partial, of the above? IOW, what is the analysis here? I've yet to hear much of one concerning the political and economic designs of the EU/NATO/US with regard to Ukraine. IMHO that is the result of at least 3 factors: 1.) It is the political struggle within Ukraine which is the most relevance factor. 2.) Of the external imperialist factors, the Russian interference is the most important, by a long shot, I mean by a long shot. 3.) You probably think the US NATO are much more central to the struggle in Ukraine, or between Ukraine and Russia, than it is, and your definition of much varies accordingly. It goes without saying, (or maybe it doesn't? - to your point) that EU/NATO/US are imperialist powers and will operate in their own interests. They would like to see Ukraine less dependent on Russia, as would most Ukrainians. They would like to see them in their military alliance, which is another matter entirely. They want other things as well and not all of them are bad. The Ukrainians who think they will have more democratic rights and a brighter economic future in the EU than under Russian domination are probably right, if it comes down to a choice between those two. And in addition, as people commenting from afar, If mainly commenting is what you do. I find that in this age of global communication, there are many ways to not only support, but participate in revolutionary struggles all over the world. The possibilities for practicing internationalism are as they never have been before. Do you know that there were global activist networks that connected individual NATO commanders to revolutionary fighting groups on the ground in Libya? [And let me say in advance that I hope I don't have to endure any of those comments that will force me to repeat again how Ho Chi Minh accepted weapons from the US, and Giap fought side-by-side with OSS officers.] Do you know there is a group, somewhere, it doesn't matter, that gathers sniper reports in Aleppo via twitter and places them on a Google map that is redistributed to Aleppo and saves lives? mostly from the US, one of the imperialist contenders, I've never felt a special responsibility for being among the oppressed of an imperialist contender. In the fight against imperialism, I focus on supporting revolutionaries where I can do the most good and where I can do the most damage to imperialism. our own interventions are by material definition internationalist from the get-go. didn't get that. In this vary real context, it is a violation of the most elementary revolutionary morality to not analyze and denounce the actions of your own imperialist countries as they pertain to the situation, What a self-centered look at the situation! Take the situation in Syria for example. For three years the people there have been locked in a desperate struggle to liberate themselves from a murderous mad dog regime. What do you think they need most? Someone who will analyze and denounce a relatively minor player in their situation, or someone who spots sniper positions on a map? Okay, but I've done a lot to analyze and denounce the actions of US imperialism [not that I own it] Both from exposing the two-faced nature of US imperialism and pointing out [in contradict to most of the Left] that really Obama has been playing good cop to Putin's bad cop. How Obama has supported Assad's gas murder always http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-obama-has-supported-assads-gas.html Obama's Real Syria Policy: Endless War http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2013/10/obamas-real-syria-policy-endless-war.html The Courtship Continues: Obama stopped French strike on Assad http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-courtship-continues-obama-stopped.html The Courtship Continues: Obama's New Gift to Assad http://claysbeach.blogspot.com//2013/09/the-courtship-continues-obamas-new-gift.html How Obama Helped Assad Kill with Poison Gas in Syria http://claysbeach.blogspot.com//2013/09/how-obama-helped-assad-kill-with-poison.html Win-Win for Assad as Obama Response to CW Mass Murder Put on Hold http://claysbeach.blogspot.com//2013/08/win-win-for-assad-as-obama-response-to.html Obama Denied Gas Masks to Assad's Victims http://claysbeach.blogspot.com//2013/08/obama-denied-gas-masks-to-assads-victims.html Obama's Dilemma and Assad's Opportunity http://claysbeach.blogspot.com//2013/08/obamas-dilemma-and-assads-opportunity.html Barack Obama's Courtship of Bashar al-Assad http://claysbeach.blogspot.com//2012/09/barack-obama-courtship-of-bashar-al_4519.html Barack Obama's Courtship of Bashar al-Assad Exposed!
Re: [Marxism] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Like I was saying. Clay -- Forwarded message -- From: Afra Jalabi Date: Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:37 PM Subject: Re: [Critical-Syria] HuffPo piece To: Wendy Pearlman Dear Wendy, Thank YOU so much for writing this piece. I just posted it on my FB. I particularly liked this paragraph, which echoes what Syrians have been saying in the last few months: Then President Obama proposed and withdrew the threat of military strikes. Instead of a red line against chemical weapons, he endorsed an agreement that gave Assad a green light to kill in any other way. With gratitude, Afra On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Wendy Pearlman wendy.pearl...@gmail.comwrote: Hi all, I have this piece in the Huffington Post today. I wrote it as a short, simple Syria 101 for anyone who stll needs reminding of the basics: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendy-pearlman/on-the-third-anniversary-_1_b_4942512.html Best, Wendy 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 3/10/14 11:28 PM, Marv Gandall wrote: Fair enough. But do we support all mass movements without exception - even ones led by popular right wing groups and parties often viciously opposed to the values and institutions historically supported by the left? There was no mass movement. This was a spontaneous revolt of people fed up by corruption and poverty. A mass movement would be something like the civil rights movement in the USA that has developed organically over decades or the antiwar movement. People poured into Maidan square and the well-organized and powerful ultraright used the opportunity to muscle out the left. If the fucking Svoboda had issued calls for mass demonstrations and tens of thousands of people in Kiev marched under its swastika-like banner and cheered its speakers, and then began to take its marching orders from its leaders, then people like Gary Leupp would have a point. But they didn't. Ordinary people are being slandered because they have a twisted idea that the BRICS are some kind of latter-day USSR/Non-Aligned movement. This is the same bullshit that is going on with all the Baathist apologetics. It is sheer madness. 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 2014-03-11, at 12:45 AM, Clay Claiborne wrote: It seems to me the international socialism movement is largely responsible for its own demise. I would say the unanticipated capacity of capitalism to recover from recurrent crises; the extension of the vote and development of the welfare state; the opening up of vast new zones of exploitation in eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America; the evolution of Western industrial economies into more fragmented and difficult to organize ones based on services, and other material factors had much more to do the disappearance of the mass international socialist movement. You can choose to blame it on a crisis of leadership and opportunism, but its leaders were mainly a symptom rather than a cause of its decline. This is a very broad subject which I have no wish to debate in the abstract, though it clearly frames my understanding of specific issues just as the misleadership theory frames yours. 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 3/11/14 8:17 AM, Marv Gandall wrote: the extension of the vote and development of the welfare state; Huh? The last 40 years at least has been about the dismantling of the welfare state. What planet have you been living on? I don't want to deal with countries other than the USA but the crisis of the left has made it easier for the continued erosion of the welfare state (not that preserving it is our ultimate goal). The 1960s left had a nervous breakdown in the 1980s, thinking that the country was ripe for revolution. So instead of coming together around the need to build a radical alternative to the 2-party system that might have led to something long-lasting and powerful, it followed chimeras based on a misreading of socioeconomic realities. 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Although I feel that it is quite wrong to view the Maidan protests in Ukraine as either a manifestation of fascism on the rampage or a Western plot (despite very real fascist involvement and Western interference), the results cannot be cheering for any left-winger. It appears that most of the protesters were largely concerned with the high-handed, corrupt nature of Yanokovich's government and had illusions in the EU's ability to offer some sort of economic rescue package to Ukraine and in the EU as a democratic outfit. The protests were certainly legitimate in their complaints about the government, and I feel that the Ukrainian left-wingers who tried to intervene in the protests were correct to do so, rather than merely write them off as reactionary or naive. What we have before in Kiev us is a government majority that has openly declared in advance its acceptance of austerity as a quid pro quo for EU assistance, has attempted to impose restrictions upon language rights (retracted after receiving EU advice), and -- this must be worrying to any left-winger -- given several ministerial posts and state jobs, some of which are not at all ornamental, to outright fascists. I also feel that the Russian intervention in the Crimea should be opposed, just as its war with Georgia and its interventions in Chechnya should have been opposed, as big-power bullying. That, however, does not mean that one should support the opposing regimes or movements. The rise of both Ukrainian and Russian nationalism in Ukraine poses a great danger. The break-up of the Soviet Union led to what were administrative borders becoming national ones: for several decades prior to 1991, the border between Russia and Ukraine was little more than that between two US states or British counties; it made little practical difference whether the Crimea was in Ukraine or Russia. Now Moscow and Kiev have different currencies, foreign policies, trade relations, etc; the dynamic of international relations is pulling them apart. Russians and Ukrainians have been mixing socially in Eastern and Southern Ukraine for decades; there have been many mixed marriages and friendships, there has been the rise of an unofficial linguistic mix of the two languages, Sirzhik. One could be a Russian within Ukraine; a Russian-speaking Ukrainian; and so on without bother. The tragedy here is that now, with