[Marxism] WW2: interimperialist war to redivide the world
Paddy Apling (e.c.apl...@btinternet.com) wrote on 2009-09-19 at 18:53:34 in about Re: [Marxism] Query on British historiography: Strange to hide this pro-imperialist propaganda unter a Query of British historiography: From then on there could be no doubt that WWII was a just war, a war of liberation against fascism - and anyone who now seeks to dispute that is effectively a holocaust denier. Your age doesnt entitle you to spread such nonsense. British imperialism had no interest in fighting fascism, but only in preserving their empire. If it had been different, the British military would not have allowed that the Nazi military judges hand out death sentences against deserters from the Nazi army in the prisoners of war camps under British management. If it had been different, the British troops who conquered Greece from the German occupiers would not have installed a fascist dictatorship in Greece. If Churchill would have had the slightest interest in democracy, he would have declared the immediate independence of all British colonies as soon as he took the office of premier minister of the British empire. If French imperialists had the slightest interest in democracy, their colonial troops would not have committed a massaker in Setif against a demonstration for Algerian self determination the same day as German generals signed the capitulation of the Wehrmacht. Again, if British imperialist had the slightest interest in democracy, they would not have done everything in their power to reestablish colonial rule over Indonesia, and this with the help of the defeated Japanese occupation forces. Paddy, you are spreading bourgeois lies. Bringing the Bengal famine into the argument is a red herring. British communists - and indeed the working class movement in Britain generally, were active throughout the war - and before - in promoting the anti-colonial struggle; in Sunday talk, but not in an effective struggle. The leaders of the reformist working-class parties in the imperialist countries struggling to keep the colonies did NOT promote the immediate independence of the colonies as a measure of a war against fascism and for democracy, but postponed the independence to the Greek Calends after the war, i.e. after their exploiters had reestablished (or hoped to reestablish) the undisputed control over their colonies. Instead, the immediate indepencence for the colonies of Britain, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and USA would have been the most powerful measure to defeat the fascist ruled imperialist competitors: German, Japanese and US imperialism fought their war mainly to conquer parts of the British and French colonial empires, and the declaration of independence of those colonies would have made futile and further act of war against Great Britain. Further it would have weakened the grip of the fascist dictatorship especially in Germany, which was strengthend by the belief promoted by the Nazis propaganda that they are all equal, and we are just trying to get our just share of the world riches, which England denies us. War is the continuation of politics by military means and a war has to be fought guided by a political strategy. The strategy of the competitors of German and Italian imperialism was to preserve their colonial posessions. but all direct contact with Marxists in India were effectively impossible during the war - and what for? All Communists i.e. followers of the stalinist burocracy, fought against the independence struggle. though the representative of the Indian Congress, Krishna Menon, was speaker at many many public meetings organised during the war - and many on the left were advocating the handing over of power before the end of the war. Which means: NOT NOW! but sometime in a distant future. Cheers, Lüko Willms Frankfurt, Germany visit http://www.mlwerke.de Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotzki in German YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Germany's Die Linke shows the way for the left
Lenin's Tomb wrote: On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Lüko Willms lueko.wil...@t-online.dewrote: The Partei Die Linke shows the way forward? Well, yes, back into bourgeois politics. Yeah, because the working masses have already *abandoned* bourgeois politics, and the Linke wants to *trick* them back into that old shell game. I feel that both Richard and Lüko have an over-negative attitude to DIE LINKE. It is correct that the party is not THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE PARTY OF THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION but adopting an abstentionist attitude to the party is a not very productive way of intervening in the current crisis of German politics. I recommend both Richard and Lüko - and anybody else who is interested - to read the article by Oliver Nachtwey in the forthcoming issue of International Socialism Journal, which has just been translated into English by yours truly. Einde O'Callaghan YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Request for info, sources on Cuba expert Samuel Farber
An organization I belong to is beginning a long overdue debate on Cuba. To a large extent the writings of Farber have had a free ride in this milieu and I would like to change that. I know that Louis Proyect's blog has carried a series of valuable analyses of Farber's factual unreliability and other errors. I hope he can provide me with the URLs. I would like to circulate them. I would also like to know of any good articles on Farber elsewhere. Thank everybody for their help. Fidelismo si, Farberismo no! YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Germany's Die Linke shows the way for the left
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Einde O'Callaghan eind...@freenet.dewrote: I feel that both Richard and Lüko have an over-negative attitude to DIE LINKE. Ahem, ahem! It was *sarcasm*. -- Richard Seymour Writer and blogger Email: leninstombb...@googlemail.com Website: http://www.leninology.blogspot.com Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/leninology Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Seymour_(writer) Book: http://www.versobooks.com/books/nopqrs/s-titles/seymour_r_the_liberal_defense_of_murder.shtml YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Soviet art
