Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * thanks for the clarification, Dayne. Trump is far from unique. There is Sergio Matterella and Beppo Grillo leading the Italian government. In Britain there is Nigel Farage and also Boris Johnson, the latter of whom may be Britain's next prime minister. There is Marine le Pen in France. Although all these have ties to fascists, I don't think they are fascists, or in the case of Italy I don't think it's a fascist government. I just don't think any of them have the mass private army that would make it possible for them to unleash the mass state terrorism and the total smashing of all workers organizations that is the hallmark of fascism. John Reimann On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 4:49 AM Dayne Goodwin wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 3:00 AM John Reimann <1999wild...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> . . . Dayne seems to use bonapartism and fascism interchangeably. . . >> > > No, didn't mean to give the impression i use bonapartism and fascism > interchangeably. I think of Trump as a fascist - at least proto-fascist - > not as a Bonapartist. In particular i was responding to your frequent > comments on how much of the capitalist class dislikes Trump. > > > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 3:00 AM John Reimann <1999wild...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Thank you, Dayne Goodwin, for actually commenting on the essence of the >> article. >> >> Let's look at it from the other point of view - that of bourgeois >> democracy. Under that form of rule, the bulk of the capitalist class must >> be able to maintain a widespread base of support in the working class and >> the petit bourgeois. Not just general support for capitalism, but also for >> the policies it deems as necessary. As the example of the Chamber of >> Commerce shows, I think that that support has largely slipped away. Take >> some other issues: The TPP, "free" trade in general, the Paris Climate >> Accord, the accord with Iran... And, most important, whom it wants elected >> as president. Its first choice was Jeb Bush. Then came Hillary Clinton. The >> overwhelming bulk of the capitalist class did not favor Trump. >> >> I think that bonepartism arises when the capitalist class can no longer >> rule in the old way and the working class cannot take power - usually >> nowadays because of the role of its leadership. In that sort of situation, >> a strong man or woman arises, partly out of control of the ruling class >> itself. Not all bonapartist regimes are identical. Not by a long shot. On >> the one hand, we have the examples of the PRI in Mexico, which ruled for 70 >> years. It was the old Lazaro Cardenas who brought it to power, exactly out >> of the sort of situation I described. Once in power, he and the PRI leaned >> on the working class, at times ruling in its favor, and along the way >> looting the capitalist class. Then there is the old Batista dictatorship in >> Cuba. Interestingly, he originally came to power as a "leftist" and he >> ruled with the support of the Cuban Communist Party. I think it was similar >> with Peron in Argentina. Then there is Putin, who I would argue is also a >> bonapartist dictator. >> >> Note that in all these cases, bourgeois democratic freedoms are not >> completely eliminated. >> >> Dayne seems to use bonapartism and fascism interchangeably. I look at it >> differently. I think fascists have a crazed mass base and their own private >> army of thugs. Hitler's SS are the classic example. That's what allows >> fascism to go a lot further. (I used to think there was a hard and fast >> difference between bonapartism and fascism, but I'm not so sure anymore. >> Look at Pinochet in Chile. He went nearly as far as some fascists did. Or >> Papa Doc Duvalier in Haiti, who had his private army of thugs, the Ton Ton >> Macoute.) >> >> In neither case is the mainstream of the capitalist class "thrilled" with >> its ruler. In Mexico. the capitalists large and small constantly grumbled >> about how the PRI dictatorship ripped them off. (Read Traven's "The State" >> for a description.) While a wing of the capitalist class is happy with >> Trump's policies that lead to improved quarterly results, there is also a >> major wing that is deeply unhappy. For a hint at what is coming, look at >> the proposed merger of AT and Time Warner that Trump's (in)Justice >> Department fought. Why did they fight it? As retribution for Timer Warner's >> editorial policies against Trump. I think this is clear from reading the >> opinion pieces in the NY Times and the Washington Post, vs. the Wall St. >> Journal the deep, deep divisions in the US capitalist class. And even his >> supporters are very critical of some of his important policies, especially >>
Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 3:00 AM John Reimann <1999wild...@gmail.com> wrote:
> . . . Dayne seems to use bonapartism and fascism interchangeably. . .
>
No, didn't mean to give the impression i use bonapartism and fascism
interchangeably. I think of Trump as a fascist - at least proto-fascist -
not as a Bonapartist. In particular i was responding to your frequent
comments on how much of the capitalist class dislikes Trump.
