Re: M-TH: Workers Action
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, George Pennefather wrote: What kind of group are or were the WIL? They were Labour party entrists, affiliated with USec I think. They emerged from the WRP after it broke up. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Workers Action
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, George Pennefather wrote: Does anybody know what group puts out Workers Action? There is a group in Britain called Workers Action. I think they were formerly part of the Workers International League before a messy split. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: List problems
On Mon, 15 May 2000, J.WALKER wrote: But out of interest why are you subscribed twice? To increase the number of subscribers? Its more convenient to have one email address for use at home and one for use at university. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: List problems
Hi, I'm seeing lots of duplicate messages from the marxism-thaxis list with the headers included in the body of the message, so the subject is blank for example. It might a problem at my end but I'm seeing it on both of my emails addresses that are subscribed. On Mon, 15 May 2000, Jim heartfield wrote: [...] --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Third Socialist Councillor elected in Britain
On Wed, 10 May 2000, Socialist Party wrote: Would this be the democratic right to stand under the name of a long-time pre-existing party? I think anyone considering voting for either the SPGB or Socialist Party (aka Militant) would be able to tell them apart. What is not democratic is for the bourgeoisie state to decide for them. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: London Election - Left in a mess
On Fri, 5 May 2000, J.WALKER wrote: My main argument (as I am not keen on just going over the old debates of anti-parliamentarianism) is that the Left in its opposition to New Labour either harks back to a false Golden Age of Old Labour which it cannot attain or cannot see beyond elections as the key way forward. One group which this will seek to alienate is the poorest sections of the working class (around here in the local election less that 9 per cent voted!) and the new movements of environmental protesters, refugee campaigns and the Anti-Capitalist activists. As more and more of them reject the parliamentary road as moribund and a diversion it is becoming more and more significant for the Left. It is not a question of prinicipled objection but just that tactically, at the moment, it does not seem to be very relevant. Turnout in elections is certainly falling and will probably fall further at the next general election, but IMHO this represents not a rejection of the 'parliamentary road' than a rejection of the possibility of any kind of change. I could well imagine that opposition to the government would not emerge under the banners of the revolutionary left but wouldn't we have seen some other sign of it by now? If anything it has been extraordinary how well the Blairite consensus has held together. As far tactics go, elections seem the high point of political activity. British trade unions are in process of becoming insurance salesmen and student politics is concerned either with issues of narrow self-interest (like tuition fees) or with politically correct causes like Tibet. What would you suggest for some alternative to contesting elections? --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Gysi steps down
Allegedly because he failed to get the congress to agree to "judge in each case whether the should lend support to UN peace-keeping troops", instead the majority argued there should be no support for the UN in any circumstances. I guess that dented the possibility of an alliance with the Social-Democrats. On Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 11:11:50PM +0100, Chris Burford wrote: I missed this news. Can anyone tell me why? I attach the not very idiomatic report of the 3rd Congress of the PDS from their web site. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: LSA welcomes Livingstone's decision to stand for major
[From http://www.duntone.demon.co.uk/CPGB/articles/ww99/0617/letters.html] I note with interest the results of the Euro elections: 'Weekly Worker' (CPGB) -1,724; SPGB - 1,510. Specifically, I note that the latter party only stood on one list to achieve a similar share of the vote as garnered by the former in two. Further, I note the former party practices a policy of setting out immediate demands so as to attract more workers to the cause, whilst the latter advocates unconditional and immediate revolution. If the aim of the former is to attract more votes through advocating reform, they seem to have failed. Perhaps it is time for a rethink, if the CPGB are actually interested in full socialism. Bill Martin SPGB On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Lew wrote: I know of no organisation which stands for "immediate revolution". Do you have one in mind? --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: LSA welcomes Livingstone's decision to stand for major
[From http://www.londonsocialistalliance.org.uk/.] The London Socialist Alliance welcomes Ken Livingstone's decision to stand as an independent candidate for mayor of London. By doing so, he has given Londoners an alternative at the ballot box. We hope Ken will stand on a socialist and trade union platform. In order to ensure that Londoners also have a real choice in the elections for the Greater London Assembly, the London Socialist Alliance will be standing candidates for all assembly seats. In doing so, we will be advocating policies supported by millions of Londoners but disregarded by New Labour and the other two major parties. We oppose tube privatisation and housing sell-offs; we support real police accountability and a crackdown on racism. We will speak out for the majority who depend on public services, not the minority who can afford to opt out. We urge all those Labour Party members, trade unionists and others who have been disenfranchised and excluded by New Labour's stitch-up to join the campaign for a socialist London. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Gramsci on the State
Didn't we have this discussion last year? Just because something can't be touched doesn't mean it isn't material (in the properly marxist sense). That said, it's not difficult to share John's hostility to hegemony as a socialist strategy. Look what happened to the British Eurocommunists (or perhaps they did a bit too well considered the number of ex-CPGB figures in the Labour party leadership), or going a bit further afield, what about Militant as the perfect example of the search for hegemony gone wrong? On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, J.WALKER wrote: Also I still haven't the faintest idea what hegemony is. Or whether it IS (in a material sense) at all. But I can see how all this might fit very well with Chris interest in Marxism and psychology and part of that great effort to combine Marx with Freud. Which, even if it were possible, I'm sure I would not find it very palatable. I would rather stick with an idea of the state based on its physical manifestations with a view of consciousness still based on the Marxist definition based on the effect of the material world. But perhaps I still misunderstand Gramski and he would agree too. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Re: In thru the back door
