[Marxism-Thaxis] Why Did Engels Write Anti-Dühri ng?
Why Did Engels Write Anti-Dühring? Thomas Riggins http://paeditorsblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-did-engels-write-anti-duhring.html In the 1870s the German professor Eugen Dühring joined the German Social Democratic Party. He made a lot of friends and began interpreting socialism along lines that were new and different and which he thought were more in accord with modern science. Engels' German comrades asked him for clarification on some of these new views as Dühring was starting to collect a following. Engels, however, was busy doing other things. But after three years of requests he decided to write the book ANTI-DÜHRING: HERR EUGEN DÜHRING'S REVOLUTION IN SCIENCE. This book became one of the most important of the so-called Marxist classics and is a basic foundational document for the understanding of DIAMAT (Dialectical Materialism). In this article I will make some comments on the prefaces to the work (there are three for the three German editions made in Engels lifetime) before going on to review the First Part of the work, that devoted to philosophy, to try and situate it in our time at the beginning of the 21st century. Engels' tells us that Anti-Dühring is an extension of the world view first developed by Marx in his book THE POVERTY OF PHILOSOPHY, then extended by the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO and DAS KAPITAL. To make sure that this solo flight would properly represent their joint philosophy, Engels read aloud the whole manuscript to Marx and the latter even wrote a chapter for the book (chapter ten of part two). I note this because many people today try to divorce the thought of Marx from that of Engels and maintain that Anti-Dühring is a deviation from Marx's philosophical views which were more sophisticated than those of Engels. In order to write the book, Engels first took eight years to review the math and natural sciences of his day. The reason he did this was to convince himself that the laws of the materialist dialectic of motion which he and Marx had detected at work in history and in the evolution of human consciousness, were equally at work in Nature. These laws were first developed by the German philosopher G.W.F. HEGEL but, Engels says, in a mystic form. Once stripped of this form, Marx and Engels were able to apply the dialectical method to both the natural and historical sciences. Engels was aware that the charge might be made that the dialectic was being forced upon Nature from the outside and that the facts were being forced into the straight jacket of the theory. This serious charge is still made today by the bourgeois opponents of Marxism. Engels however says that he did all he could to avoid this: to me there could be no question of building the laws of dialectic into nature, but of discovering them in it and evolving them from it. Engels lived in a time of rapid scientific advance towards the end of the 19th century. Only a few years before he wrote the second preface to his book, he says, the LAW OF THE CONSERVATION ENERGY was propounded (the great basic law of motion) but it was put forth NOT qualitatively but only quantitatively as the indestructibility and uncreatabilty of motion. But now (1885-- the time of the second preface) Engels sees a more dialectical approach as scientists are beginning to discuss THE TRANSFORMATION OF ENERGY which when fully understood will remove the last vestige of an extra mundane creator. A mere ten years after Engel's death (1895) Einstein published his famous equation E=mc2. Engels says we still see rigid barriers in Nature-- the wave vs particle theory of light had not yet bloomed into quantum physics-- but had he lived I don't think Engels would have been thrown off by such seeming contradictions. Contradiction is the essence of dialectics. He writes that: The recognition that these antagonisms and distinctions, though to be found in nature, are only of relative validity, and that on the other hand their imagined rigidity and absolute validity have been introduced into nature only by our reflective minds-- this recognition is the kernel of the dialectical conception of nature. So, the purpose of the book is to reaffirm the scientific nature of Diamat, to exclude the erroneous accretions of Herr Dühring, and to demonstrate that modern science, including Diamat, is the result of a long tradition of philosophical development whose two poles (as we shall see) include Aristotle and Hegel. Engels thinks that science must assimilate the results of the development of philosophy during the past two and half thousand years to avoid basing itself on some bogus world view [as the Nazi movement later did] and to also get rid of its metaphysical (i.e., mechanistic and non-dialectical) baggage) which is its inheritance from English empiricism. In the next article I will look at the two part introduction to Anti-Dühring. [Anti-Düring I] ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