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 3:00 AM John Reimann <1999wild...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you, Dayne Goodwin, for actually commenting on the essence of the
> article.
>
> Let's look at it from the other point of view - that of bourgeois
> democracy. Under that form of rule, the bulk of the capitalist class must
> be able to maintain a widespread base of support in the working class and
> the petit bourgeois. Not just general support for capitalism, but also for
> the policies it deems as necessary. As the example of the Chamber of
> Commerce shows, I think that that support has largely slipped away. Take
> some other issues: The TPP, "free" trade in general, the Paris Climate
> Accord, the accord with Iran... And, most important, whom it wants elected
> as president. Its first choice was Jeb Bush. Then came Hillary Clinton. The
> overwhelming bulk of the capitalist class did not favor Trump.
>
> I think that bonepartism arises when the capitalist class can no longer
> rule in the old way and the working class cannot take power - usually
> nowadays because of the role of its leadership. In that sort of situation,
> a strong man or woman arises, partly out of control of the ruling class
> itself. Not all bonapartist regimes are identical. Not by a long shot. On
> the one hand, we have the examples of the PRI in Mexico, which ruled for 70
> years. It was the old Lazaro Cardenas who brought it to power, exactly out
> of the sort of situation I described. Once in power, he and the PRI leaned
> on the working class, at times ruling in its favor, and along the way
> looting the capitalist class. Then there is the old Batista dictatorship in
> Cuba. Interestingly, he originally came to power as a "leftist" and he
> ruled with the support of the Cuban Communist Party. I think it was similar
> with Peron in Argentina. Then there is Putin, who I would argue is also a
> bonapartist dictator.
>
> Note that in all these cases, bourgeois democratic freedoms are not
> completely eliminated.
>
> Dayne seems to use bonapartism and fascism interchangeably. I look at it
> differently. I think fascists have a crazed mass base and their own private
> army of thugs. Hitler's SS are the classic example. That's what allows
> fascism to go a lot further. (I used to think there was a hard and fast
> difference between bonapartism and fascism, but I'm not so sure anymore.
> Look at Pinochet in Chile. He went nearly as far as some fascists did. Or
> Papa Doc Duvalier in Haiti, who had his private army of thugs, the Ton Ton
> Macoute.)
>
> In neither case is the mainstream of the capitalist class "thrilled" with
> its ruler. In Mexico. the capitalists large and small constantly grumbled
> about how the PRI dictatorship ripped them off. (Read Traven's "The State"
> for a description.) While a wing of the capitalist class is happy with
> Trump's policies that lead to improved quarterly results, there is also a
> major wing that is deeply unhappy. For a hint at what is coming, look at
> the proposed merger of AT and Time Warner that Trump's (in)Justice
> Department fought. Why did they fight it? As retribution for Timer Warner's
> editorial policies against Trump. I think this is clear from reading the
> opinion pieces in the NY Times and the Washington Post, vs. the Wall St.
> Journal the deep, deep divisions in the US capitalist class. And even his
> supporters are very critical of some of his important policies, especially
> his trade policies.
>
> Finally, as far as the Putin-Trump relationship: Sure, Trump gets
> something out of it. He gets the silence of Putin as far as his (Trump's)
> past. He also gets the electoral help. And while the extreme weakness of
> the Democrats' candidate was by far and away the main reason that Trump
> won, I don't think we can dismiss the effect of that support. According to
> Craig Unger ("House of Trump, House of Putin") studies by UC Berkeley and
> Swansea University in Wales concluded that Russian intervention swung 3.23%
> of the vote for Trump. That was overall, but because of the electoral
> college system, what matters is state-by-state. Trump won Wisconsin 47.2%
> to 45.5%. He won Pennsylvania 48.2% to 47.5%. Etc. So, if Russian
> intervention just tipped the
Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*
Thank you, Dayne Goodwin, for actually commenting on the essence of the
article.
Let's look at it from the other point of view - that of bourgeois
democracy. Under that form of rule, the bulk of the capitalist class must
be able to maintain a widespread base of support in the working class and
the petit bourgeois. Not just general support for capitalism, but also for
the policies it deems as necessary. As the example of the Chamber of
Commerce shows, I think that that support has largely slipped away. Take
some other issues: The TPP, "free" trade in general, the Paris Climate
Accord, the accord with Iran... And, most important, whom it wants elected
as president. Its first choice was Jeb Bush. Then came Hillary Clinton. The
overwhelming bulk of the capitalist class did not favor Trump.