On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, r.i.p wrote: Just received a mail with this link: http://www.cryptonym.com/hottopics/msft-nsa.html As I understand it, this means that the US National Security Agency has the potential to access any machine using Windows 95/98/NT ! Unlikely or at least there are better ways. The email below is from an mailing list for NT security. - From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Sep 6 19:39:32 1999 Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 20:49:07 -0500 From: Bruce Schneier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Comments on the "NSA" key in Microsoft CryptoAPI This is a response to: http://ntbugtraq.ntadvice.com/default.asp?sid=1pid=47aid=52 A few months ago in my newsletter Crypto-Gram, I talked about Microsoft's system for digitally signing cryptography suits that go into its operating system. The point is that only approved crypto suites can be used, which makes thing like export control easier. Annoying as it is, this is the current marketplace. Microsoft has two keys, a primary and a spare. The Crypto-Gram article talked about attacks based on the fact that a crypto suite is considered signed if it is signed by EITHER key, and that there is no mechanism for transitioning from the primary key to the backup. It's stupid cryptography, but the sort of thing you'd expect out of Microsoft. Suddenly there's a flurry of press activity because someone notices that the second key is called "NSAKEY" in the code. Ah ha! The NSA can sign crypto suites. They can use this ability to drop a Trojaned crypto suite into your computers. Or so the conspiracy theory goes. I don't buy it. First, if the NSA wanted to compromise Microsoft's Crypto API, it would be much easier to either 1) convince MS to tell them the secret key for MS's signature key, 2) get MS to sign an NSA-compromised module, 3) install a module other than Crypto API to break the encryption (no other modules need signatures). It's always easier to break good encryption. Second, NSA doesn't need a key to compromise security in Windows. Programs like Back Orifice can do it without any keys. Attacking the Crypto API still requires that the victim run an executable (even a Word macro) on his computer. If you can convince a victim to run an untrusted macro, there are a zillion smarter ways to compromise security. Third, why in the world would anyone call a secret NSA key "NSAKEY." Lots of people have access to source code within Microsoft; a conspiracy like this would only be known by a few people. Anyone with a debugger could have found this "NSAKEY." If this is a covert mechanism, it's not very covert. I see two possibilities. One, that the backup key is just as Microsoft says, a backup key. It's called "NSAKEY" for some dumb reason, and that's that. Two, that it is actually an NSA key. If the NSA is going to use Microsoft products for classified traffic, they're going to install their own cryptography. They're not going to want to show it to anyone, not even Microsoft. They are going to want to sign their own modules. So the backup key could also be an NSA internal key, so that they could install strong cryptography on Microsoft products for their own internal use. But it's not an NSA key so they can secretly install weak cryptography on the unsuspecting masses. There are just too many smarter things they can do to the unsuspecting masses. Bruce --- The following is from the April Crypto-Gram, at: http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-9904.html#certificates Attacking Certificates with Computer Viruses How do you know an e-mail is authentic? You verify the digital signature, of course. This means that you verify that the message was correctly signed, using the sender's public key. How do you know that the sender's (call her Alice) public key is valid? You check the signature on *that* public key. What you're checking is called a certificate. Someone else, call him Bob, signs Alice's public key and confirms that it is valid. So you verify Bob's signature on Alice's certificate, so you can verify Alice's signature on her e-mail. Okay, how do you know that Bob's signature is valid? Maybe Carol signs her key (creating another certificate). That doesn't actually solve the problem; it just moves it up another layer. Or maybe you signed Bob's key, so you know to trust him. Or maybe someone else whose key you signed has signed Carol's key. In the end, you have to trust someone. This notion of a certificate chain is one of the biggest problems with public-key cryptography, and one that isn't talked about very much. PGP uses the notion of "trusted introducers"; Bob signs Alice's key because Bob knows Alice and is her friend. You signed Bob's key for the same reason. So when Alice sends you an e-mail you can note that her public key is signed by Bob, and you trust Bob to introduce you to people. (Much like Bob bringing Alice along to
M-TH: Re: Sartre
Quite superficial really. I'm surprised the program makers could claim with a straight face that Nietzsche was the first philosopher to imagine life without god. Nor did they make any serious examination of what Heidegger's thought might have inspired his reactionary politics. George Pennefather write Hi Were you watching the programme on BBC2 on Jean Paul Sartrel? There were = two others before --on Nietsche and Heidegger.=20 What did you think of them of the programmes? --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: SV: SV: M-TH: Re: Jim's times letter on fascism...
[This post was delayed because it was sent from an address not subscr*bed to the list. Hans Ehrbar.] It seems the British police have arrested an individual for the bombings who they claim was acting alone, the spokesman went out of his way to deny claims that any organised far right group was responsible. On Sun, 2 May 1999, Doug Henwood wrote: Sure sounded to me like you were arguing that the Nazis were a serious political threat, and by your own definition, the ruling class used Nazis to fight a pre-revolutionary situation. So I was wondering if you were implying that this is indeed a pre-revolutionary situation, a claim so curious I'd like to hear more. But maybe you don't believe that. So please clarify. Doug --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