an assertive Ukrainian government that includes ultra-nationalist, anti-Russian fascists facing an assertive Russian one, people are being forced to choose. Identity is becoming more important. We saw what this led to in Yugoslavia. Ukrainians and Tartars in the Crimea are feeling decidedly uncomfortable with the surge of Russian nationalism; the rise of Ukrainian nationalism, not only fired by fascists but by so-called liberals who wished to restrict language rights for non-Ukrainians and to promote Bandera as a good patriot (this was Yushchenko's shtick a couple of years back) will have the result of making non-Ukrainians feel insecure. In the sort term, I feel that the Crimea question will most likely be settled by Putin accepting a concession by the Rada of wide-ranging autonomy for the peninsula, with an increased stay for the Russian fleet, and at least formal guarantees for non-Russians. It will effectively be a Russian exclave in Ukraine. I suspect that the big Western powers are quietly trying to get this accepted in both Moscow and Kiev. This will prevent things blowing up, although the hard-line Ukrainian nationalists will cry it's a sell-out. I don't think that Putin will get much stick from Russian ultras. In the longer term, however, this rise in rival nationalisms will have a poisonous impact upon Ukraine and lead to outright chauvinistic government policies, militant nationalist activities and responses, and persecutions of minorities. That is why I feel that left-wingers should not support either the Russian or Ukrainian governments: both are playing an incendiary role. It is now that left-wingers must oppose all forms of nationalism and take a stand against the rise of rival chauvinisms that threaten to turn one citizen of Ukraine against another. The current government in Kiev is a big a problem in this respect as Putin's in Moscow. That the Kiev government is offering austerity gives the left in Ukraine a chance to promote class politics: and it is class politics that offer a positive alternative to the rise of divisive, poisonous nationalism. Paul F 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 2014-03-11, at 8:29 AM, Louis Proyect wrote: On 3/11/14 8:17 AM, Marv Gandall wrote: the extension of the vote and development of the welfare state; Huh? The last 40 years at least has been about the dismantling of the welfare state. What planet have you been living on? Thanks for this; I hadn't noticed. I was addressing the reasons for the unexpected resilience of capitalism despite forecasts of its imminent demise by Marxist theoreticians over the past century and a half. On 2014-03-11, at 7:50 AM, Louis Proyect wrote: On 3/10/14 11:28 PM, Marv Gandall wrote: Fair enough. But do we support all mass movements without exception - even ones led by popular right wing groups and parties often viciously opposed to the values and institutions historically supported by the left? There was no mass movement. This was a spontaneous revolt of people fed up by corruption and poverty. A mass movement would be something like the civil rights movement in the USA that has developed organically over decades or the antiwar movement. People poured into Maidan square and the well-organized and powerful ultraright used the opportunity to muscle out the left. Whatever you want to call it, the Maidan ___ successfully toppled a government and replaced it with one of its own. I don't accept for a minute that the masses who poured into Maidan square and the western Ukrainians who supported them were predisposed to fascism. They were apolitical, and for the most part still are. This was and is the source of the __'s weakness. It's been vulnerable to manipulation and control by the far right groups and the conservative parties who appeal to and reinforce its ethnic identification with the traditional Ukrainian language, culture, and religion. The ultraright was able to dispatch the tiny left with such ease because it tapped into the unfortunate ethnic divisions which are threatening to tear the country apart, not because it had more and better organized street fighters. This is what really underlay the attacks on the corruption and economic policies of the Yanukovych government and its west Ukrainian Russian-speaking base. The previous Yushchenko and Tymoshenko governments which drew for support on the Ukrainian-speaking Western part of the country were equally subservient to the oligarchs and did little to raise the living standards of the people, but this was generally overlooked by the crowds in Kyiv and elsewhere in their eagerness to restore their own bourgeois ethnocrats to power. Alas, a sign of the times. 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I'm aware of the reports, Louis, and am less impressed by them than you are. Distrust of politicians is as endemic as the regular eruption of popular protest in capitalist societies. In the US, many conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats mistrust their leaderships. But they rarely if ever break with them because they much more fear the opposition. In the Ukraine, if the masses in the western regions abandon the right-centre Yatsenyuk government in reaction to austerity, it will most likely be to move further to the right, to right-wing populist formations like Svoboda and the Right Sektor who are waiting in the wings. That is what the EU and US politicians fear. There are no remotely comparable alternatives on the left, and it is hard to see one developing given the ethnic rather than class consciousness of the mass of the Ukrainian population as well as the legacy of really existing socialism in the former Soviet republics and Eastern Europe. But I'd love to be proven wrong, and your perspective vindicated. On Mar 11, 2014, at 2:02 PM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: On 3/11/14 12:52 PM, Marv Gandall wrote: The previous Yushchenko and Tymoshenko governments which drew for support on the Ukrainian-speaking Western part of the country were equally subservient to the oligarchs and did little to raise the living standards of the people, but this was generally overlooked by the crowds in Kyiv and elsewhere in their eagerness to restore their own bourgeois ethnocrats to power. Alas, a sign of the times. OVERLOOKED BY THE CROWDS, REALLY?? Comrades, especially Marv, should listen to the entire 11 minute phone conversation between Paet and Ashton. The most interesting thing is the first 8 minutes or so when Paet reports that civil society, in other words, ordinary Ukrainians who took part in the Orange Revolution or who supported the removal of Yanukovych and entry into the EU--and nothing else--now expect a clean break with oligarchy and corruption. He says that they regard the Tweedle-Dee as having a dirty past, even though Tweedle-Dum was even dirtier. The idea that such people were subservient to the new crew is belied by both the phone call and reports from many different sources that seems to have eluded Marvin Gandall. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/01/urkaine-crisis-maidan-idUSL6N0LY0SM20140301 While the new government has not made direct calls for protesters to leave, many on the square distrust the new leadership to enact the kind of reforms they want and have vowed to stay. Protesters on the square universally tell tales of the wild riches that ordinary parliamentarians gain - one confidently talked of the millions a member of parliament can get for voting correctly during a debate. They reckon that the leaders of the opposition-turned government, such as acting President Oleksander Turchinov and Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk will enjoy such benefits. http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21597974-can-ukraine-find-any-leaders-who-will-live-up-aspirations-its-battered-victorious None of the politicians, including the three opposition leaders Arseny Yatsenyuk, Vitaly Klitschko, a former boxer, and Oleh Tyagnibok, are trusted by Maidan. Witness the reaction to Ms Tymoshenko’s appearance on Maidan after her release from prison. In the Orange revolution she was treated like a messiah. This time, while people were glad to see that she had been freed, they knew better than to put their fate in her hands—or those of any other politician for that matter. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304255604579407421341927360 Ukrainians distrust, with good reason, the entire political class. Mr. Yanukovych wasn't the only greedy or incompetent pol here. But the Maidan crowds can't rule the country, and in the past five days, parliament has assumed that role. On Wednesday night, the names of those who would lead a proposed new transitional government were announced before thousands packed in at the Maidan. Some were booed, others were cheered. Behind closed doors, the politicians are trying to recreate the old system, says Mustafa Naim, an Afghan-Ukrainian journalist, furious at the signs of deal-making by the same old faces. You can see it in their eyes. We may need to go out on the Maidan again. He says Ukraine needs to clean the whole political slate by scheduling a parliamentary election to coincide with the planned presidential vote in late May. Mr. Naim started all this in late November by calling a meeting on the Maidan to protest Mr. Yanukovych's decision to abandon an EU association pact. Now he hosts a show on a new
Re: [Marxism] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 3/11/14 2:58 PM, Marv Gandall wrote: In the Ukraine, if the masses in the western regions abandon the right-centre Yatsenyuk government in reaction to austerity, it will most likely be to move further to the right, to right-wing populist formations like Svoboda and the Right Sektor who are waiting in the wings. That is what the EU and US politicians fear. You mean that when unemployment and prices double, working people will seek fascist solutions? You did say you spent some time in the Trotskyist movement in a previous lifetime, didn't you? A shame that you remember nothing. 