I think that bonepartism arises when the capitalist class can no longer
rule in the old way and the working class cannot take power - usually
nowadays because of the role of its leadership. In that sort of situation,
a strong man or woman arises, partly out of control of the ruling class
itself. Not all bonapartist regimes are identical. Not by a long shot. On
the one hand, we have the examples of the PRI in Mexico, which ruled for 70
years. It was the old Lazaro Cardenas who brought it to power, exactly out
of the sort of situation I described. Once in power, he and the PRI leaned
on the working class, at times ruling in its favor, and along the way
looting the capitalist class. Then there is the old Batista dictatorship in
Cuba. Interestingly, he originally came to power as a "leftist" and he
ruled with the support of the Cuban Communist Party. I think it was similar
with Peron in Argentina. Then there is Putin, who I would argue is also a
bonapartist dictator.
Note that in all these cases, bourgeois democratic freedoms are not
completely eliminated.
Dayne seems to use bonapartism and fascism interchangeably. I look at it
differently. I think fascists have a crazed mass base and their own private
army of thugs. Hitler's SS are the classic example. That's what allows
fascism to go a lot further. (I used to think there was a hard and fast
difference between bonapartism and fascism, but I'm not so sure anymore.
Look at Pinochet in Chile. He went nearly as far as some fascists did. Or
Papa Doc Duvalier in Haiti, who had his private army of thugs, the Ton Ton
Macoute.)
In neither case is the mainstream of the capitalist class "thrilled" with
its ruler. In Mexico. the capitalists large and small constantly grumbled
about how the PRI dictatorship ripped them off. (Read Traven's "The State"
for a description.) While a wing of the capitalist class is happy with
Trump's policies that lead to improved quarterly results, there is also a
major wing that is deeply unhappy. For a hint at what is coming, look at
the proposed merger of AT and Time Warner that Trump's (in)Justice
Department fought. Why did they fight it? As retribution for Timer Warner's
editorial policies against Trump. I think this is clear from reading the
opinion pieces in the NY Times and the Washington Post, vs. the Wall St.
Journal the deep, deep divisions in the US capitalist class. And even his
supporters are very critical of some of his important policies, especially
his trade policies.
Finally, as far as the Putin-Trump relationship: Sure, Trump gets something
out of it. He gets the silence of Putin as far as his (Trump's) past. He
also gets the electoral help. And while the extreme weakness of the
Democrats' candidate was by far and away the main reason that Trump won, I
don't think we can dismiss the effect of that support. According to Craig
Unger ("House of Trump, House of Putin") studies by UC Berkeley and Swansea
University in Wales concluded that Russian intervention swung 3.23% of the
vote for Trump. That was overall, but because of the electoral college
system, what matters is state-by-state. Trump won Wisconsin 47.2% to 45.5%.
He won Pennsylvania 48.2% to 47.5%. Etc. So, if Russian intervention just
tipped the vote in such states by half of that overall estimate, it made
the difference. (NOTE: I am NOT saying that Trump won because of Putin.
It's like a football game where one side, which normally is faster and
stronger, vastly underperforms with a number of fumbles, missed catches,
and general lack of attention. But because they're faster and stronger,
they keep the game close. Then the ref blows a call in favor of the other
team. That call was the final straw, but all the fumbles and lack of
attention of the stronger team is what really made the ultimate difference.)