NY Times, September 20, 2009 Visuals The Revolution Will Be Illustrated By STEVEN HELLER Early-20th-century artists and designers greatly admired Russian revolutionary posters and typography, and the art movements that sprang from the October Revolution: Constructivism, Suprematism and Productivism. These fostered new forms of painting, sculpture, architecture, advertising and graphic design. Much of this art was not, however, art for art’s sake, but rather a means to propagate the ideology of the state. When it began, the Russian avant-garde was a radical departure from accepted aesthetics and signified a victory over cultural conservatism. But alas, the celebration was relatively short-lived. Lenin was not a big fan. So innovative artists and designers were essentially tolerated until they were replaced in the 1930s by Stalin’s turgid Socialist Realism. Thus, the fertile period after the October Revolution wound up deteriorating into a creative wasteland. “The stories of some of the men and women who saw their early revolutionary struggles transformed into almost unspeakable tragedy are recorded here, alongside hundreds of examples of indelible images created by the designers, artists and photographers who shaped the iconography of the first workers’ state,” David King writes in his introduction to RED STAR OVER RUSSIA: A Visual History of the Soviet Union From the Revolution to the Death of Stalin (Abrams, $50). And if the first 200 pages of this 350-page volume are any indication, the graphics used to promote the workers’ paradise deserve admiration. But the rest of this extraordinarily illustrated book provides witness to the corrosive effects of ham-handed propaganda, and to the role of state-sanctioned imagery in demeaning and subjugating the arts. “Red Star Over Russia” is a mammoth collection of rare Soviet applied art and photographs, edited and designed by King, a British graphic designer and design historian who in the 1980s reintroduced Constructivist mannerisms into the contemporary design vocabulary, spawning a stylistic revival that continues in various forms to this day (e.g., Shepard Fairey’s recent advertising campaign for Saks Fifth Avenue). For three decades he has scrutinized and revealed the hidden treasures of this officially out-of-favor art. He has further renewed the appreciation of pioneers through books on Alexander Rodchenko, Vladimir Mayakovsky and other significant avant-gardists. His “Blood and Laughter: Caricatures From the 1905 Revolution” uncovered a little-known cache of satirical journals produced during the first (failed) attempt to overthrow the czar. His mesmerizing book “The Commissar Vanishes: The Falsification of Photographs and Art in Stalin’s Russia” includes a host of “before and after” official photographs, manipulated to remove Stalin’s purged opponents. King is a voracious collector of all things Soviet, and some of his collection is on view in its own gallery at the Tate Modern in London. This new book is organized not into individual chapters, but into pages and spreads devoted to a range of themes addressed in graphic and photographic materials, including “Political Abstraction,” “Urban Proletariat” and “Workers of the World, Unite.” Prominent artists like El Lissitzky and Gustav Klutsis are featured — Klutsis on a spread called “The Evolution of a Klutsis Poster,” showing a photomontage with Lenin striding forward against the background of the Dniepr Dam, promoting the New Economic Policy. King reveals how that heroic image was reused in different iterations. His organizing principle, while not historically orthodox, results in a cinematic panorama of the Soviet Union from these critical early years through the devastation of World War II; one of the last photos in the book is of Khrushchev in Moscow in 1959, alongside two sequin-laden stars of “Holiday on Ice.” The clichéd heroic/romantic graphics from the Stalin years take a back seat to the earlier avant-garde work, but the photographs of leaders, workers and soldiers King has amassed from the Stalin period, some quite candid, say a lot about the rise and fall of the Communist revolution. The most startling — even beautiful — image in the entire book is of Stalin lying in state at the House of Trade Unions in Moscow, where his show trials had been carried out in the ’30s. He rests peacefully in full party regalia — his face lighted dramatically from below — on bright red sheets, surrounded by a tropical garden of red and white flowers and green leaves. What a relief it must have been for so many to see him in such a tableau. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Germany's Die Linke shows the way for the left
Lenin's Tomb wrote: On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Einde O'Callaghan eind...@freenet.dewrote: I feel that both Richard and Lüko have an over-negative attitude to DIE LINKE. Ahem, ahem! It was *sarcasm*. It must be living in Germany that does it - I'm obviously suffering from an irony deficit! However, I still recommend you - and everybody else - to read Oliver Nachtwey's excellent article in the next ISJ. Einde YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Germany's Die Linke shows the way for the left
Lüko Willms wrote: Bhaskar Sunkara (bhaskar.sunk...@gmail.com) wrote on 2009-09-19 at 15:45:13 in about Re: [Marxism] Germany's Die Linke shows the way for the left: There is a militant minority in Die Linke that wants to build an oppositional movement and not be mere left-social democrats. The party is not even _left_ social democrats, but just socialdemocrat. A merger of the real social democrats of the SPD with the main stalinist party. And there is nobody advancing a revolutionary program for the working class movement. Sure, the existence of the party is an expression of the fact that the cut-back politics of the past goverments are not accepted without a murmur by the masses. I'll vote for the Pirates next sunday. Vote for the PSG! The only serious choice! Was repräsentiert die Piratenpartei? http://www.wsws.org/de/2009/sep2009/pira-s05.shtml YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Germany's Die Linke shows the way for the left