[Marxism-Thaxis] Howard Fast: Two Memoirs, One Life
Howard Fast: Two Memoirs, One Life By Gerald Meyer http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/9196/1/378/ Political Affairs Magazine Being Red (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1990), Howard Fast’s account of his association with the Communist Party USA, of which he was a member from 1943 until 1956, is a valuable addition to the growing list of memoirs and historical studies about the CPUSA. Unfortunately, in Being Red Fast was unable to separate his profession as a novelist from his less familiar role as memoirist. The tendentiousness of Being Red is made clear once its content is compared with The Naked God: The Writer and the Communist Party (New York: Praeger, 1957), a memoir that covers much of the same material, but from a very different perspective and for a very different purpose. Fast was an exceptionally prolific writer: He published more than 80 books, including 50 novels, ten plays, and 20 nonfiction books. Worldwide sales of his novels have exceeded 80 million. His writings have been translated into 82 languages and many observers—including Fast—have insisted that he may be the most widely read writer of the 20th century. In Being Red, Fast presents vivid and often touching descriptions of his early life, a life which could logically lead a thinking person toward the Communist movement. He ascribed his “sense of identity with the poor and oppressed of all the earth” to his working-class father, a Jewish immigrant from the Ukraine. Howard and his brothers grew up in extreme poverty; they sensed they could only overcome this disadvantage through their own cooperative efforts. This likely led him to believe in the possibilities of collaboration among the oppressed. While still a member, the CPUSA and indeed the world Communist movement lionized Fast. The protagonists of his popular historical novels – a radical craftsman, in Citizen Tom Paine; a progressive political leader of immigrant origins, in The American; the common foot soldiers at Valley Forge, in The Unvanquished; newly freed slaves, in Freedom Road; Native Americans, in The Last Frontier; and rebellious gladiators from the oppressed classes, in Spartacus – dramatized the class struggle, which with all its tragic setbacks somehow foreshadowing ultimate victory. He is remembered as the writer who refitted the genre of the historical novel to the requirements of Popular Front culture. The themes of his works – the accomplishment and destruction of Radical Reconstruction (Freedom Road); the steadfast support of the common people for the American Revolution (The Unvanquished); the neglected giant of the American Revolution (Citizen Tom Paine); Governor John Peter Altgeld’s issuing of writs of clemency for the three Haymarket Martyrs (The American) – encapsulated the Party’s General Secretary Earl Browder’s understanding that if Communism was to become twentieth-century Americanism it had to have historical antecedents. Fast was a major figure in the Party’s remarkable enterprise of encouraging the creation of a complex and almost complete popular “progressive” American culture. It was during this period that the vast circulation of Fast’s books occurred. As a result of Fast’s celebrity and his ability to translate the Party’s general outlook into literature, the Party enshrined him, along with Paul Robeson and W.E.B. Du Bois, on the highest pedestal in its pantheon of intellectuals. Fast’s Communist Party status also entailed international recognition. In December 1949, when he traveled to the World Peace Conference in Paris, Fast remembered entering “a world where Communists were honored, not hunted down and imprisoned.” Concretely this meant: Fast sat on the stage next to Louis Aragon; Pablo Picasso kissed him on the mouth and offered him any painting he chose; later, Pablo Neruda would write a poem to him. In 1954, Fast received the Stalin Peace Prize. It would be entirely unfair, however, to portray Howard Fast as a Red Mandarin. In 1949, Fast emceed a Paul Robeson concert at a campground near Peekskill, New York, sponsored by the Civil Rights Congress. In what Fast would later describe as “the opening shot of American fascism,” mobs of rock-hurling youths screaming “Kill a Commie for Christ” prevented the event from happening. One week later, 15,000 Leftists attended the rescheduled concert, protected by 3,000 Red trade unionists, many of whom had fought in Spain and in larger numbers in World War II. After a memorably successful concert, many of the concert-goers incurred severe injuries when mobs (mobilized by veterans’ and Catholic groups) attacked their cars and buses, which had been routed by police through narrow back roads. While interviewing an elderly woman who had been present at the ill-fated concert, I mentioned that I was writing this review. With great vehemence she said: “Don’t you go and say anything bad about Howard Fast. I saw