The main thing is this: Maybe Trump does not represent a
Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * some thoughts - doesn't 'Bonapartism' develop in a situation of relative stalemate in the class struggle? Is that the situation in the U.S. today? Does past historical experience indicate that the bulk of the capitalist class is typically thrilled to adjust to relying more and more on a fascist dictator? Is the Putin-Trump relationship one-sided or do they both find some advantages in it? Maybe Trump's 'friendly' relationship with Putin is an ancillary asset as Trump jockeys for power in the U.S. capitalist state? _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * John Reimann asks: "Is Russian imperialism operating on a different wavelength from US imperialism?" My answer is "no". Russia and the US are two rival imperialist powers, which sometimes cooperate and sometimes come into conflict. Venezuela is a case where they have come into conflict. Hence Putin has sent a small military contingent to help deter a possible US invasion. It is far too small to prevent a full scale US invasion of Venezuela. It is a symbolic gesture, indicating that Russia will assist the Venezuelan armed forces in resisting a possible invasion. Similarly the US is planning (unless Trump changes his mind again) to keep a small presence in northeastern Syria to deter a possible Turkish invasion and/or an Assadist invasion. John says: "Putin is looking out for the interests of the Russian capitalists". I agree. Similarly Trump, when he intensified the sanctions against Venezuela, was acting in the interests of the US capitalist class, which wants to overthrow the Venezuelan government. Trump acted in the tradition of US imperialism, which regards Latin America as its "backyard". Why do imperialist powers sometimes support progressive governments or movements? Why does Russia support Venezuela, and why does the US support Northeast Syria? Sometimes inter-imperialist rivalry leads to such surprising occurrences. During the second world war the US and Britain supported Communist-led resistance movements against German and Japanese imperialism. While both Putin and Trump act in the interests of their respective ruling classes, there are some differences. Putin is firmly in control of Russia, whereas Trump faces a lot of opposition. A large part of the ruling class is hostile to him. But this does not mean Trump is a servant of Putin. It just means the US ruling class is divided. Chris Slee From: John Reimann <1999wild...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, 10 May 2019 2:08:27 AM To: Chris Slee Cc: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition Subject: Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new I was going to bow out of this discussion since I felt I had nothing further to add. But "Russia sending aid"? Really? Does anybody really think that that reactionary capitalist government, whose head of state is little but the capo di tutti capo is sending "aid" to Venezuela when he sends in his troops and fighter jets? Is Russian imperialism operating on a different wavelength from US imperialism? Putin is looking out for the interests of the Russian capitalists. Period. Of course, the article was on far more than just Venezuela, as I've pointed out before, and in fact Venezuela is not the only issue that exists on the planet. But that's another question. John Reimann _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * I was going to bow out of this discussion since I felt I had nothing further to add. But "Russia sending aid"? Really? Does anybody really think that that reactionary capitalist government, whose head of state is little but the capo di tutti capo is sending "aid" to Venezuela when he sends in his troops and fighter jets? Is Russian imperialism operating on a different wavelength from US imperialism? Putin is looking out for the interests of the Russian capitalists. Period. Of course, the article was on far more than just Venezuela, as I've pointed out before, and in fact Venezuela is not the only issue that exists on the planet. But that's another question. John Reimann On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 9:13 PM Chris Slee wrote: > Trump may have changed his rhetoric (no longer talking about invading > Venezuela), but he has not changed his actual policy (economic blockade). > > I suspect the change of rhetoric was mainly due to the failure of Guaido's > latest coup attempt. Only a handful of soldiers responded to Guaido's call. > > If the Venezuelan army remains united, a US invasion would be very > costly. The US has been hoping for a split in the army, in which case US > forces might intervene in support of the anti-Maduro section. > > In the absence of such a split, I think a full scale invasion is > unlikely. (Raids across the border are possible) > > Trump is continuing the blockade in the hope that a continuing and > deepening economic crisis in Venezuela will eventually lead to a split in > the army. Activists in the United States and its allies should be > campaigning vigorously to end the blockade. > > I don't think Trump's comments welcoming a Russian role in Venezuela are > very significant. Short of shooting down Russian planes flying to > Venezuela, the US can't stop Russia from sending aid, so it doesn't matter > what Trump says about it. > > Chris > > > > > > > > -- > *From:* John Reimann <1999wild...