Why do I keep receiving multiple copies of the same post? Jim Farmelant On So, 20 Sep 2009 10:32:05 +0200 (MES) =?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?= lueko.wil...@t-online.de writes: Bhaskar Sunkara (bhaskar.sunk...@gmail.com) wrote on 2009-09-19 at 15:45:13 in about Re: [Marxism] Germany's Die Linke shows the way for the left: There is a militant minority in Die Linke that wants to build an oppositional movement and not be mere left-social democrats. The party is not even _left_ social democrats, but just socialdemocrat. Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTFoYdgq8ovZ2gnHV17ZaC2HGDdPOe8gkWisma9lWgkoza1lKNc180/ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] WW2: interimperialist war to redivide the world
I think it's far more complicated that what Paddy or Lüko think. I think Paddy is more wrong than Lüko on this in that regardless of how one feels about British entry into the war in 1939, or it's aid or not to anti-fascist struggles. WWII was first and foremost an attack by Fascism against the USSR. It was always aimed, first and foremost, against the USSR. It was secondly an imperialist war *politically* because it involved all the great Imperialist powers regardless of the *effect* of the war. Clearly, Lüko is formally correct based on the examples he gave but there is far more to it that. What about the Filipino masses who *in their entirety* went from welcoming in the Japanese to turning against them? Or the Indonesians? WHY did they welcome British and US troops then? Was there something WORSE about the Japanese occupation vs the historic Dutch or US occupations? Or the French and Dutch whose resistance worked closely with Allied troops and whose peoples welcomed them, *in fact* liberated them from the Nazi occupation? The military tie up of enough divisions in the west to prevent, in no small part, the destruction and occupation of Moscow in December of 1941. It's clearly a lot more complicated than all sides being equal. They were not. David YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] WW2: interimperialist war to redivide the world
nada wrote: I think it's far more complicated that what Paddy or Lüko think. I think Paddy is more wrong than Lüko on this in that regardless of how one feels about British entry into the war in 1939, or it's aid or not to anti-fascist struggles. WWII was first and foremost an attack by Fascism against the USSR. But it was also a war in the Pacific without any discernible *class* differences between Japanese and American imperialism. It does not matter if Filipinos welcomed in American troops. That is not our criterion for deciding whether a war is progressive or not. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Germany's Die Linke shows the way for the left
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/783/oskarlafontaine.php Oskar Lafontaine: ‘We want to govern’ The results for the German left party Die Linke in the August 30 regional elections are impressive, particularly the 21.3% achieved in the federal state of Saarland. But is this the beginning of the end for the “party of opposition”? Tina Becker takes a closer look Germany’s so-called ‘super Sunday’ on August 30 was not so super for everybody. The big parties were big losers. Because the parliamentary elections for the national *Bundestag* are less than a month away (September 27), the elections results in three of the 16 German federal states (Thuringia, Saxony and Saarland) have been interpreted as a ‘dry run’. The conservative Christian Democratic Union of chancellor Angela Merkel did worse than predicted - which means the bad results for the Social Democrats (SPD) did not stand out quite as much as expected. The fact that the SPD share of the vote in the east German federal state of Thuringia, for example, increased from a measly 9.8% to a scarcely less measly 10.4% is hardly worth celebrating - especially as the lowest ever turnout means that, in reality, the number of voters remained roughly the same. The only ones for whom Sunday really was ‘super’ are the smaller parties. The Greens, the Liberal Democrats (FDP) and Die Linke increased their share of the vote almost everywhere and are likely to play the kingmaker in the regional government coalitions that will now be formed. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Germany's Die Linke shows the way for the left
I don't think it really is as simple as either Luko or Einde (sp?) make it out to be. Some places where Die Linke have entered coalitions with the SPD do show both the limits to electoral politics and the necessity to meet the people were they are at to squeeze out even the slightest of gains for people. However, has the left not learned anything from the many attempts to enter electoral politics within bourgeois democratic limits without a very large movement on the sidelines. If Die Linke has committed one fatal error it is to place more emphasis on electoral party tactics than on movement building. If/when they fail to bring socialism to Germany it will be because of this failure. I think some of the discussions that Bhuskar had linked to a few weeks ago lay out the inherent problems with trying to govern under the current system and these could be elaborated on by bringing in concrete historical examples (of which there are many) of failed attempts to capture bourgeois states in an effort to transcend capitalism. This also relates to the point I made a few weeks ago about the blessing/curse of the US two party system where a anti-capitalist party would never have the pleasure/agony of governing. Brad YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Blog Post: A Dirty Little Secret in Boulder, CO, with readers' responses.