[Marxism-Thaxis] Wall Street's 10 Greatest Lies of 2009
Wall Street's 10 Greatest Lies of 2009 By Nomi Prins, AlterNet. Posted December 28, 2009 http://www.alternet.org/media/144776/wall_street%27s_10_greatest_lies_of_2009?page=entire Lies that justify screwing over Main Street. On December 13, President Obama declared that he was not elected to help the fat cats. But the cats got another version of that memo. A day later, 10 of them were supposed to partake in some White House face-time to talk about their responsibilities to the rest of the country, but only seven could make it. No-shows for the very serious discussion -- due to inclement New York weather or being too busy with internal bonus discussions to bother with the President -- were Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack and Citigroup Chairman Richard Parsons. Yes, Obama inherited a big financial mess from the Bush administration - which inherited its set-up from the Clinton administration (financial recklessness, it turns out, is non-partisan) -- but he and his appointees have spent the year talking about fighting risk and excess on Wall Street, while both have grown. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner patted himself on the back for making the difficult and necessary decisions of fronting Wall Street boatloads of money to cover its losses and capital crunch last fall. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke (a Bush-Obama favorite) was named Time Magazine's Person of the Year for saving the free world as we know it. And Congress is talking sweeping reform about a bill that leaves the banking landscape intact, save for some minor alterations. For starters, it doesn't resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which separated risk-taking (once non-government-backed) investment banks from consumer oriented (government-supported) commercial banks. Meanwhile, Wall Street is restructuring (the financial equivalent of re-gifting) old toxic assets into new ones, finding fresh ways to profit from credit derivatives trading, and paying itself record bonuses -- on our dime. Despite recent TARP payback enthusiasm, the industry still floats on trillions of dollars of non-TARP subsidies and certain players wouldn't even exist today without our help. Wall Street's return to robustness and Main Street's continued deterioration are the main takeaways for 2009 that stemmed from the 2008 choices to flush the financial system with capital and leave the real economy to fend for itself. Lies that exacerbate this divide only perpetuate its growth. With that, here is my top 10 list of lies. Please consider adding your own, and let's all hope for a more honest New Year. 1) The economy has improved. Earlier this month, Bernanke declared, Having faced the most serious financial crisis and the worst recession since the Great Depression, our economy has made important progress during the past year. Although the economic stress faced by many families and businesses remains intense, with job openings scarce and credit still hard to come by, the financial system and the economy have moved back from the brink of collapse. Sure, the economy is better -- if you work at Goldman Sachs or had an affair with Tiger Woods. But while Bernanke, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Geithner turned the Federal Reserve into a national hedge fund (cheap money backing toxic assets in secrecy), and the Treasury Department into a bank insurance policy, the rest of the real economy took hit after hit -- starting with jobs. The national unemployment rate remains at double digits. Despite Washington's bizarre euphoria about unemployment rates last month being better (they edged down in November to 10 percent from 10.2 percent in October), the number of Americans filing for initial unemployment insurance rose during the second week of December. After all the temporary holiday hires, that number will probably increase again. Plus, unemployment rates in 372 metropolitan areas are higher than they were last year. 2) If you give banks capital, they will lend it out. On Jan. 13, 2009 Bernanke concluded that More capital injections and guarantees may become necessary to ensure stability and the normalization of credit markets. He said that Our economic system is critically dependent on the free flow of credit. He was referring to the big banks. Not the little people. Ten months later, though, he admitted that, Access to credit remains strained for borrowers who are particularly dependent on banks, such as households and small businesses and that bank lending has contracted sharply this year. In other words, big banks don't share their good fortunes. Shocking. And as a result, bankruptcies are rapidly rising for businesses and individuals - a direct result of lack of credit coupled with other economic hardships like job losses. Total bankruptcy filings for the first nine months of 2009 were up 35 percent to 1,100,035 vs. the same period in 2008. The number of business bankruptcies during the first three quarters of