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, 9 May 2019 10:06 AM > *To:* Chris Slee > *Cc:* Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition > *Subject:* Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with > something fundamentally new > > Chris, please quote me accurately, meaning in context. I did not say that > Trump's blockade is irrelevant; I said that what you raise is irrelevant to > my main point. In relation to the blockade, my main point was how Trump > completely changed the tune of his administration (as communicated by > Bolton and Pompeo) immediately after talking with Putin. THAT was the point. > > In any case, there really is a lot more to Trump's foreign policy than > Venezuela, as I demonstrated in my article. > > John Reimann > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 3:19 PM Chris Slee > wrote: > > John Reimann says that Trump's economic blockade against Venezuela is > "irrelevant" in judging whose interests Trump serves. > > I think the blockade has been imposed in the interests of the US ruling > class, which does not want to see left wing governments in Latin America > that challenge the economic interests of US corporations. > > If John thinks that Trump follows instructions from Putin, he has to > explain why it is in Putin's interest for Venezuela to be blockaded by the > United States and its allies. > > Chris Slee > -- > *From:* Marxism on behalf of John > Reimann via Marxism > *Sent:* Wednesday, 8 May 2019 10:46:06 PM > *To:* Chris Slee > *Subject:* Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with > something fundamentally new > > POSTING RULES & NOTES > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > * > > To be blunt, the responses of Chris Slee and Richard Fidler to this article > are perfect examples of exactly what I was raising: The failure of > socialists to absorb what is happening in US politics. The failure to > consider that the way capitalism has ruled in the US ever since the Civil > War is undergoing a basic shift. (Disclaimer: Please note that I'm not > saying it's all the way there, but just the fact that we've gone this far > is huge.) > > Venezuela is only one small part of this issue. And in any case, what Chris > Slee raises concerning Trump's Venezuela policy is really irrelevant to the > main point I was making. > > Marxists, above all others, are supposed to be looking at the big picture. > > John Reimann > > -- > *“In politics, abstract terms
Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Trump may have changed his rhetoric (no longer talking about invading Venezuela), but he has not changed his actual policy (economic blockade). I suspect the change of rhetoric was mainly due to the failure of Guaido's latest coup attempt. Only a handful of soldiers responded to Guaido's call. If the Venezuelan army remains united, a US invasion would be very costly. The US has been hoping for a split in the army, in which case US forces might intervene in support of the anti-Maduro section. In the absence of such a split, I think a full scale invasion is unlikely. (Raids across the border are possible) Trump is continuing the blockade in the hope that a continuing and deepening economic crisis in Venezuela will eventually lead to a split in the army. Activists in the United States and its allies should be campaigning vigorously to end the blockade. I don't think Trump's comments welcoming a Russian role in Venezuela are very significant. Short of shooting down Russian planes flying to Venezuela, the US can't stop Russia from sending aid, so it doesn't matter what Trump says about it. Chris From: John Reimann <1999wild...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2019 10:06 AM To: Chris Slee Cc: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition Subject: Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new Chris, please quote me accurately, meaning in context. I did not say that Trump's blockade is irrelevant; I said that what you raise is irrelevant to my main point. In relation to the blockade, my main point was how Trump completely changed the tune of his administration (as communicated by Bolton and Pompeo) immediately after talking with Putin. THAT was the point. In any case, there really is a lot more to Trump's foreign policy than Venezuela, as I demonstrated in my article. John Reimann On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 3:19 PM Chris Slee mailto:chris_w_s...@hotmail.com>> wrote: John Reimann says that Trump's economic blockade against Venezuela is "irrelevant" in judging whose interests Trump serves. I think the blockade has been imposed in the interests of the US ruling class, which does not want to see left wing governments in Latin America that challenge the economic interests of US corporations. If John thinks that Trump follows instructions from Putin, he has to explain why it is in Putin's interest for Venezuela to be blockaded by the United States and its allies. Chris Slee From: Marxism mailto:marxism-boun...@lists.csbs.utah.edu>> on behalf of John Reimann via Marxism mailto:marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu>> Sent: Wednesday, 8 May 2019 10:46:06 PM To: Chris Slee Subject: Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * To be blunt, the responses of Chris Slee and Richard Fidler to this article are perfect examples of exactly what I was raising: The failure of socialists to absorb what is happening in US politics. The failure to consider that the way capitalism has ruled in the US ever since the Civil War is undergoing a basic shift. (Disclaimer: Please note that I'm not saying it's all the way there, but just the fact that we've gone this far is huge.) Venezuela is only one small part of this issue. And in any case, what Chris Slee raises concerning Trump's Venezuela policy is really irrelevant to the main point I was making. Marxists, above all others, are supposed to be looking at the big picture. John Reimann -- *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black Jacobins" by C. L. R. James Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/chris_w_slee%40hotmail.com -- “In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” from "The Black Jacobins" by C. L. R. James Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Perhaps my point about the Congress wasn't clear enough. If it