Never underestimate the vicious venality of the USA. - Original Message - From: MICHAEL YATES mikedjya...@msn.com To: David Schanoes sartes...@earthlink.net Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 2:31 PM Subject: [Marxism] Blog Post: A Dirty Little Secret in Boulder, CO, with readers' responses. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] political economy-- errata
I hope that my second part will conform to Michael L's ideas. Michael's absence will be a great disappointment. Spending time with him was one of the most attractive parts of the conference. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] political economy-- errata
michael a. lebowitz wrote: the political economy of the working class [of which Marx spoke favourably ... Mr. Lebowitz is obviously referring to Marx's Inaugural Address for the International Working Men's Association. In his talk, Marx employs the phrase the political economy of the working class just to signify the particular gains of labor, of socialist politics (social production controlled by social foresight), against capital, and its political economy based on the laws of supply and demand. I have no idea if Marx ever mentioned elsewhere the political economy of labor as a distinctive theoretical discipline peculiar to working class. I would be appreciated if Mr. Lebowitz conveys us some other instances where Marx elaborates his thoughts on the subject. mç YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] WW2: interimperialist war to redivide the world,
Louis wrote: But it was also a war in the Pacific without any discernible *class* differences between Japanese and American imperialism. It does not matter if Filipinos welcomed in American troops. That is not our criterion for deciding whether a war is progressive or not. True. But, I noted this and asked why? it is. In fact, really the question is the 'end of the tale'. The reality is that shortly after the Japanese defeat of US and US lead colonial Filipino forces at Bataan, the Filipino *people* waged a very intense guerrilla campaign against the occupation, far and above anything previous nationalist lead forces were able to do against the US occupation that had been ongoing, more or less, for decades. Was this struggle a struggle for national liberation or wasn't it? Was the fact that the US aided this struggle for it's own reasons (since the US had a stated purpose of NOT supporting Filipino independence) somehow a 'minus' for this movement and if so, was it a determining factor in the actual politics of this struggle? Would it have been correct for socialists or internationalists to demand US Out of the Philippines??? And this is one example. WWII is fraught, IMO, with these sorts of interesting historical contradictions. That WWII was an imperialist war is something I am most definitely not questioning. I'm suggesting that it was also not the kind of war like WWI was. As an aside, this was also a war of Italian Imperialism to conquer a section of N. Africa as well. David YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] WW2: interimperialist war to redivide the world,
I am not privy to the details of the history of the Phillipines. But a few things I know. I know that the Phillipino patriots of the late XIX century suffered, at the hands of the American Liberators, the same treatment their Cuban counterparts had to endure. Afterwards, some have criminalized them as bourgeois leaders, but this is a different story (Quezón, Rizal, etc.) I know that there was a strong Marxist guerrilla in Phillipines by 1945, and that these guerrillas did not greet American troops, not exactly. 2009/9/20 nada dwalters...@gmail.com: Louis wrote: But it was also a war in the Pacific without any discernible *class* differences between Japanese and American imperialism. It does not matter if Filipinos welcomed in American troops. So that I stand with Louis on this. There is always a bunch of sepoys who greet imperialist troops in the hope that they will be their lapdogs afterwards. It is also usual that these sepoys are depicted as the whole of the people that is about to be turned into a colonial subject. -- Néstor Gorojovsky El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autoría YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] WW2: interimperialist war to redivide the world,
On Sep 20, 2009, at 5:10 PM, nada wrote: Would it have been correct for socialists or internationalists to demand US Out of the Philippines??? Of course it would. By the time that swine MacArthur returned the Japanese had long been strategically defeated and were in a lost endgame. They had no way to maintain their presence. The strategic purpose of the US reoccupation of the Philippines was restoration of it's colonial rule through the violent suppression of the Hukbalahap resistance. Not to oppose even a moment's US presence in the Philippines would have been total capitulation to social-imperialism. Shane Mage This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures. Herakleitos of Ephesos YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] WW2: interimperialist war to redivide the world