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Barack Obama Worked For The CIA - John Pilger
Living in France, I have some problems with this debate. What does it change for you, once Clinton and Obama are head of the American State and so in a position to give orders to the CIA, to prove that they had previous contacts with the CIA under a direct or undirect form ? What does it prove ? That the CIA or the Secret services manipulate all word politics ? A kind of Left wing version of Tom Clancy's novels ? Tom Clancy always tries to justify in his books (I'm obliged to read them for my proofreading job in France, so this is why I take this example, and also because it symbolises for me a form of international popular culture as it is translated in so many languages and adapted in films) that Secret Services are essential for the defence of world's democracy. Most of the time his political examples are just hilarious, for anyone who tries to understand the complexity of world politics. But it has one advantage: his vision of the world is quite simple to understand. The USA and Israel through their very efficient secret services save the world and fight the Evil : communism, islamism, terrorism, the KGB/GPU/NKVD/MVD which will never die, Russia, China and Iran, etc. He even pushes his fascination for Secret Services to the extreme: his Presidential hero is a former leader of a kind of private Secret Service. So all the importance of all this discussion and pseudo information and pseudo proofs of Pilger and Co. about Obama and Clinton's links with the CIA look very strange to me. Apart from a left conspirationist point of view (which does not seem to be this list's point of view but which could coincide with Clancy's simplistic view of world politics, with the only difference that everything Clancy praises, left conspirationists despise it) what is the political interest for you of these kind of uncheckable information ? Is there in the United States a significant portion of the population which is naive enough to believe that Clinton and Obama were elected AGAINST the will of the majority of the ruling class, of the ruling circles of the State, of the Secret Services, of the Armed forces, etc. ? So why all this fuss about the CIA ? Le 4/01/10 21:03, « c b » cb31...@gmail.com a écrit : CeJ jannuzi Actually the youtube title is sensationalistic because in this little clip you will see Pilger do more analysis of Bushwa and Obama than you will see watching a year of Wolf Blitzer on CNN--starting with 'class', which is a term Marxists are familiar with. I would be wary of the 'WMR' material that is out there in blogdom, but Pilger is as always credible and to the point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lciMExazVqw CB: I think he might be a double agent, 'cause he was also the Mau Mau Candidate ( like the Manchurian Candidate) ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Barack Obama Worked For The CIA - John Pilger
On 1/4/10, yves coleman yvescole...@wanadoo.fr wrote: Living in France, I have some problems with this debate. What does it change for you, once Clinton and Obama are head of the American State and so in a position to give orders to the CIA, to prove that they had previous contacts with the CIA under a direct or undirect form ? What does it prove ? That the CIA or the Secret services manipulate all word politics ? A kind of Left wing version of Tom Clancy's novels ? Tom Clancy always tries to justify in his books (I'm obliged to read them for my proofreading job in France, so this is why I take this example, and also because it symbolises for me a form of international popular culture as it is translated in so many languages and adapted in films) that Secret Services are essential for the defence of world's democracy. Most of the time his political examples are just hilarious, for anyone who tries to understand the complexity of world politics. But it has one advantage: his vision of the world is quite simple to understand. The USA and Israel through their very efficient secret services save the world and fight the Evil : communism, islamism, terrorism, the KGB/GPU/NKVD/MVD which will never die, Russia, China and Iran, etc. He even pushes his fascination for Secret Services to the extreme: his Presidential hero is a former leader of a kind of private Secret Service. So all the importance of all this discussion and pseudo information and pseudo proofs of Pilger and Co. about Obama and Clinton's links with the CIA look very strange to me. Apart from a left conspirationist point of view (which does not seem to be this list's point of view but which could coincide with Clancy's simplistic view of world politics, with the only difference that everything Clancy praises, left conspirationists despise it) what is the political interest for you of these kind of uncheckable information ? Is there in the United States a significant portion of the population which is naive enough to believe that Clinton and Obama were elected AGAINST the will of the majority of the ruling class, of the ruling circles of the State, of the Secret Services, of the Armed forces, etc. ? So why all this fuss about the CIA ? CB: My comment is a ( 1960's) joke (smile) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manchurian_Candidate ^ Le 4/01/10 21:03, « c b » cb31...