were possible to have a single renegade officeholder, the situation of the Congress makes explicitly clear that that's not the situation we face. If Trump represented some kind of renegade from the broad agenda of the American ruling class agenda, the financial base of his drones would shrivel like an old prune. Not only hasn't this happen, but it remains as likely as not that they're going to be able to carry the next election. (This is particularly so given the DNC-Pelosi strategic hope to avoid anything that would "alienate the Trump voters." And if Trump is getting played by the capitalist oligarchs of Russia on a range of issues, it doesn't necessarily place him beyond the broad parameters of what the American ruling class sees as its mainstream. And when he has gone too far on some things--like not imposing the sanctions the Congress voted on Russia--the rest of the government has pulled him into line. Cheers, Mark L. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Chris, please quote me accurately, meaning in context. I did not say that Trump's blockade is irrelevant; I said that what you raise is irrelevant to my main point. In relation to the blockade, my main point was how Trump completely changed the tune of his administration (as communicated by Bolton and Pompeo) immediately after talking with Putin. THAT was the point. In any case, there really is a lot more to Trump's foreign policy than Venezuela, as I demonstrated in my article. John Reimann On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 3:19 PM Chris Slee wrote: > John Reimann says that Trump's economic blockade against Venezuela is > "irrelevant" in judging whose interests Trump serves. > > I think the blockade has been imposed in the interests of the US ruling > class, which does not want to see left wing governments in Latin America > that challenge the economic interests of US corporations. > > If John thinks that Trump follows instructions from Putin, he has to > explain why it is in Putin's interest for Venezuela to be blockaded by the > United States and its allies. > > Chris Slee > -- > *From:* Marxism on behalf of John > Reimann via Marxism > *Sent:* Wednesday, 8 May 2019 10:46:06 PM > *To:* Chris Slee > *Subject:* Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with > something fundamentally new > > POSTING RULES & NOTES > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > * > > To be blunt, the responses of Chris Slee and Richard Fidler to this article > are perfect examples of exactly what I was raising: The failure of > socialists to absorb what is happening in US politics. The failure to > consider that the way capitalism has ruled in the US ever since the Civil > War is undergoing a basic shift. (Disclaimer: Please note that I'm not > saying it's all the way there, but just the fact that we've gone this far > is huge.) > > Venezuela is only one small part of this issue. And in any case, what Chris > Slee raises concerning Trump's Venezuela policy is really irrelevant to the > main point I was making. > > Marxists, above all others, are supposed to be looking at the big picture. > > John Reimann > > -- > *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black > Jacobins" by C. L. R. James > Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook > _ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: > https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/chris_w_slee%40hotmail.com > -- *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black Jacobins" by C. L. R. James Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * John Reimann says that Trump's economic blockade against Venezuela is "irrelevant" in judging whose interests Trump serves. I think the blockade has been imposed in the interests of the US ruling class, which does not want to see left wing governments in Latin America that challenge the economic interests of US corporations. If John thinks that Trump follows instructions from Putin, he has to explain why it is in Putin's interest for Venezuela to be blockaded by the United States and its allies. Chris Slee From: Marxism on behalf of John Reimann via Marxism Sent: Wednesday, 8 May 2019 10:46:06 PM To: Chris Slee Subject: Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * To be blunt, the responses of Chris Slee and Richard Fidler to this article are perfect examples of exactly what I was raising: The failure of socialists to absorb what is happening in US politics. The failure to consider that the way capitalism has ruled in the US ever since the Civil War is undergoing a basic shift. (Disclaimer: Please note that I'm not saying it's all the way there, but just the fact that we've gone this far is huge.) Venezuela is only one small part of this issue. And in any case, what Chris Slee raises concerning Trump's Venezuela policy is really irrelevant to the main point I was making. Marxists, above all others, are supposed to be looking at the big picture. John Reimann -- *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black Jacobins" by C. L. R. James Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/chris_w_slee%40hotmail.com _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * In reply to Mark Lause: My thesis is 1) Trump is to a great degree under the control of a foreign and rival capitalist class. 2) This means that to a large degree he is acting against the mainstream of the US capitalist class, which does not control its president. 