I think that, in a general perspective, both Lüko and DWalters are right. Because whoever won the dispute over the redistribution would herald the war against the Soviet Union. Both things were the same thing. 2009/9/20 Lüko Willms lueko.wil...@t-online.de: nada (dwalters...@gmail.com) wrote on 2009-09-20 at 09:58:23 in about Re: [Marxism] WW2: interimperialist war to redivide the world: regardless of how one feels about British entry into the war in 1939, was there really a British entry into the war in 1939? I don't think so. What war did the British Empire wage in 1939? It was German imperialism which opened the war for the redistribution of the colonies and could, with the help of the Soviet Union, direct his first strikes against the other imperialist and colonial powers in Wester Europe. or it's aid or not to anti-fascist struggles. I don't know of any. Do you? Tell me! WWII was first and foremost an attack by Fascism against the USSR. This is utter nonsense. The World War 2 was the continuation of what is called World War 1, and which actually form a single inter-imperialist war for the redivision of the world and their colonial empires, just interrupted for an armistice by the Russian Revolution. The carnage could continue after the defeat of the working class in Germany and was inevitable after the victory of fascism in Spain. It was always aimed, first and foremost, against the USSR. Well, why then did nobody wage a war against the USSR until the third year of that war (if we accept the common notion that the attack on Poland enabled by the German-Soviet pact of August 23, 1939, is the official begin of that war, while it actually started rather with the Italien war to conquer Ethiopia and the Japanese war of conquest of China)? No, the interimperialist war of the 20th century from 1914 to 1949 was a war to redivide the world, which was already divided up among the early colonial empires, and which the late comers -- USA, Germany, Italy, Japan -- had redistribute among them according to their real economic and military strength. This was complicated by the existence of the first workers state and by the beginning revolt of the colonial masses, first of all expressed by the Chinese fighting to get their country for themselves instead of Japan or the USA. As to German imperialism -- Hitler clearly spelled out his guiding star: Germany will be a world power, ot it will not be. As Trotsky, leader of the first successful socialist revolution, wrote in 1939 and 1940, German imperialism had not the slightest chance to succeed, but had no other way than to try it. Yours, Lüko Willms Frankfurt, Germany YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/nmgoro%40gmail.com -- Néstor Gorojovsky El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autoría YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Germany's Die Linke shows the way for the left
What about the Antikapitalistische Linke and the other opposition groups. I may be wrong, but I heard they form a fairly sizeable minority within the party. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] WW2: interimperialist war to redivide the world
Geez, I find myself in substantial agreement with Lueko. - Original Message - From: Lüko Willms lueko.wil...@t-online.de To: David Schanoes sartes...@earthlink.net Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 6:00 PM YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Swans Release: September 21, 2009
Swans Commentary http://www.swans.com/ September 21, 2009 If you read Swans and appreciate the quality of its content please support us Financially. Thank you. http://www.swans.com/about/donate.html $ $ $ $ $ Note from the Editors: Want to cut through the rhetoric and grasp the evolving state of health care in the U.S.? Jan Baughman's splendid cartoon makes it clearer than a thousand words -- though words should not be disregarded. Gilles d'Aymery uses a few to revisit the standings of health care in Cuba, France, and the U.S. You'll learn that the number of physicians, nurses, and hospital beds has actually decreased in the U.S. in the past 15 years while the population has increased by over 40 million. And you'll also find in his Blips the reasons for the current health care (non)reform debacle and what should be done about it. While it will come as no surprise who controls the health care reform agenda, the behind-the-scenes manipulators of the anti-nuclear movement may not be as apparent. Michael Barker analyzes the tight hold that elite, ostensibly progressive, philanthropists currently wield over leading members of the movement. Equally enlightening is Femi Akomolafe's report from Africa on Western hypocrisy, control of Africa's oil and minerals, and the UN Security Council's indictment of the Sudanese president. How fitting, then, is Tiziano Terzani's plea from the Himalayas that is shared by Martin Murie: It's time for us to move out into the open, time to make a stand for the values we believe in. It's also time for an Arts Culture interlude, in which Art Shay reflects on David Sedaris, the kookaburra bird, and his 1946 Australia adventures; Charles Marowitz reviews *A Strange Eventful History,* a book that delineates how the Ellen Terry-Henry Irving partnership transformed the Gilded Age of acting to the modernism of the New World; and Peter Byrne pens a one-act play on the perpetually-smiling aunt, her abusive father, and the New Deal propaganda that shaped her slaphappy persona. In the French Corner Graham Lea muses in English over the state of the best cheese in the world. In French, Marie Rennard presents a polesy with the help of a duck; newcomer Irène Grätz disserts on freedom of speech; and we offer some old and new words about adultery. We end with the creative poetry of Guido Monte and Jeffery Klaehn as well as your letters. # # # # # http://www.swans.com/library/art15/jeb211.html (R)evolutionary Health Care