@gmail.com a écrit : CeJ jannuzi Actually the youtube title is sensationalistic because in this little clip you will see Pilger do more analysis of Bushwa and Obama than you will see watching a year of Wolf Blitzer on CNN--starting with 'class', which is a term Marxists are familiar with. I would be wary of the 'WMR' material that is out there in blogdom, but Pilger is as always credible and to the point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lciMExazVqw CB: I think he might be a double agent, 'cause he was also the Mau Mau Candidate ( like the Manchurian Candidate) ___ 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 ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Barack Obama Worked For The CIA - John Pilger
On Jan 4, 2010, at 4:13 PM, c b wrote: In the US , there is not a significant portion of the population that has the concept ruling class nor thinks in terms of it concerning politics. Not in those words, but people use colloquialisms like city hall (which you can't fight), elites, the high and mighty, the powers that be, etc., in daily speech. They know that some people are more powerful than others, though they're mostly resigned to the fact. Doug ___ 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] Speaking of Mau Mau's
Monday, January 4, 2010 Podcast #112: Interview with Gerald Horne about his latest book, Mau Mau in Harlem? http://paeditorsblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/podcast-112-interview-with-gerald-horne.html Political Affairs #112 - The US and Kenya: Interview with Historian Gerald Horne Gerald Horne is the author of numerous books including Race War!: White Supremacy and the Japanese attack on the British Empire, Cold War in a Hot Zone, The White Pacific, Fire This Time, Blows Against the Empire, and The Deepest South. His most recent is a study of the impact of the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya on US foreign and domestic policy. ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Barack Obama Worked For The CIA - John Pilger
YC writes: Is there in the United States a significant portion of the population which is naive enough to believe that Clinton and Obama were elected AGAINST the will of the majority of the ruling class, of the ruling circles of the State, of the Secret Services, of the Armed forces, etc. ? So why all this fuss about the CIA ? First could I ask a question? Why do educated 'Europeans' know so little about America? I would guess it's because you are largely politically speaking children on the world stage, 1945-2010--France being an exception--and fail to realize just what an old power the US actually is and how much continuity there is to the federal system constitutionally established in the late 18th century. Second, I believe you have misidentified where the 'fuss' is. It's not for the most part on the hard left of the US--the 10% of the population or less who would leave the Democratic Party in a heartbeat if they had a viable peace candidate and certainly not in the much smaller percentage of self-identified Marxists, anarchists, Chomsky-like 'democratic socialists' etc. The fuss is with the people who thought there was something transcendental about the yellow color of Obama's skin, that in that container of flesh there was somehow a metaphysical liberation from white guilt and the failing imperium. Guess what, there isn't! The people kicking up a fuss though are either the usual right-wing demagogues (who openly support complete CIA insiders like the warpig family of Bushes everytime one gets to the federal level). Or the very 'populist' segment I already identified, the ones who withheld their love from Gore and Kerry but gave it to Obama. They really thought the guy was going to somehow save the imperium while making it look like it wasn't an imperium. He would I guess usher in a new Disney America, like in the movies. All we are saying on the left is what we said about Carter--Obama simply represents a different faction of the federal national security state apparatuses. And as I've said before, in popular and populist terms, a 'successful' president, at least as remembered say his first ten years after