3) This entire situation amounts to a major step towards bonapartism, which means a fundamental shift in how capitalism has ruled in the US. It is unprecedented. Mark says that the takeover of the Republicans by Trump is due to "donor dollars and their expectations." Just the opposite, as the situation of the US Chamber of Commerce - which I cited - shows. It is clear that the takeover is due to Trump's popularity with the base of the Republican Party, first and foremost the evangelicals. That is in contrast to the major donors, such as the Chamber of Commerce. Yes, a layer of them have come to accept and even support Trump because he's good for their bottom line in the short term. Again, as I pointed out, the WSJ is the prime example of this. But it is despite the fact of the Russian mafia capitalist influence. It is exactly because of the extremely short term (as in next quarter's financial report) orientation of this wing of the US capitalist class. Mark writes, "the process forms something of a continuum, in which there are certainly leaps." But his entire emphasis is on the "continuum". Yes, we have seen hints of what is happening in previous administrations. That includes the increasing gathering of power into the hands of the executive branch vs. the legislative. But what we are seeing now is very far from a continuum. It is not even a "leap"; it's a break from the past (in the influence of a rival capitalist class). Mark paraphrases Marx's comment that philosophers before him have sought to interpret the world. The point, however, is to change it." What Marx never said was that a large part of our task is, exactly, to understand the world. As to where the mass mobilizations will come from. That's most definitely something I've raised time and again. Unfortunately, we Marxists have almost zero ability to build such mobilizations. And inevitably, when they do come they will do so with massive confusions. That makes it all the more important to try to lend what little clarity we can. I have to say, I do think that Mark's overall reply exemplifies the approach of much of the socialist and even the Marxist left in that it fails to recognize exactly such a sharp break. John Reimann -- *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black Jacobins" by C. L. R. James Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Just a couple of admittedly superficial observations on this. Capitalism has changed radically over the course of American history--and since the days the first Marxist observers talked about divisions in the ruling class. Most clearly, it has become increasingly more integrated internally. However, divisions are relative. We can't see much daylight between the White House and the Republican officeholders in general. That's a reflection of, among other things, donor dollars and their expectation. And we see this ratified by the corporate media and the "mainstream" of Democratic officeholders who are themselves timid to the point of complicity. Are there institutional changes taking place? Yes, but there always has been. On the generational watch of the Boomers, the presidency has continued to accrue vast new powers. This was done mostly, but not exclusively, by Republicans--Nixon, Reagan, Bushdaddy, Dubya, and Trump. And Democrats accepted it at every step, every seizure of new power. And the liberals accepted it and sanctioned it. And most of the self-identified Left found excuses for the liberals. And those that didn't were preoccupied with sectarian wranglings to no substantive purpose. So, the process forms something of a continuum, in which there are certainly leaps. But we're a far cry from analogies to the disruptions (and opportunities) of the Civil War and the Reconstruction. But, as old Karl suggested, the point is not to solve the world but to change it. People have probably never had less faith in the institutions of capitalist rule. Yet, where are the ongoing mass mobilizations? And what are radicals doing to encourage them? These seem to be more productive avenues to explore. Cheers, Mark L. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * To be blunt, the responses of Chris Slee and Richard Fidler to this article are perfect examples of exactly what I was raising: The failure of socialists to absorb what is happening in US politics. The failure to consider that the way capitalism has ruled in the US ever since the Civil War is undergoing a basic shift. (Disclaimer: Please note that I'm not saying it's all the way there, but just the fact that we've gone this far is huge.) Venezuela is only one small part of this issue. And in any case, what Chris Slee raises concerning Trump's Venezuela policy is really irrelevant to the main point I was making. Marxists, above all others, are supposed to be looking at the big picture. John Reimann -- *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black Jacobins" by C. L. R. James Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * The role of the US sanctions is explained here, in an article by Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs (!): Economic Sanctions as Collective Punishment: The Case of Venezuela https://www.alainet.org/es/node/199684 The article does not critique the disastrous failure of the chavistas to counter Venezuela's dependence on hydrocarbons, and it ignores the role of the Obama administration in initiating the sanctions (Obama was the first US president to declare Venezuela "an usual and extraordinary threat to the national security" of the United States). But it is an authoritative analysis of the devastating impact of the US sanctions. I concur with Chris Slee's concern over the failure of the US left to challenge the blockade of Venezuela (and I add the overwhelming complicity of the Canadian social-democratic and labour left in that blockade as implemented in turn by the Trudeau government). Richard -Original Message- From: Marxism [mailto:marxism-boun...@lists.csbs.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Slee via Marxism Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2019 6:09 PM To: rfid...