Reform - Cartoon by Jan Baughman http://www.swans.com/library/art15/ga272.html Health Care Here And There - Gilles d'Aymery http://www.swans.com/library/art15/desk090.html Blips #90 - From the Martian Desk - Gilles d'Aymery http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker31.html Anti-Nuclear Philanthropy And The US Peace Movement - Michael Barker http://www.swans.com/library/art15/femia19.html Africa And The International Criminal Court Of [In]justice - Femi Akomolafe http://www.swans.com/library/art15/murie79.html What To Do? - Martin Murie http://www.swans.com/library/art15/ashay15.html Kookaburra Bird Shit - Art Shay http://www.swans.com/library/art15/cmarow147.html Ellen Terry, Henry Irving, Co. - Book Review by Charles Marowitz http://www.swans.com/library/art15/pbyrne109.html Only Read The Small Print - Dialogue by Peter Byrne http://www.swans.com/library/art15/glea07.html French Cheese: A Cultural Metaphor? - Graham Lea http://www.swans.com/library/art15/marier37.html Polésie de canard - Marie Rennard (FR) http://www.swans.com/library/art15/gratz01.html Liberté d'expression: limites, contraintes et possibilités - Irène Grätz (FR) http://www.swans.com/library/art15/xxx137.html Plaidoyer de la comtesse d'Arcira - (FR) http://www.swans.com/library/art15/marier38.html Adultère/a - Marie Rennard (FR) http://www.swans.com/library/art15/gmonte76.html Unknown - Multilingual Poetry by Guido Monte http://www.swans.com/library/art15/klaehn03.html Your Beauty Washes Over Me Like Rain - Poetry by Jeffery Klaehn http://www.swans.com/library/art15/letter174.html Letters to the Editor # # # # # Please, consider supporting our co-operative work financially. See http://www.swans.com/about/donate.html Swans (aka Swans Commentary), ISSN: 1554-4915, is a bi-weekly non- commercial ad-free Web-only magazine which provides original content to its readers. We encourage pulp publications to republish Swans' Work in print format. Please contact the publisher at aymery AT ix.netcom.com. Please, do not repost Swans' Work on the Web and other mailing lists: Hypertext links to any pages of Swans.com are authorized; however, republication of any part of this site, inlining, mirroring, and framing are expressly
Re: [Marxism] political economy-- errata
Hey, I got that reversed-- the diggers were the communists, the levellers were the political economists. Oh well, it's the thought that counts. - Original Message - From: S. Artesian sartes...@earthlink.net To: David Schanoes sartes...@earthlink.net Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 5:34 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] political economy-- errata That address is the only place that I know where Marx uses the term. In the same address he give another example of this political economy, in the 'demonstration value' of the cooperative organizations. I think it's safe to say Marx was not arguing for the development of an alternate political economy along the lines of the Ten Hours Bill, or cooperatives, as a viable path to socialism. From the rest of Marx's work, I think it is more than safe, but accurate, to say Marx proposes no alternative, radical political economy, but its abolition. If I might ask the list's indulgence, let me provide a characterization of political economic vs. social from the history of the development of capitalism which might demonstrate that the difference is more than semantic, more than minor . I am referring to the difference between the levellers and the diggers up to, during, and after, the English Revolution and the ascent of Cromwell. The levellers, for all their radicalism, supported, defended private property-- believing in a political equality, a formal equality, where each man can enjoy his own property. The diggers believed that private property was, or would become, by necessity unequal, and the formal liberty, equality, and freedom established by the revolution would be undermined and destroyed by the political economy of private property. The diggers proposed, and enacted, not just use of the commons by private property owners large or small, but the abolition of private property and thus conversion of the commons to a communism. The levellers were communists-- agrarian, idealistic, utopian to be sure, but communists. The diggers were radical political economists, so to speak. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] WW2: interimperialist war to redivide the world,
Shane (and Nestor), I wasn't talking about 1945. I was talking about 1942, 43 and 44. US involvement (or anyones involvement) wasn't a mechanical placement of troops or reoccupation. No US Aid to the Philippines (no one raised this in any event, it would of been stupid) I asked because the US was involved every minute, including with those same Huk communist guerrillas and the larger nationalist movement against the Japanese occupation. US was engaged in active support or the armed struggle against the Japanese in the Philippines from logistics, to special operations, to supplies, etc etc...all part, and parcel, of the US imperialist war effort in the Philippines. From the UK supplying arms to Yugoslav partisans to complete integration of western Europe's resistances movements with Allied military maneuvers; to the support to the USSR by the Allies. My question has to do with how, why or where one separates these movements, reflecting European opposition to everything Nazi, is *politically* part of the overall Allied military efforts. When Marxists say No to the Imperialist War I wonder, and have always wondered, what this means concretely? Or is it simply revolutionary hyperbole with absolutely no on the ground meaning vis-a-vis allied *imperialist* aid to resistance movements, troop landings, etc? I think it's very, very complex question. David YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Food imperialism: Norman Borlaug and the Green Revolution