office, is one who manages to surpass the narrow factional base that financed his way to the top office. Bush didn't do that, so he is reviled. Clinton didn't do that, so he is reviled. Poppy Bush didn't do that, so he is reviled. Reagan did that, so he is revered--but that might also be because out of sheer luck. The guy was senile for the last 6 years in power, so the national security state more or less brought in a consortium of people, who often clashed among themselves, and more than a narrow faction got well served. At any rate, Carter never surpassed the narrow faction that got him elected, and he more than displeased the nationalist populist types who voted for him. It looks like Obama is set to do the same. That doesn't mean he might not get re-elected for a second term. It means that when they sit down to write the history books it will in terms of his failures. CJ http://eltinjapan.blogspot.com/ ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Barack Obama Worked For The CIA - John Pilger
A somewhat conspiratorial view of power politics is actually explanatory. For example, most likely Americans think that the whole key to understanding the complexities of French politics would be to keep the left out of the highest offices. The reality is more like infiltrate the left and neutralize it. Globalist Americans in power then identify where the real other threats are--such as nationalist interests that have clear-cut limits to accomodating American power. They are a far bigger thorn in the side of the Americans in most developed countries than the 'left'. It's the case in Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. etc. It's the case in France, too, apparently. So while I do not necessarily swallow everything asserted in this article, it does help to explain why a piece of shit like Sarkozy gets into power, and what sort of difference this particular piece of shit makes to the Americans as they struggle to keep their control of Europe going as a 'linchpin' of the imperium. http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=10060 The final act Way before the Iraqi crisis, Frank Wisner Jr. and his colleagues at the CIA plan the destruction of the Gaullist current and the coming to power of Nicolas Sarkozy. They move in three phases: first, the elimination of the leadership of the Gaullist party and the take over of the party apparatus, then the elimination of his main right wing rival and the securing the nomination to the presidential election for the Gaullist party; finally, the elimination of any serious challenger on the left to make sure that Nicolas would win the presidential election. During years, posthumous revelations by a real estate dealer kept the media on their toes. Before dying from a terminal disease, for reasons which remain unknown, he decided to video tape his confessions and for reasons which are even more obscure, the “cassette” landed in the hands of a Socialist party leader, Dominique Strauss Kahn, who addressed it indirectly to the media. While the confessions of the real estate dealer did not lead to any juridical sanctions, they opened up the Pandora’s Box. The main victim of the series of scandals was Prime Minister Alain Juppé. To protect Chirac, he assumed alone all the penal sanctions. The removal of Juppé from the front lodges opened the way for the take by Sarkozy of the leadership of the Gaullist party. Sarkozy exploited then his position to force Jacques Chirac to take him into the government once again, in spite of their reciprocal hatred. In the end, he became Interior Minister. Mistake ! This post gave him control over the prefects and the internal intelligence apparatus which he used to gain positions of power over the large administrations. He dealt also with Corsican affairs. Prefect Claude Érignac was murdered. Even though nobody claimed it, the murder was immediately interpreted as a challenge by the independentists to the Republic. Following a long hunt, the police managed to arrest a fleeing suspect, Yvan Colonna, son of a Socialist deputy. Caring little about the presumption of innocence, Nicolas Sarkozy announced the arrest, accusing the suspect of being the assassin. The news is too important, a mere two days away from the referendum the minister has organized in Corsica to modify the status of the island. Be as it may, the electors reject the Sarkozy project, who, according to some, favoured mafia interests. While Yvan Colonna was ultimately declared guilty, he always claimed his innocence and no material proof was ever found against him. Strangely, the man preferred to remain totally silent rather than reveal what he actually knew. We reveal here that prefect Érignac was not directly killed by the nationalists, but by a paid killer, immediately exfiltrated towards Angola where he was hired to the security of the Elf group. The mobile of the crime was precisely connected to the