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Dr. Leupp, I just took a look at your Counterpunch article about the looming threat of fascism in the Ukraine. From what I can gather, you see something analogous to Hitler's election in 1932. I should add that I have only seen 25 articles like this already and wonder why people feel compelled to write the same thing over and over, usually drawing from the same sources. Have you ever read any Leon Trotsky? You might find it beneficial. His analysis of fascism is grounded in an analysis of capitalism and the workers movement. Hitler's agenda was to crush the trade unions and a powerful left, made up of the CP and an SP that was pretty far to the left despite its role in the murder of Rosa Luxemburg. What exactly is the target of Svoboda? A miniscule left that is mostly made up of pro-Euromaidan anarchists and the pro-Putin CP that got about the same number of votes percentage-wise in the last election that Ralph Nader got in 2000? I doubt that anybody considers them a threat to private property. Or are the fascists a threat to the eastern portion of the country? Do you really think that Svoboda et al are going to pour across the borders and begin smashing up trade union offices, etc? I will bet you a hundred dollars that this does not happen now or in the future. Or maybe you have the same mindset as the CPUSA that sees fascism looking on the horizon in the USA for as long as I have been involved with the left. Whether it is the John Birch Society or the Tea Party, they cry out from the rooftops: Hide the silverware, the fascists are coming. Some leftists are insistent that a united front of the EU, NATO, the White House, George Soros, Nicholas Kristof, Jared Leto and the Ukrainian fascists are determined to batter down the obstacles to imperialist penetration of Russia starting with the Ukraine. I really have to wonder if they have the slightest inkling as to the mode of production that exists in Russia. It is the third largest recipient of Foreign Direct Investment in the world, after the USA and China. Why use fascists as a battering ram when the doors are wide open? Have a nice day, Louis Proyect 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == You may be applying Trotsky's analysis of fascism in an overly schematic manner. Ukraine seems set to be receiving some sort of a bailout package, courtesy of the US and EU. Such a package will almost surely mandate the imposition of a severe austerity on that country, with a great impact on working class standards of living there. If that's the case, then the new government will likely quickly become unpopular and would likely be facing a new wave of protests, this time directed against it, rather than against the previous government. Under such circumstances, having far right extremists, like Svoboda within the new government might prove useful when push comes to shove. At the very least, these fascist bully boys may prove useful in quelling street protests. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant http://www.foxymath.com Learn or Review Basic Math -- Original Message -- From: Louis Proyect l...@panix.com Subject: [Marxism] Fascism? Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:40:11 -0400 . Have you ever read any Leon Trotsky? You might find it beneficial. His analysis of fascism is grounded in an analysis of capitalism and the workers movement. Hitler's agenda was to crush the trade unions and a powerful left, made up of the CP and an SP that was pretty far to the left despite its role in the murder of Rosa Luxemburg. What exactly is the target of Svoboda? A miniscule left that is mostly made up of pro-Euromaidan anarchists and the pro-Putin CP that got about the same number of votes percentage-wise in the last election that Ralph Nader got in 2000? I doubt that anybody considers them a threat to private property. Or are the fascists a threat to the eastern portion of the country? Do you really think that Svoboda et al are going to pour across the borders and begin smashing up trade union offices, etc? I will bet you a hundred dollars that this does not happen now or in the future. How to Stay Asleep All Night Try this one weird trick to put your sleep troubles to rest. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/531dcda18931f4da10a59st01vuc 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 3/10/14 10:34 AM, Jim Farmelant wrote: Under such circumstances, having far right extremists, like Svoboda within the new government might prove useful when push comes to shove. That might be true but it has nothing to do with what Leupp wrote. In fact I don't think there's much analysis in all of these Ukraine going fascist articles except the customary references to Svoboda's emblem resembling a swastika, anti-Semitic statements from rightist politicians, etc. Here's a 2005 article by Leupp on the threat of Christian fascism in the USA: http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/01/12/everybody-s-talkin-about-christian-fascism/ Here's some more along those lines: Chicken Little likes to walk in the woods. She likes to look at the trees. She likes to smell the flowers. She likes to listen to the birds singing. One day while she is walking an acorn falls from a tree, and hits the top of her little head. - My, oh, my, the sky is falling. I must run and tell the lion about it, - says Chicken Little and begins to run. She runs and runs. By and by she meets the hen. - Where are you going? - asks the hen. - Oh, Henny Penny, the sky is falling and I am going to the lion to tell him about it. - How do you know it? - asks Henny Penny. - It hit me on the head, so I know it must be so, - says Chicken Little. full: http://www.worldstory.net/en/stories/chicken_little.html 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 2014-03-10, at 11:31 AM, Louis Proyect wrote: On 3/10/14 10:34 AM, Jim Farmelant wrote: Under such circumstances, having far right extremists, like Svoboda within the new government might prove useful when push comes to shove. That might be true but it has nothing to do with what Leupp wrote. In fact I don't think there's much analysis in all of these Ukraine going fascist articles except the customary references to Svoboda's emblem resembling a swastika, anti-Semitic statements from rightist politicians, etc. AFAIK, no one chiming in on the Ukraine discussion on this list has suggested Ukraine is going fascist. As Jim points out, what's at issue is the new right-wing nationalist government which is preparing to impose austerity in exchange for loans from the US, EU, and IMF. There's little to distinguish it, except its ethnic base of support, from the Yanukovych government which preceded it and from the Putin regime in Russia. I'm not as confident as Jim that austerity will provoke mass protests; if anything, the Maidan movement, which relegated the tiny Ukrainian left to the margins and propelled the new government to power, will more likely strengthen the state's ability to impose its program. Yet the clear impression conveyed by Clay, Andy, yourself and a few others is that this government is somehow worth defending against the greater evil represented by Putin and the Russians. So far as I'm concerned, we don't have a dog in this inter-imperialist fight and before I jump on the Maidan bandwagon, I'd need to see evidence of a break with the new government and its policies. That can't be taken for granted; to date, in the absence of left-wing organizations of any significance, the spontaneous mass occupation of city squares outside of Greece have seen the replacement of one set of kleptocrats with another. 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Marv makes a lot of good points -- which is why I was sorry to see this: Yet the clear impression conveyed by Clay, Andy, yourself and a few others is that this government is somehow worth defending against the greater evil represented by Putin and the Russians. I don't think Clay or Louis believe that, and I certainly don't. I agree 100% with you that we don't have a dog in this interimperialist fight. What we HAVE said is that we oppose Russian troop movements and any other military actions, and that Russia, not some phantom or threatened US invasion -- is the main factor here. Yes, Russia has invaded Ukraine and should withdraw. By the same token the US should stop meddling in Ukraine. BUT we have put so much emphasis on Russia's actions to counter the tankies' absurdities about which imperialist power is most active in Ukraine. And I unfortunately have to agree that the left has a long row to hoe -- but that's another reason for us to be clear on who's doing what, and opposing all the exploiters and war-makers, all their states and parties. Andy 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Ukraine territorial integrity is worth defending. Russian imperialist militarism and annexation is worth opposing. The Ukrainian masses who made this overthrow possible are my dog in this fight. If all you see in Ukraine is inter-imperialist rivalry, then you are blind to the class struggle and how the working class builds its power and consciousness through participation in the mass struggle. Clay Claiborne, Director Vietnam: American Holocaust http://VietnamAmericanHolocaust.com Linux Beach Productions Venice, CA 90291 (310) 581-1536 Read my blogs at the Linux Beach http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/ http://wlcentral.org/user/2965/track On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Andrew Pollack acpolla...@gmail.comwrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Marv makes a lot of good points -- which is why I was sorry to see this: Yet the clear impression conveyed by Clay, Andy, yourself and a few others is that this government is somehow worth defending against the greater evil represented by Putin and the Russians. I don't think Clay or Louis believe that, and I certainly don't. I agree 100% with you that we don't have a dog in this interimperialist fight. What we HAVE said is that we oppose Russian troop movements and any other military actions, and that Russia, not some phantom or threatened US invasion -- is the main factor here. Yes, Russia has invaded Ukraine and should withdraw. By the same token the US should stop meddling in Ukraine. BUT we have put so much emphasis on Russia's actions to counter the tankies' absurdities about which imperialist power is most active in Ukraine. And I unfortunately have to agree that the left has a long row to hoe -- but that's another reason for us to be clear on who's doing what, and opposing all the exploiters and war-makers, all their states and parties. Andy Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/clayclai%40gmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 3/10/14 3:18 PM, Marv Gandall wrote: Yet the clear impression conveyed by Clay, Andy, yourself and a few others is that this government is somehow worth defending against the greater evil represented by Putin and the Russians. I suppose someone who has made the case for voting Democrat every 4 years would be tempted to ascribe this motive to me. It is what Freud called projection. 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == This round was completely unnecessary. Marv made a simple mistake -- he focused on our denunciation of Russia and extrapolated that incorrectly into our supposed support for the government of Ukrainian oligarch set B (following set A). There was no need for Louis to Democrat-bait him. Then Clay made his own false extrapolation. Clay, it's PRECISELY by refusing to support either imperialism that we can best promote the class struggle by workers on each side, and therefore in mutual support of each other. On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 3/10/14 3:18 PM, Marv Gandall wrote: Yet the clear impression conveyed by Clay, Andy, yourself and a few others is that this government is somehow worth defending against the greater evil represented by Putin and the Russians. I suppose someone who has made the case for voting Democrat every 4 years would be tempted to ascribe this motive to me. It is what Freud called projection. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/ marxism/acpollack2%40gmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Lou, I really don't get your position here, and it's not for lack of trying. Nor do I think it's because I haven't fully absorbed Trotsky, although my knowledge of (and veneration of) him is certainly more limited that yours. You seem to argue that because the historical conditions Trotsky postulated for the rise of fascism are not present, the political ascendance of swastika-wearing ultra-nationalists is - what, exactly? I'm wary of ascribing you a conclusion, because I'm not entirely sure I've seen you reach one. So I guess the thing to do is just ask: what *do* you think we should make of the good fortunes of those who look and act an awful lot like historical fascists, under the present circumstances? On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: Have you ever read any Leon Trotsky? You might find it beneficial. His analysis of fascism is grounded in an analysis of capitalism and the workers movement. -- Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað. 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 18:45 10-03-14 -0400, Andrew Pollack wrote: This round was completely unnecessary. Marv made a simple mistake I don't think Marv made a mistake. I think he posed the wrong question: whether we defend the government, whatever that exactly means. The question is whether we support their self-determination, self rule, or as Clay said territorial integrity. Of course when we talk about the third world and colonialism, Ukraine doesn't normally spring to mind. But in the current situation (as well as during some history) that is exactly the right analogy. It's disingenuous for Marv to shift the discussion of our attitude to the government, as he knows damn well none of us defend capitalist governments. That doesn't prevent us from defending the interests of people living under those governments, including resistance to foreign invasion. I absolutely agree with Clay's statement, below. - Jeff Ukraine territorial integrity is worth defending. Russian imperialist militarism and annexation is worth opposing. The Ukrainian masses who made this overthrow possible are my dog in this fight. If all you see in Ukraine is inter-imperialist rivalry, then you are blind to the class struggle and how the working class builds its power and consciousness through participation in the mass struggle. -- he focused on our denunciation of Russia and extrapolated that incorrectly into our supposed support for the government of Ukrainian oligarch set B (following set A). There was no need for Louis to Democrat-bait him. Then Clay made his own false extrapolation. Clay, it's PRECISELY by refusing to support either imperialism that we can best promote the class struggle by workers on each side, and therefore in mutual support of each other. On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 3/10/14 3:18 PM, Marv Gandall wrote: Yet the clear impression conveyed by Clay, Andy, yourself and a few others is that this government is somehow worth defending against the greater evil represented by Putin and the Russians. I suppose someone who has made the case for voting Democrat every 4 years would be tempted to ascribe this motive to me. It is what Freud called projection. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/ marxism/acpollack2%40gmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/meisner%40xs4al l.nl 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == sorry,I put this on the wrong thread. Here it is again in the proper one: Lou will certainly provide his own answer, but let me say why I appreciate his insistence on being precise on this issue. Fascism was analyzed by Trotsky as a very particular tool used by the ruling class, with a particular mass base wielded in particular ways against particular working class dangers to their rule. It's not the same as more stable forms of capitalist dictatorship, nor of Bonapartism -- although a given state could pass from one to the other. So the point of the analytical exercise is to see what the ruling class is doing and why -- or what those to whom it has temporarily handed power are doing,and why and on that basis to develop a working class response. Use MIA's search function, select Trotsky from the drop-down list, and type bonapartism and then fascism On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Jeff meis...@xs4all.nl wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 18:45 10-03-14 -0400, Andrew Pollack wrote: This round was completely unnecessary. Marv made a simple mistake I don't think Marv made a mistake. I think he posed the wrong question: whether we defend the government, whatever that exactly means. The question is whether we support their self-determination, self rule, or as Clay said territorial integrity. Of course when we talk about the third world and colonialism, Ukraine doesn't normally spring to mind. But in the current situation (as well as during some history) that is exactly the right analogy. It's disingenuous for Marv to shift the discussion of our attitude to the government, as he knows damn well none of us defend capitalist governments. That doesn't prevent us from defending the interests of people living under those governments, including resistance to foreign invasion. I absolutely agree with Clay's statement, below. - Jeff Ukraine territorial integrity is worth defending. Russian imperialist militarism and annexation is worth opposing. The Ukrainian masses who made this overthrow possible are my dog in this fight. If all you see in Ukraine is inter-imperialist rivalry, then you are blind to the class struggle and how the working class builds its power and consciousness through participation in the mass struggle. -- he focused on our denunciation of Russia and extrapolated that incorrectly into our supposed support for the government of Ukrainian oligarch set B (following set A). There was no need for Louis to Democrat-bait him. Then Clay made his own false extrapolation. Clay, it's PRECISELY by refusing to support either imperialism that we can best promote the class struggle by workers on each side, and therefore in mutual support of each other. On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 3/10/14 3:18 PM, Marv Gandall wrote: Yet the clear impression conveyed by Clay, Andy, yourself and a few others is that this government is somehow worth defending against the greater evil represented by Putin and the Russians. I suppose someone who has made the case for voting Democrat every 4 years would be tempted to ascribe this motive to me. It is what Freud called projection. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/ marxism/acpollack2%40gmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/meisner%40xs4al l.nl Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/acpollack2%40gmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == andrew, just a question to you, louis or anyone because i agree with your analysis and direction of your inquiries, but i am concerned about a too limited definition, perhaps historically limited, of fascism given the capacity of capital to incorporate lessons from nazi germany and the relative success of neutralizing the working class during the same time. do you agree we should have a more current/flexible definition of fascism nearly 70 years after the fall of historical fascism? much has happened since then. it seems we could do so without forgetting trotsky, neumann, et al. - Original Message - From: Andrew Pollack acpolla...@gmail.com To: Charles Faulkner lacena...@comcast.net Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 4:33:47 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Fascism? == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == sorry,I put this on the wrong thread. Here it is again in the proper one: Lou will certainly provide his own answer, but let me say why I appreciate his insistence on being precise on this issue. Fascism was analyzed by Trotsky as a very particular tool used by the ruling class, with a particular mass base wielded in particular ways against particular working class dangers to their rule. It's not the same as more stable forms of capitalist dictatorship, nor of Bonapartism -- although a given state could pass from one to the other. So the point of the analytical exercise is to see what the ruling class is doing and why -- or what those to whom it has temporarily handed power are doing,and why and on that basis to develop a working class response. Use MIA's search function, select Trotsky from the drop-down list, and type bonapartism and then fascism On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Jeff meis...@xs4all.nl wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 18:45 10-03-14 -0400, Andrew Pollack wrote: This round was completely unnecessary. Marv made a simple mistake I don't think Marv made a mistake. I think he posed the wrong question: whether we defend the government, whatever that exactly means. The question is whether we support their self-determination, self rule, or as Clay said territorial integrity. Of course when we talk about the third world and colonialism, Ukraine doesn't normally spring to mind. But in the current situation (as well as during some history) that is exactly the right analogy. It's disingenuous for Marv to shift the discussion of our attitude to the government, as he knows damn well none of us defend capitalist governments. That doesn't prevent us from defending the interests of people living under those governments, including resistance to foreign invasion. I absolutely agree with Clay's statement, below. - Jeff Ukraine territorial integrity is worth defending. Russian imperialist militarism and annexation is worth opposing. The Ukrainian masses who made this overthrow possible are my dog in this fight. If all you see in Ukraine is inter-imperialist rivalry, then you are blind to the class struggle and how the working class builds its power and consciousness through participation in the mass struggle. -- he focused on our denunciation of Russia and extrapolated that incorrectly into our supposed support for the government of Ukrainian oligarch set B (following set A). There was no need for Louis to Democrat-bait him. Then Clay made his own false extrapolation. Clay, it's PRECISELY by refusing to support either imperialism that we can best promote the class struggle by workers on each side, and therefore in mutual support of each other. On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 3/10/14 3:18 PM, Marv Gandall wrote: Yet the clear impression conveyed by Clay, Andy, yourself and a few others is that this government is somehow worth defending against the greater evil represented by Putin and the Russians. I suppose someone who has made the case for voting Democrat every 4 years would be tempted to ascribe this motive to me. It is what Freud called projection