In January 1975, I was invited to debate Norman Borlaug at Santa Barbara Community College. Because of his fame, it was scheduled for a very large auditorium. For some reason, he did not or could not show up, but participated via some video hookup on a movie screen. I attacked the Green Revolution on several points: Water equity, pesticides, credit dependency, the Rockefeller interests in seeing greater consumption of petrochemicals, displacement of small farmers, etc. He was condescending, but because it was California in the 1970s, I think that the majority was with me. But then, as we aging basketball players say, the older get, the better I was. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] WW2: interimperialist war to redivide the world,
On Sep 20, 2009, at 7:54 PM, nada wrote: Shane (and Nestor), I wasn't talking about 1945. I was talking about 1942, 43 and 44. After Coral Sea and Midway Japan had strategically lost, just as the Germans had strategically lost after Stalingrad. The US occupation of the Philippines was part of its imperial strategy and had no *military* purpose. That imperial strategy--defined in Cairo in 1943 in the Unconditional Surrender doctrine of Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill--was intentionally and unambiguously counterrevolutionary. How can the Allied use and counterrevolutionary manipulation of resistance movements led by patriots offset in the slightest degree the holocaust inflicted on the workers of Hamburg, Essen, Berlin, Hanover, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc., etc? When Marxists say No to the Imperialist War I wonder, and have always wondered, what this means concretely? Or is it simply revolutionary hyperbole with absolutely no on the ground meaning vis- a-vis allied *imperialist* aid to resistance movements, troop landings, etc? I think it's very, very complex question. For revolutionary workers under occupation it meant fighting the occupation in every occupied country--the Germans in France as the British in Greece--using any aid offered from anywhere (like Casement in 1916) but never subordinating revolutionary objectives to conditions imposed by those helpers. For revolutionaries in imperialist countries it meant using any shred of democratic rights left to them to expose the imperial ends for which and the barbaric means by which the war was being fought--and, legally or illegally, to support every effort at proletarian class struggle despite the screams about hypothetical detriments to the war effort. It most emphatically does not mean refusing to serve in the armed forces or carrying out sabotage--suicidal in some countries and counterproductive everywhere else. I don't see what's complex about that, beyond the inevitable complexity of every concrete reality. Shane Mage This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures. Herakleitos of Ephesos YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Here is the Marx section
Here is the Marx section. Again, this is quick, so any help would be appreciated. Read more at: http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/political-economy-for-the-21st-century-marx/turkey-2/ -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 530 898 5321 fax 530 898 5901 http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Here is the correct link: sorry
Here is the correct link Sorry http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/political-economy-for-the-21st-century-marx/turkey-2-2/ -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 530 898 5321 fax 530 898 5901 http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Here is the Marx section
typos: Page 2: Henry Adams, son and grandson of presidents [not presence] Page 2: The objective... to keep Britain from siding with the Confederacy [not the United States]. - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman mich...@ecst.csuchico.edu To: David Schanoes sartes...@earthlink.net Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 11:57 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Here is the Marx section Thank you very much. On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 08:22:26PM -0700, Mehmet Cagatay wrote: Mr. Perelman, are you sure that you uploaded the correct file? I ended up with the same five pages. mç YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/michael%40ecst.csuchico.edu -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/sartesian%40earthlink.net YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Here is the correct link: sorry