previous functions of Érignac, responsible for the African networks at Pasqua’s cooperation ministry. As for Yvan Colonna, he is a personal friend of Nicolas Sarkozy since decades and their children have entertained social relations. A new scandal broke out then: phoney computer listings were circulating falsely accusing several personalities of hiding bank accounts in Luxembourg, at Clearstream. Among the defamed personalities: Nicolas Sarkozy, who filed a suit insinuating that he suspected his right wing rival to the presidency, Dominique de Villepin, to have organized this machination. Sarkozy didn’t hide his intention either to throw him in jail. In reality, the false listings were put in circulation by members of the French American Foundation, of which John Negroponte was the president and Frank Wisner Jr, the administrator. What the judges ignored and which we reveal here is that the listings were fabricated in London by a common office of the CIA and of MI6, Hakluyt and co, of which Frank Wisner is also an administrator. Villepin denied the
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Barack Obama Worked For The CIA - John Pilger
One more reply to this: Is there in the United States a significant portion of the population which is naive enough to believe that Clinton and Obama were elected AGAINST the will of the majority of the ruling class, of the ruling circles of the State, of the Secret Services, of the Armed forces, etc. ? So why all this fuss about the CIA ? I would also point out that this analysis might be wrong. At least since the time of Andrew Jackson, and most likely before it, yes indeed, someone could get to the highest office WITHOUT the support of the MAJORITY of the 'ruling class(es)'. I'm not sure that means it violated any 'collective will', but... Obama seemed to get overwhelming support from the 'ruling class in crisis' as well as a populist upswell. Two entirely different things. The original factions supporting Obama would appear to be close to those supporting Kerry in the previous election. They sensed that Bush and Co. were taking the imperium into dangerous areas in terms of fiscal, monetary, trade and foreign policies. One, they were alarmed at the deficits. Two, they were alarmed at the lack of control the Fed had over monetary policies and the larger economy. Three, they were alarmed that many allies expressed doubts about the Bush war policies--and did so very openly, even as they sent troops and materiel support to the US through NATO or, as with Japan and S. Korea, through their own militaries which are closely linked to the US's. Four, some were uneasy over the lack of any social policy, such as the total inability to deal with Katrina clean up and reconstruction (remembering the LA riots that helped end Poppy Bush's reign). When Paulson and Bernanke were more or less running the government in the waning days of the Bushwa presidency, there was a real sense of drift and crisis, which most definitely sealed McCain's fate and got the ruling class consensus a 'majority' president likes to have. Clinton most likely got to power on fairly narrow 'ruling class' minority support. Some of the military men under Powell , at least in rhetoric, mutinied. Powell, a holdover from the Poppy Bush administration, put them down, which won him no friends with the hardright Republicans, who wanted to stir up trouble for Clinton right from the start. Why were the Clinton years so troubled by all the other politicians? Because they never accepted his minority rule--look how far they were willing to take it with their bogus impeachment. The irony of the Clinton presidency is he first got into office with a ruling class minority and a popular minority in the votes as well. Usually, a 'majority' is forced onto the nation through the institution of the Electoral College, which is by its nature skewed rightward and conservative --or reactionary --because of the way it divides up geographically, over-representing under-populated swathes of the country (though no where near as skewed as the institution of the Senate does). This failed in the case of the Gore-Bush election though. So Bush, Bushwa the Younger, most likely had the majority ruling class backing and a popular minority. If Gore had contested the northern counties in Florida (where Republican mail-in ballots were often fraudulent multiple votes), he might have plunged the system into a real crisis--but you can also see the Supreme Court stepping in and asserting its will and this was accepted by the 'ruling class'. Barry is a different horse altogether. He has lost his shine with the rightwing and 'centrist' populists. He hasn't lost his majority support from the ruling class apparently. If he gets Bernanke removed and Geithner gets the boot, that will be signs that trouble is stirring in the halls of power. CJ ___ 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