Re: [Marxism] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == What Charles asks fits with an additional point I was going to raise. Yes, we absolutely must update and expand the definition based on experience (and on theoretical maturation if it has happened). For instance, when the Arab Revolution broke out, a lot of people referred sloppily to the supposed deep state in Egypt without breaking it down, or after hearing someone else use it and just carelessly regurgitating it. And they didn't compare Egypt's supposed deep state with other dictatorships (i.e. the military ownership of a substantial part of the economy, its rivalry with the intelligence/police arm of the state, etc.). So capitalist dictatorships vary by place -- and by time. Mandel in Trotsky as Alternative very succinctly distinguishes the Bonapartist stage from fascism. There were a succession of Bonapartist regimes in Germany before the bourgeoisie called on Hitler to smash completely working-class organizations. And he points out that people today who talk about creeping fascism in fact are looking at creeping Bonapartism, as the strong state (an autonomous executive) grows. And he points out that there's a life and death concreteness to the distinction in terms of who you organize against with what demands -- and even if you can organize above ground without getting shot. On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Charles Faulkner lacena...@comcast.netwrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == andrew, just a question to you, louis or anyone because i agree with your analysis and direction of your inquiries, but i am concerned about a too limited definition, perhaps historically limited, of fascism given the capacity of capital to incorporate lessons from nazi germany and the relative success of neutralizing the working class during the same time. do you agree we should have a more current/flexible definition of fascism nearly 70 years after the fall of historical fascism? much has happened since then. it seems we could do so without forgetting trotsky, neumann, et al. - Original Message - From: Andrew Pollack acpolla...@gmail.com To: Charles Faulkner lacena...@comcast.net Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 4:33:47 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Fascism? == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == sorry,I put this on the wrong thread. Here it is again in the proper one: Lou will certainly provide his own answer, but let me say why I appreciate his insistence on being precise on this issue. Fascism was analyzed by Trotsky as a very particular tool used by the ruling class, with a particular mass base wielded in particular ways against particular working class dangers to their rule. It's not the same as more stable forms of capitalist dictatorship, nor of Bonapartism -- although a given state could pass from one to the other. So the point of the analytical exercise is to see what the ruling class is doing and why -- or what those to whom it has temporarily handed power are doing,and why and on that basis to develop a working class response. Use MIA's search function, select Trotsky from the drop-down list, and type bonapartism and then fascism On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Jeff meis...@xs4all.nl wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 18:45 10-03-14 -0400, Andrew Pollack wrote: This round was completely unnecessary. Marv made a simple mistake I don't think Marv made a mistake. I think he posed the wrong question: whether we defend the government, whatever that exactly means. The question is whether we support their self-determination, self rule, or as Clay said territorial integrity. Of course when we talk about the third world and colonialism, Ukraine doesn't normally spring to mind. But in the current situation (as well as during some history) that is exactly the right analogy. It's disingenuous for Marv to shift the discussion of our attitude to the government, as he knows damn well none of us defend capitalist governments. That doesn't prevent us from defending the interests of people living under those governments, including resistance to foreign invasion. I absolutely agree with Clay's statement, below. - Jeff Ukraine territorial integrity is worth defending. Russian
Re: [Marxism] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 3/10/14 8:04 PM, Charles Faulkner wrote: do you agree we should have a more current/flexible definition of fascism nearly 70 years after the fall of historical fascism? In the early days of Marxmail, long before I began blogging (indeed, there was no such thing as blogging at the time), I posted a series of articles about fascism that was prompted by fears by some that the Buchanan campaign marked a fascist threat. If I sound a bit jaded on these questions, it is only because I have been hearing it since 1967 when I joined the SWP. Back then it was the Wallace campaign. Now it is the Tea Party. None of this makes sense when ordinary bourgeois democracy is knocking the labor movement on its ass. When the Boeing machinists go out on strike to defy a wage freeze and use dynamite against the cops, like German strikers did in the early 20s, then you should begin paying attention to fascists being called in to reinforce capitalist law and order. Here's the concluding article in http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/fascism_and_war/fascism.htm 7. PAT BUCHANAN AND AMERICAN FASCISM The United States in the 1930s became a battleground between industrial workers and the capitalist class over whether workers would be able to form industrial unions. There had been craft unions for decades, but only industrial unions could fight for all of the workers in a given plant or industry. This fight had powerful revolutionary implications since the captains of heavy industry required a poorly paid, docile work-force in order to maximize profits in the shattered capitalist economy. There were demonstrations, sit-down strikes and even gun-fights led by the Communist Party and other left groups to establish this basic democratic right. Within this political context, fascist groups began to emerge. They drew their inspiration from Mussolini's fascists or Hitler's brown- shirts. In a time of severe social crisis, groups of petty-bourgeois and lumpen elements begin to coalesce around demagogic leaders. They employ radical sounding rhetoric but in practice seek out working- class organizations to intimidate and destroy. One such fascist group was the Silver Shirts of Minneapolis, Minnesota. In chapter eleven of Teamster Politics, SWP leader Farrell Dobbs recounts How the Silver Shirts Lost Their Shrine in Minneapolis. It is the story of how Local 544 of the Teamsters union, led by Trotskyists, defended itself successfully from a fascist expedition into the city. Elements of the Twin Cities ruling-class, alarmed over the growth of industrial unionism in the city, called in Silver Shirt organizer Roy Zachary. Zachary hosted two closed door meetings on July 29 and August 2 of 1938. Teamster moles discovered that Zachary intended to launch a vigilante attack against Local 544 headquarters. They also discovered that Zachary planned to work with one F.L. Taylor to set up an Associated Council of Independent Unions, a union-busting operation. Taylor had ties to a vigilante outfit called the Minnesota Minute Men. Local 544 took serious measures to defend itself. It formed a union defense guard in August 1938 open to any active union member. Many of the people who joined had military experience, including Ray Rainbolt the elected commander of the guard. Rank-and-filers were former sharpshooters, machine gunners and tank operators in the US Army. The guard also included one former German officer with WWI experience. While the guard itself did not purchase arms except for target practice, nearly every member had hunting rifles at home that they could use in the circumstance of a Silver Shirt attack. Events reached a climax when Pelley came to speak at a rally in the wealthy section of Minneapolis. Ray Rainbolt organized a large contingent of defense guard members to pay a visit to Calhoun Hall where Pelley was to make his appearance. The powerful sight of disciplined but determined unionists persuaded the audience to go home and Pelley to cancel his speech. This was the type of conflict taking place in 1938. A capitalist class bent on taming workers; fascist groups with a documented violent, anti-labor record; industrial workers in motion: these were the primary actors in that period. It was characteristic of the type of class conflict that characterized the entire 1930s. It is useful to keep this in mind when we speak about McCarthyism. WWII abolished a number of major contradictions in global capital while introducing others. The United States emerged as the world's leading capitalist power and took control economically and politically of many of the former colonies of the exhausted European powers. Inter-imperialist rivalries and contradictions
Re: [Marxism] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I certainly think so. I think that ruling classes are capable of learning from historical experience. I see no reason to expect that today's ruling classes will necessarily be content to wait around for the workers' movement to pull itself together before taking action against them. I think in a situation like the one facing Ukraine, there is no reason to think that the ruling class might not want to be able to take preemptive before a left-wing can arise that might be able to frustrate their plans for that country. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant http://www.foxymath.com Learn or Review Basic Math -- Original Message -- From: Charles Faulkner lacena...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [Marxism] Fascism? Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:04:19 + (UTC) andrew, just a question to you, louis or anyone because i agree with your analysis and direction of your inquiries, but i am concerned about a too limited definition, perhaps historically limited, of fascism given the capacity of capital to incorporate lessons from nazi germany and the relative success of neutralizing the working class during the same time. do you agree we should have a more current/flexible definition of fascism nearly 70 years after the fall of historical fascism? much has happened since then. it seems we could do so without forgetting trotsky, neumann, et al. - Original Message - From: Andrew Pollack acpolla...@gmail.com To: Charles Faulkner lacena...