@ncf.ca Subject: Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Trump has backed off from threats to invade Venezuela, but as far as I am aware there has been no change to the economic sanctions - which are an attempt to impose an economic blockade against Venezuela. The threat of invasion was, I think, psychological warfare rather than an imminent threat. An invasion may happen later, after Venezuela has been weakened further by the blockade. It disturbs me that the US left does not seem to be campaigning vigorously against the blockade (as far as I can tell observing from afar). Chris Slee From: Marxism on behalf of John Reimann via Marxism Sent: Wednesday, 8 May 2019 2:41:06 AM To: Chris Slee Subject: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * A week ago, we had a short debate here on the significance of Trump's defending the Russian presence in Venezuela. That defense came after Pompeo and Bolton had rattled their sabres on that score and it also came an hour or so after Trump had spoken with Putin. My view was that it was yet another example of the degree to which Putin is pulling Trump's strings. Another way of seeing it is that it's an example of how the mainstream of the US capitalist class has largely lost control over its presidency. This, of course, is a description of bonapartism, and while we're not all the way there yet, I believe that's the essence of the issue. This, of course, means a sharp transformation in how capitalism rules in the United States - possibly the biggest political transformation since the US Civil War. I also believe that the great majority of the left - including Marxists - are having a hard time wrapping their heads around this transformation. It's not easy to change our orientation, after all. In this article, I lay out the argument and also the evidence for my view. https://oaklandsocialist.com/2019/05/06/trump-and-the-reluctance-to-reckon-with- something-fundamentally-new/ One detail: I quote an email from Michael Karadjis in the article. I do so with his permission. John Reimann -- *"In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery." *from "The Black Jacobins" by C. L. R. James Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/chris_w_slee%40hotmail.com _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/rfidler%40ncf.ca _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Trump has backed off from threats to invade Venezuela, but as far as I am aware there has been no change to the economic sanctions - which are an attempt to impose an economic blockade against Venezuela. The threat of invasion was, I think, psychological warfare rather than an imminent threat. An invasion may happen later, after Venezuela has been weakened further by the blockade. It disturbs me that the US left does not seem to be campaigning vigorously against the blockade (as far as I can tell observing from afar). Chris Slee From: Marxism on behalf of John Reimann via Marxism Sent: Wednesday, 8 May 2019 2:41:06 AM To: Chris Slee Subject: [Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * A week ago, we had a short debate here on the significance of Trump's defending the Russian presence in Venezuela. That defense came after Pompeo and Bolton had rattled their sabres on that score and it also came an hour or so after Trump had spoken with Putin. My view was that it was yet another example of the degree to which Putin is pulling Trump's strings. Another way of seeing it is that it's an example of how the mainstream of the US capitalist class has largely lost control over its presidency. This, of course, is a description of bonapartism, and while we're not all the way there yet, I believe that's the essence of the issue. This, of course, means a sharp transformation in how capitalism rules in the United States - possibly the biggest political transformation since the US Civil War. I also believe that the great majority of the left - including Marxists - are having a hard time wrapping their heads around this transformation. It's not easy to change our orientation, after all. In this article, I lay out the argument and also the evidence for my view. https://oaklandsocialist.com/2019/05/06/trump-and-the-reluctance-to-reckon-with-something-fundamentally-new/ One detail: I quote an email from Michael Karadjis in the article. I do so with his permission. John Reimann -- *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black Jacobins" by C. L. R. James Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/chris_w_slee%40hotmail.com _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Trump and the reluctance to reckon with something fundamentally new
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * A week ago, we had a short debate here on the significance of Trump's defending the Russian presence in Venezuela. That defense came after Pompeo and Bolton had rattled their sabres on that score and it also came an hour or so after Trump had spoken with Putin. My view was that it was yet another example of the degree to which Putin is pulling Trump's strings. Another way of seeing it is that it's an example of how the mainstream of the US capitalist class has largely lost control over its presidency. This, of course, is a description of bonapartism, and while we're not all the way there yet, I believe that's the essence of the issue. This, of course, means a sharp transformation in how capitalism rules in the United States - possibly the biggest political transformation since the US Civil War. I also believe that the great majority of the left - including Marxists - are having a hard time wrapping their heads around this transformation. It's not easy to change our orientation, after all. In this article, I lay out the argument and also the evidence for my view. https://oaklandsocialist.com/2019/05/06/trump-and-the-reluctance-to-reckon-with-something-fundamentally-new/ One detail: I quote an email from Michael Karadjis in the article. I do so with his permission. John Reimann -- *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black Jacobins" by C. L. R. James Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