Disagree with your interpretation that the workers [of Britain] had an immediate interest in supporting the Confederacy-- as the cotton from the South meant employment in textile mills. What distinguishes Marxist analysis from political economy is not politics vs. economy, or politics over economic interest, but the social struggle for the emancipation of labor. Saying workers had an immediate interest in supporting the Confederacy as it meant employment is like saying GM workers have an immediate interest in the government bailout as then SOME of them might be able to keep their jobs. But Marxist analysis, as opposed to political economy in conservative or reformist dress, begins with the social organization of labor, and so the immediate interest of the working class is in fact the interest of the class as a whole, not for some, not for those employed in the textile mills, but for the class as a whole. So the immediate interest of the working class was not just for the defeat of the Confederacy, for the end to slavery, but for the emancipation of black labor. The immediate interest and the ultimate interest are not distinct and oppositional, but mediated, and when mediated by the class acting as a whole, or for itself, we get the end to political economy. Anyway, that's why I think there is no such thing as Marxist political economy.. - Original Message - From: michael perelman mich...@ecst.csuchico.edu To: David Schanoes sartes...@earthlink.net Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 11:32 PM Subject: [Marxism] Here is the correct link: sorry Here is the correct link Sorry http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/political-economy-for-the-21st-century-marx/turkey-2-2/ -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 530 898 5321 fax 530 898 5901 http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/sartesian%40earthlink.net YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism-Thaxis] U.S. May Not Recognize Results of Honduran Vote
I missed this when it came out. CB U.S. May Not Recognize Results of Honduran Vote By Mary Beth Sheridan Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, September 4, 2009 The U.S. government on Thursday toughened its stance against Honduras's coup leaders and supporters, threatening to put them in a box by not recognizing the winner of a presidential election set for November. The de facto government had hoped that the election would provide an end to the crisis that has gripped the Central American country since the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya on June 28. The balloting had been scheduled well before Zelaya was detained and whisked out of the country by the military. But U.S. officials said for the first time that they would continue to shun the country unless Honduran leaders went back to a negotiated plan that would allow the return of Zelaya with limited powers until the expiration of his term in December. Based on conditions as they currently exist, we cannot recognize the results of this election. So for the de facto regime, they're now in a box, said State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley. And they will have to sign on to the San Jose accords to get out of the box. He was referring to the plan for Zelaya's return, which was negotiated in the Costa Rican capital. The announcement amounted to a gamble that the threat would finally force the de facto government to back down. So far, that government, led by longtime congressman Roberto Micheletti, has resisted intense international pressure, both economic and political. Its members argue that Zelaya's removal was legal because he had violated the constitution by organizing a referendum that could have allowed him to evade the one-term limit for the presidency. But the reasons for the coup supporters' vehemence go deeper: They fear that the leftist Zelaya would have introduced the socialist-style agenda promoted by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, a Zelaya ally and leader of an anti-American bloc in the hemisphere. This is a tough call, because I think there are no white hats in this story, said Ted Piccone, a specialist in U.S.-Latin American relations at the Brookings Institution. But there is a clear bright line around the militarily forced exile of a democratically elected president, and so that has to be addressed. However, he and other analysts said, if the interim government does not change its stance, the decision not to recognize the election could only deepen the crisis. The State Department's action limits our options, a violation of the first law of diplomacy, by taking off the table the one means by which the crisis could naturally be resolved, said Eric Farnsworth, a Latin America expert at the Council of the Americas, a U.S.-based business group. The announcement came as the State Department also formally terminated about $30 million in aid to the Honduran government that had been suspended. Authorities also said they were examining revoking more visas of Hondurans who participated in, or supported, the coup. The announcement triggered new opposition from Republicans in Congress who have denounced the Obama administration's policy on Honduras and held up some diplomatic appointments in protest. The U.S. approach to friends and foes is completely backwards. While appeasing the enemies of freedom worldwide, we punish those in Honduras struggling to preserve the rule of law, fundamental liberties, and democratic values, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.) said in a statement. The U.S. moves were applauded by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who has encouraged a negotiated settlement. The coup regime has engaged in undemocratic practices that cast a dark shadow over elections scheduled for November. Those elections will lack legitimacy unless the regime embraces and faithfully implements the San Jose Accord, he said in a statement. Major Latin American countries have said they would not recognize the results of the November election unless the coup is reversed. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