@comcast.net Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 4:33:47 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Fascism? == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == sorry,I put this on the wrong thread. Here it is again in the proper one: Lou will certainly provide his own answer, but let me say why I appreciate his insistence on being precise on this issue. Fascism was analyzed by Trotsky as a very particular tool used by the ruling class, with a particular mass base wielded in particular ways against particular working class dangers to their rule. It's not the same as more stable forms of capitalist dictatorship, nor of Bonapartism -- although a given state could pass from one to the other. So the point of the analytical exercise is to see what the ruling class is doing and why -- or what those to whom it has temporarily handed power are doing,and why and on that basis to develop a working class response. Use MIA's search function, select Trotsky from the drop-down list, and type bonapartism and then fascism On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Jeff meis...@xs4all.nl wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 18:45 10-03-14 -0400, Andrew Pollack wrote: This round was completely unnecessary. Marv made a simple mistake I don't think Marv made a mistake. I think he posed the wrong question: whether we defend the government, whatever that exactly means. The question is whether we support their self-determination, self rule, or as Clay said territorial integrity. Of course when we talk about the third world and colonialism, Ukraine doesn't normally spring to mind. But in the current situation (as well as during some history) that is exactly the right analogy. It's disingenuous for Marv to shift the discussion of our attitude to the government, as he knows damn well none of us defend capitalist governments. That doesn't prevent us from defending the interests of people living under those governments, including resistance to foreign invasion. I absolutely agree with Clay's statement, below. - Jeff Ukraine territorial integrity is worth defending. Russian imperialist militarism and annexation is worth opposing. The Ukrainian masses who made this overthrow possible are my dog in this fight. If all you see in Ukraine is inter-imperialist rivalry, then you are blind to the class struggle and how the working class builds its power and consciousness through participation in the mass struggle. -- he focused on our denunciation of Russia and extrapolated that incorrectly into our supposed support for the government of Ukrainian oligarch set B (following set A). There was no need for Louis to Democrat-bait him. Then Clay made his own false extrapolation. Clay, it's PRECISELY by refusing to support either imperialism that we can best promote the class struggle by workers on each side, and therefore in mutual support
Re: [Marxism] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 3/10/14 8:23 PM, Jim Farmelant wrote: I think in a situation like the one facing Ukraine, there is no reason to think that the ruling class might not want to be able to take preemptive before a left-wing can arise that might be able to frustrate their plans for that country. Fascism is a measure of last resort. The German bourgeoisie only decided to back Hitler when all else failed. As a system, it has very great risks--chief among them is that a madman could destroy the nation he is leading. In an epoch of thermonuclear weaponry, the capitalist class would be out of its fucking mind to allow a new Hitler access to H-Bombs. And even if this was not a danger, totalitarian systems tend to create very militant armed challenges such as those that broke out in Europe during WWII. Unfortunately Stalinism was hegemonic at the time and muzzled the revolutionary potential of partisan movements in Greece, France and Italy. 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Exactly right. The CP has been yowling about the impending fascist menace every four years to explain why we must vote for whatever candidate the Democrats put up: Stop The Drift Towards Fascism! A mass movement funded from above, taking over the streets, employing highly organized physical violence under a smokescreen of socialist/populist rhetoric to destroy unions, and send anything remaining of the left to the hospital and/or prison has not yet emerged. As Proyect points out, it is unnecessary. Using the term fascist as a vulgar epithet has risks. Wasn't one of Aesop's Fables about The Boy Who Cried Fascist? T -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect l...@panix.com Sent: Mar 10, 2014 8:21 PM To: Thomas F Barton thomasfbar...@earthlink.net Subject: Re: [Marxism] Fascism? On 3/10/14 8:04 PM, Charles Faulkner wrote: do you agree we should have a more current/flexible definition of fascism nearly 70 years after the fall of historical fascism? In the early days of Marxmail, long before I began blogging (indeed, there was no such thing as blogging at the time), I posted a series of articles about fascism that was prompted by fears by some that the Buchanan campaign marked a fascist threat. If I sound a bit jaded on these questions, it is only because I have been hearing it since 1967 when I joined the SWP. Back then it was the Wallace campaign. Now it is the Tea Party. None of this makes sense when ordinary bourgeois democracy is knocking the labor movement on its ass. When the Boeing machinists go out on strike to defy a wage freeze and use dynamite against the cops, like German strikers did in the early 20s, then you should begin paying attention to fascists being called in to reinforce capitalist law and order. 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I hope comrades will read Louis's article. Link again is: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/fascism_and_war/fascism.htm Among many other things, he explains clearly Bonapartism and fascism, i.e. the differences between them as well as the transition from one to the other in both directions. On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 3/10/14 8:04 PM, Charles Faulkner wrote: do you agree we should have a more current/flexible definition of fascism nearly 70 years after the fall of historical fascism? In the early days of Marxmail, long before I began blogging (indeed, there was no such thing as blogging at the time), I posted a series of articles about fascism that was prompted by fears by some that the Buchanan campaign marked a fascist threat. If I sound a bit jaded on these questions, it is only because I have been hearing it since 1967 when I joined the SWP. Back then it was the Wallace campaign. Now it is the Tea Party. None of this makes sense when ordinary bourgeois democracy is knocking the labor movement on its ass. When the Boeing machinists go out on strike to defy a wage freeze and use dynamite against the cops, like German strikers did in the early 20s, then you should begin paying attention to fascists being called in to reinforce capitalist law and order. Here's the concluding article in http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/ mydocs/fascism_and_war/fascism.htm 7. PAT BUCHANAN AND AMERICAN FASCISM The United States in the 1930s became a battleground between industrial workers and the capitalist class over whether workers would be able to form industrial unions. There had been craft unions for decades, but only industrial unions could fight for all of the workers in a given plant or industry. This fight had powerful revolutionary implications since the captains of heavy industry required a poorly paid, docile work-force in order to maximize profits in the shattered capitalist economy. There were demonstrations, sit-down strikes and even gun-fights led by the Communist Party and other left groups to establish this basic democratic right. Within this political context, fascist groups began to emerge. They drew their inspiration from Mussolini's fascists or Hitler's brown- shirts. In a time of severe social crisis, groups of petty-bourgeois and lumpen elements begin to coalesce around demagogic leaders. They employ radical sounding rhetoric but in practice seek out working- class organizations to intimidate and destroy. One such fascist group was the Silver Shirts of Minneapolis, Minnesota. In chapter eleven of Teamster Politics, SWP leader Farrell Dobbs recounts How the Silver Shirts Lost Their Shrine in Minneapolis. It is the story of how Local 544 of the Teamsters union, led by Trotskyists, defended itself successfully from a fascist expedition into the city. Elements of the Twin Cities ruling-class, alarmed over the growth of industrial unionism in the city, called in Silver Shirt organizer Roy Zachary. Zachary hosted two closed door meetings on July 29 and August 2 of 1938. Teamster moles discovered that Zachary intended to launch a vigilante attack against Local 544 headquarters. They also discovered that Zachary planned to work with one F.L. Taylor to set up an Associated Council of Independent Unions, a union-busting operation. Taylor had ties to a vigilante outfit called the Minnesota Minute Men. Local 544 took serious measures to defend itself. It formed a union defense guard in August 1938 open to any active union member. Many of the people who joined had military experience, including Ray Rainbolt the elected commander of the guard. Rank-and-filers were former sharpshooters, machine gunners and tank operators in the US Army. The guard also included one former German officer with WWI experience. While the guard itself did not purchase arms except for target practice, nearly every member had hunting rifles at home that they could use in the circumstance of a Silver Shirt attack. Events reached a climax when Pelley came to speak at a rally in the wealthy section of Minneapolis. Ray Rainbolt organized a large contingent of defense guard members to pay a visit to Calhoun Hall where Pelley was to make his appearance. The powerful sight of disciplined but determined unionists persuaded the audience to go home and Pelley to cancel his speech. This was the type of conflict taking place in 1938. A capitalist class bent on taming workers; fascist groups with a
Re: [Marxism] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Clay I'll take your word for it that I misinterpreted what you said. A) because we're all so close that it's a matter of nuance and emphasis, B) because after a long day -- including another fight with that reactionary Pham Binh -- I'm too brain dead to worry about nuance among comrades. :) Chicken shit motherfucker, posing as Nott George Sabra, called OPENLY for the Ukraine left to ally with fascists and rightists,said it in black and white, and then denies it. And gets inexperienced immature jerks to pander to him just because it's a chance to badmouth a Marxist. 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 03/10/2014 10:13 PM, Andrew Pollack wrote: -- including another fight with that reactionary Pham Binh -- I'm too brain dead to worry about nuance among comrades. :) Chicken shit motherfucker, posing as Nott George Sabra, called OPENLY for the Ukraine left to ally with fascists and rightists,said it in black and white, and then denies it. And gets inexperienced immature jerks to pander to him just because it's a chance to badmouth a Marxist. Sorry for asking what may be a silly question, but are you serious about Pham Binh above, or is this said in jest? 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Mar 10, 2014, at 6:45 PM, Andrew Pollack acpolla...@gmail.com wrote: Marv made a simple mistake -- he focused on our denunciation of Russia and extrapolated that incorrectly into our supposed support for the government of Ukrainian oligarch set B (following set A). Thanks, Andy. It's always been clear to me that you and the others don't support bourgeois governments, and I'm sorry to have left the the wrong impression. In relation to the Ukraine, because the the government and the mass movement which produced it are so intertwined, the zealous defense of the movement can be perceived or misperceived, as in your case, as the defence of the government around their shared program. Both are wholly dominated by right and far right parties and, despite the interest in the tiny Ukrainian left on the list, there is no evidence of a class struggle. If there were, there would be little difficulty differentiating between a repressive state and an independent class movement ranged against it, and the left would not be as divided on the question as it is now. Clay, Louis, and others have also denounced those who point to to the interimperialist rivalry between the West and Russia, dismissing the international context as largely irrelevant to the development of the Maidan movement and an effort by their political opponents to undercut it. But international and domestic politics are inseparable, and due attention needs to be paid to the relationship between them. The outcome of the greatest class struggle in Western Europe during the 20th century, the Spanish Civil War, was decisively influenced by the efforts of the USSR to reach an accomodation with the Western capitalist powers at the expense of the revolutionary process in that country. Earlier, the international class struggle was profoundly shaped by the split in the Second International directly resulting from the interimperialist rivalry which culminated in the First World War. 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == serious as a heart attack http://notgeorgesabra.tumblr.com/post/78848780314/2-russias-1-ukraine On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:28 PM, h0ost h...@mailoo.org wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 03/10/2014 10:13 PM, Andrew Pollack wrote: -- including another fight with that reactionary Pham Binh -- I'm too brain dead to worry about nuance among comrades. :) Chicken shit motherfucker, posing as Nott George Sabra, called OPENLY for the Ukraine left to ally with fascists and rightists,said it in black and white, and then denies it. And gets inexperienced immature jerks to pander to him just because it's a chance to badmouth a Marxist. Sorry for asking what may be a silly question, but are you serious about Pham Binh above, or is this said in jest? Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/acpollack2%40gmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 03/10/2014 10:36 PM, Andrew Pollack wrote: serious as a heart attack http://notgeorgesabra.tumblr.com/post/78848780314/2-russias-1-ukraine Wow, so he went from the North Star to this? I'm confused, but this is striking development. 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Marv, i don't discount inter-imperialist rivalries. Not in Ukraine, not in Syria, Libya or Egypt. Not even in Occupy LA [RT was around a lot] I just don't discount the mass struggle. In all the above cases, I see the mass movement as the engine driving developments. It should be understood that imperialist and other opportunists will always circle around movements like these, trying to control them or destroy them, and to somehow find some advantage in them. This will always cloud the picture of any real world struggle but we should never lose sight of who is driving these developments. This is what the non-interventions do. Glenn, I more or less agree with you about fascism, which I define as the naked power of the finance capitalist state with all pretense of bourgeois democracy set aside. Clay Claiborne, Director Vietnam: American Holocaust http://VietnamAmericanHolocaust.com Linux Beach Productions Venice, CA 90291 (310) 581-1536 Read my blogs at the Linux Beach http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/ http://wlcentral.org/user/2965/track On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Glenn Kissack gkiss...@nyc.rr.com wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I've always thought of bourgeois democracy as being the form in which capitalists rule domestically primarily through persuasion (with their control over the ideological state apparatuses), but are willing to use force when necessary. (Think of the violent repression of the Panthers, labor strikes, urban rebellions, anti-war protests.) Of course, when dealing with challenges abroad, violent force is usually the norm, as seen in Korea, Vietnam and dozens of other places. Fascism is when the capitalists decide to rule primarily through coercion (state violence), although the secondary aspect of indoctrination is still important. In the past, capitalists have opted for making coercion primary when faced with a restive, revolutionary-led working class. But does that mean that in the future there might not be other motivations? It seems possible that when faced with intractable crises -- economic disarray, political chaos, environmental ruin and serious challenges from rival imperialists -- the capitalists may decide it needs to discipline elements of its own class, as well as the working class, in order to adequately deal with the crises. I found this MR article on the subject to be persuasive: http://monthlyreview.org/commentary/it-could-happen-here Glenn Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/clayclai%40gmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:12 PM, T thomasfbar...@earthlink.net wrote: Using the term fascist as a vulgar epithet has risks. Wasn't one of Aesop's Fables about The Boy Who Cried Fascist? T _ This brings to mind what I just thought when I saw this on another listserv: Mar. 22: Statewide Conference to End Police Terror in Los Angeles! Okay, we have problems with the LAPD, I certainly know that, I was the target of an LAPD undercover investigation for years [1977-1980] because of my work on police murder and brutality cases, but these days I'm focused more on Syria so I see and hear daily what is happening there. Then I turn to a local list and see something like this and I think, these people have no real idea what police terror really is. If they call the ordinary level of big city police abuse that we suffer from everyday police terror, what will they call it when it becomes the Assad or fascist type of police terror? BTW this is being organize by LA ANSWER, which supports police terror in Syria and whose End Police Brutality at OLA Committee did more damage to OLA than the police ever could. 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 2014-03-10, at 10:50 PM, Clay Claiborne wrote: Marv, i don't discount inter-imperialist rivalries. Not in Ukraine, not in Syria, Libya or Egypt. Not even in Occupy LA [RT was around a lot] I just don't discount the mass struggle. In all the above cases, I see the mass movement as the engine driving developments. It should be understood that imperialist and other opportunists will always circle around movements like these, trying to control them or destroy them, and to somehow find some advantage in them. This will always cloud the picture of any real world struggle but we should never lose sight of who is driving these developments. This is what the non-interventions do. Fair enough. But do we support all mass movements without exception - even ones led by popular right wing groups and parties often viciously opposed to the values and institutions historically supported by the left? Notwithstanding that many of those who flocked to Maidan, as in all mass movements, were non-ideological when they joined the fray, in what way does the political character of the Maidan movement not fit this description? This is a recurrent question we never had to grapple with before the demise of the once powerful international workers' movement, when mass protests and uprisings were typically led by socialists of one stripe or another, and defining a position in relation to them was reflexive. 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] Fascism?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == It seems to me the international socialism movement is largely responsible for its own demise. The disease is opportunism of many types. Uncritically supporting the Soviet Union was part of it and then all the rest. Someone just tweet one of my pieces but added his own comment. From Free Syriahttps://twitter.com/RobotNickk/status/443154270419181569 : #*Syria* https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Syriasrc=hash: UN: Assad sarin used in attacks | The Left's response? http:// claysbeach.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/un-assad-sarin-used-in-attacks-lefts.html ... http://t.co/LLBgSJoj58 (What Left? The Left is dead or become fascist) Not without reason that many Syrian Revolutionaries feel this way. The so-called Left has been the only section of the US population that has actively opposed the revolutions in Syria and Libya and actively supported fascism in those countries, so why should any Arab Spring revolutionaries look to the Left for guidance? Ukraine has seen all the communism it needs, certainly the Tatars have, and now much of the Left is supporting Russian imperialism so why should anyone there be looking for Left leadership. We have to clean our own stables first. For now, the revolutionary masses will have to do the best they can without the leadership that they have been robbed by opportunism, which has clearly become the dominate trend in the Left. Under the conditions, I think they are doing quite well. https://twitter.com/RobotNickk/status/443154270419181569https://twitter.com/RobotNickk/status/443154270419181569 Clay Claiborne, Director Vietnam: American Holocaust http://VietnamAmericanHolocaust.com Linux Beach Productions Venice, CA 90291 (310) 581-1536 Read my blogs at the Linux Beach http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/ http://wlcentral.org/user/2965/track On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Marv Gandall marvga...@gmail.com wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 2014-03-10, at 10:50 PM, Clay Claiborne wrote: Marv, i don't discount inter-imperialist rivalries. Not in Ukraine, not in Syria, Libya or Egypt. Not even in Occupy LA [RT was around a lot] I just don't discount the mass struggle. In all the above cases, I see the mass movement as the engine driving developments. It should be understood that imperialist and other opportunists will always circle around movements like these, trying to control them or destroy them, and to somehow find some advantage in them. This will always cloud the picture of any real world struggle but we should never lose sight of who is driving these developments. This is what the non-interventions do. Fair enough. But do we support all mass movements without exception - even ones led by popular right wing groups and parties often viciously opposed to the values and institutions historically supported by the left? Notwithstanding that many of those who flocked to Maidan, as in all mass movements, were non-ideological when they joined the fray, in what way does the political character of the Maidan movement not fit this description? This is a recurrent question we never had to grapple with before the demise of the once powerful international workers' movement, when mass protests and uprisings were typically led by socialists of one stripe or another, and defining a position in relation to them was reflexive. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/clayclai%40gmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Fascism, Maoism and the Democratic Left
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == An interesting analysis of contemporary affairs in India: http://infochangeindia.org/governance/analysis/fascism-maoism-and-the-democratic-left.html -- Padmaja Shaw Mobile: 9140-9348610948 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] Fascism in Germany: How Hitler Destroyed the World’s Most Powerful Labour Movement
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == An online book by Robin Blick written in 1975. Blick (a pseudonym) came out of the Healyite movement in Britain. http://www.marxists.org/subject/fascism/blick/ 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] Fascism in Germany: How Hitler Destroyed the World’s Most Powerful Labour Movement
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == [consistent with this, today this group calls unions themselves, not their leaders, institutions of capitalist rule that must be rejected by workers. Thus during the auto strike, they aimed their main fire at the UAW] Author’s Postscript After the completion of the foregoing Appendix, the author came into the possession of the Draft Political Perspectives of the WRP’s Special Conference, 13-14 July 1974. The general line and method of this document encapsulates the enclosed world of the sectarian. First there is intoned the ritualistic chant of perspectives being ‘proved a thousand times correct’ (p 4). But far more important is the total lack of a policy and demands to draw the mass of the workers into struggles that pose a challenge to the reformists. Despite the document’s speaking of the ‘maturing of a situation where Bonapartist forms of rule appeal to growing sections of the bourgeoisie’ (p 4), the bourgeoisie discarding ‘traditional democratic institutions’ as it ‘turns to the state machine itself to impose order’, and ‘devoting more and more resources to the mobilisation of the fascist bands’ (p 4), there is nowhere a single call for a united workers’ front to fight these sinister developments. Every other tendency in the workers’ movement is denounced for its complicity in the drive to reaction, but not confronted with a principled challenge to unite their forces on the basic issue of the defence of workers’ democratic rights, which the document so rightly says are threatened by the bourgeoisie and its various agencies. True, the document does have a plan to defeat reaction, but it leaves out those millions of workers still organised in the reformist-led organisations: ‘The real preparation to defeat reaction in all its forms including the emergence of fascist movements, is the turn more and more deeply into the working class by the revolutionary party.’ (p 5) What is this if not the ‘united front from below'? The ‘turn’ is to the working class in the abstract, as individuals susceptible to the propaganda of the WRP, and not to the class as it is, organised in the Labour Party and the trade unions, and ready to move into action against ‘reaction’ only in and through their traditional organisations. To fight fascism, the WRP must address itself to the organisations to which these workers belong, as Trotsky insisted in his many polemics against the Third Period Stalinists. Perhaps a clue as to why the WRP feels unable to apply this Leninist tactic is to be found in the same document, where we read that the ‘Social Democrats and the trade union bureaucrats, supported by the Stalinists, play their classical role of corporatist class collaboration’ (p 6, emphasis added). So Social Democracy (and Stalinism) = corporatism! Like the Third Period Stalinists, the WRP now attempts, with its reference to the ‘classical role’ of the ‘corporatist’ reformists, to project back far into the past the allegedly corporatist (fascist) nature of Social Democracy. But most disturbing of all, and again in the treacherous traditions of Third Period Stalinism, is the blatant attempt made in the document to minimise, if not to deny, the danger of fascism becoming a mass movement in Britain. The role allotted to the National Front (and, presumably, to similar movements in Ulster) is that of providing the ideological ‘basis for a supplementary force through which the police carries out its operations’ (p 5, emphasis added). Thus the fascists will not function as a plebeian battering ram against the organised working class (which, in order to carry through its counter-revolutionary task, acts to a large degree independently of the traditional state agencies), but as an ‘ideological base for a provocation squad’ (p 5, emphasis added). What we have expressed here is the British version of national exceptionalism. The German Social Democrats – and Stalinists – argued that fascism was a strictly Italian phenomenon, attributable to the retarded socio-economic development of that nation. It could never become a mass movement in so advanced and civilised a country as Germany. This essentially chauvinist argument in the case of the Stalinists fed the theory that it would be the Social Democrats, and not the Nazis (as late as 1928, capable of winning a mere 800 000 votes), who would carry through the ‘fascisation’ of Germany. As this book has attempted to show, this theory was still advanced at a time when the Nazis were already well on the way to becoming the mass movement of counter-revolution, not merely supplanting, but threatening with destruction, the mass reformist organisations. The crisis in the middle class, the ‘Liberal revival’, Powell’s challenge to the Tory leadership and his flirtation with the Ulster
[Marxism] Fascism in power: American style
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Sent: Fri, April 29, 2011 12:20:20 PM Subject: Sat. May 7 Snyder Parade Protest Glen Ford on EFM's please forward widely Gov. Rick Snyder has been chosen by St. Joe officials to be Grand Master of the Grand Floral Parade (Biggest yearly event in St. Joe Benton Harbor, Michigan) Let’s Make Snyder Uncomfortable in Whirlpool Land! Join the PARADE PROTEST Sat. May 7 Meet at 11am Benton Harbor Public Library 200 Wall St. Rally and 1 mile walk to position ourselves in St. Joe’s biggest yearly event Benton Harbor is the first victim of Ricktatorship Rev. Pinkney, President NAACP Benton Harbor Call anytime 269-925-0001~~bhbanco.org every sunday at 5pm Pinkney to Pinkney on blogtalkradio/com ** ** Michigan’s Republicans are creating a legal model for American fascism for the benefit of Wall Street. The state’s new emergency financial management legislation “is the prototype for a host of laws designed to make government – the state – a compliant tool for a dictatorship of the most predatory sections of the ruling class.” Naturally – this being the United States – the first localities targeted for de-democratization are Black. Michigan’s “Emergency” Financial Regime: What Fascism Looks Like A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford “There is nothing to stop the state from abolishing democratic governance in any of Michigan’s cities, if an emergency can be declared or created.” Fascism is not all about jack-boots and guys with mustaches. It is a system of economic and social control. The particularities of fascism in any given nation grow out of the special dynamics of that country. Fascism in the United States will be blow-dried. And its legal and bureaucratic form will take shape in places like Michigan, where an innocuous sounding piece of legislation called the Local Government and School District Fiscal Accountability Act is the prototype for a host of laws designed to make government – the state – a compliant tool for the dictatorial rule of the most predatory sections of the ruling class. In 2011 America, that’s Wall Street, finance capital. Michigan’s law allows the state to appoint emergency managers to nullify contracts, including labor agreements – which is what has unions upset. But the scope and intention of the law is much deeper and wider than simply anti-union. The legislation allows emergency managers to nullify the powers and authority of local governments of all kinds. One of its supporters gave the game away when he spoke of the need to impose a kind of “financial martial law” in which all pretense of democracy would be abolished in targeted communities. The community the Republican politician had in mind was Detroit, the Black metropolis, where the public schools were promptly put under emergency state control. But there is nothing to stop the state from abolishing democratic governance in any of Michigan’s cities, if an emergency can be declared or created. On April 15, the mostly Black city of Benton Harbor, the poorest jurisdiction in the state, was placed under total financial martial law, its citizens suddenly made more powerless than Blacks in Selma, Alabama, prior to the civil rights movement. “Wall Street imposes instant emergencies on the larger society by starving cities and schools and the public sector in general, in order to strip down, privatize and commodify every asset in sight.” Fascism always requires an “emergency,” a “crisis,” to justify the surrender of whatever citizen liberties previously existed. Its mass organizing principle revolves the “Other” – the scapegoating of a hated group that can be blamed for the emergency. Historically, in the United States, that “Other” has been Black people – although other “Others” have been added to the list. The U.S. has always been fertile ground for fascist politicking – in fact, I have long maintained that White Terror under southern Jim Crow was a peculiar form of American fascism. Fascism is also associated with militarism and the national security state, which are certainly famiiar aspects of modern Americana. More importantly, the militarization of the inner cities has been an established fact since the mid-1960s. The proof is in the one million African Americans behind bars. The “crisis” that justifies the outright abolition of democracy – beginning, of course, in Black America – is the crisis afflicting finance capitalism. Wall Street then imposes instant emergencies on the larger society by starving cities and schools and the public sector in general, in order to strip down, privatize and commodify every asset in sight.
