[Marxism] Kyrgyzstan 'Regime Change' Masterminded By West

davidquarter at sympatico.ca davidquarter at sympatico.ca
Thu Mar 31 19:46:24 MST 2005

On 31 Mar 2005 at 12:26, Louis Proyect wrote:

> At 01:27 AM 3/31/2005, David Quarter wrote:
> >  Lou,
> >
> >there is novel idea that says, you can support a state militarily in the 
> >face of attack
> >without necessarily agreeing with its politics..if I were to follow your 
> >rationale I would
> >have abondoned China, Cuba and perhaps even Chavez's Venezuela ages ago...
> Your biggest problem (and Rozoff, Yarker et al) is that you rely too 
> heavily on crosspostings from the bourgeois press. >>>

 Where I come from it's not cross posting when you *are not asked* to post on someone's behalf... I'm posting 
articles on a subject, which I feel, would be of value to list members and giving 
credit  to Rick cause
 he's the one who located the article. I wouldn't feel right taking credit for posting an article that I hadn't found myself, 
...Rick use to previous most of the articles posted to ANTINATO  with analyses.
 The archive is available for anyone,
so you check for yourself...  He has since ceased with this practice, and I'm sure he 
has his reasons why, but that's not to say that he not capable of providing excellent 
analysis when he wants...
Certaintly better than your  haphazard "marxist" take on the caucasuses...

Another reasons for not posting my own analyses is that I'm perpetually short on 
time (for example, I'm wasting precious time bothering with this reply), so it's simply 
easier to "cross post" articles as it's means a few clicks of my mouse rather than 
typing in an entirely new subject heading, and then previewing it with my own 
analysis. I don't see many iin here doing this either ..And I  imagine too that some of 
the less frequent posters at marxmial are in a similar situation..Beside I assume 
anyone here can think on their own...They don't need more (or you)  dissecting 
"fact" from fiction, the "truth" from spin. Unlike yourself, i'm also not keen to be 
always lending my opinion to every issue I post to marxmail as doing so inevitably  
elicits debate and, as mentioned already, I'm very short on time...But I suppose  
you're now establishing a new rule on this matter (what is this # 4 8 848 321? -- the 
David Quarter rule)?

As per Rick and Jim, I will simply take your comment about Rick Rozoff's alleged 
"cross posting" as just another of a long list of cheap shots you've directed towards 
him... you're quite the shadow boxer, Lou...Must be heavy weight champ by 
now...Seriously, he can defend himself fine, so I have nothing more to add about 
him....In terms of Jim Yarker having a big problem with "cross posting from the 
bourgeois press", how the f*ck would you know? You have contact with Jim and 
since when? (or am I missing something?) For the record, Jim Yarker hardly ever 
sends me articles and when he does, it's with few exceptions previewed with an 
analysis and rarely taken from a "bourgeois" sourcee...Also, my conversative 
estimate is that if I were to invite Jim in here to defend himself against your silly, 
charges, let alone take you to task on your "nuanced" marxists analyses, he would 
have an absolute field day with you (a figurative  *ss  wiping to be more precise) 
and he would do so on the topic of your choice, as I already witnessed him doing in 
his breif flirt with Michael K here before you unceremoniously ended the 
But don't take my word for it, send Jim an invite?

If you made your own 
> arguments and drew upon the bourgeois press to back them up, it would be 
> one thing.<<<< However, you all have the same really bad habit as Michael 
> Pugliese which is to serve up some undigested and controversial item from 
> the bourgeois press and expect it to speak for itself. One of the reasons I 
> unsubbed from leftist-trainspotters is that I got sick and tired of trying 
> to reply to the underlying, implicit arguments of such postings by Pugliese 
> when he himself couldn't muster a 3 or 4 sentence defense of his own ideas. 
> Obviously, he has shitty reformist politics, but it is just as unhelpful 
> when people like you resort to the same method.>>>>

You have extremely warped opinion of your importance and contribution to leftist 
politics and marxism, let alone of your worth to the  world...I'll just assume that the 
above is you're usual resorting to slimy, backhanded, tactics to "defend" your 
position b/c you have nothing further of substance to add...I've become so 
accumstomed to this type of "debating" from you  that I'll save myself the agony of 

> >You can always get our your pons pons out and cheer for the "peace" from the
> >sidelines, no one;s stopping you..You can also pretend (quite 
> >disingenuously) that
> >what's clearly taking place as far as the U.S. going around overthrowing 
> >gov. after
> >gov. in eastern europe (although this is happening all the world) and 
> >encircling
> >Russia is all a figment of someone's imagination and then, as you quite 
> >recently did,
> >have an about face when the evidence becomes so overwhelmingly and
> >aknowledge (albeit dismiss the significance of, as you now do) the 
> >consequences
> >this holds for the world..
> Let's be clear about something. I am absolutely opposed to the NED, the 
> CIA, Soros-backed foundations interfering in internal politics any place in 
> the world. My writings on Yugoslavia should have made that clear a long 
> time ago. However, this does not mean that I automatically take up the 
> cause of any government that is being confronted by an opposition that is 
> getting aid from such quarters.>>>>>For example, I don't give an ounce of 
> political support for Robert Mugabe even though the opposition in Zimbabwe 
> is clearly being backed by imperialism. >>>>

"Neutrality", If you aren;'t already aware, is taking a side, at teast it is where I'm from...
 Nothing occurs in a vacuum... And As I already stated, 
there is a difference between defending a state (say, Zimbabwe) against military attack and
 defending its politics especially when the alternative is to 
allow a country with a far greater record of human rights violations (ie., genocide) 
impose its will...

 Which is exactly what distinguishes me from so-called anti imperialists like 

Nor would I support Ayakev or 
> Putin. .>>>

As you've made clear many time before, even though you keep vasicilating on your 
justications for your position...i.e., first it was a U.S. conspiracy (see your old article 
on Chechina..), then there was none...now you again acknowledge there's a 
conspiracy. What next?

The problem with crossposting articles exclusively about 
> destabilization efforts directed by the CIA and omitting any references to, 
> for example, Akayev's long-standing ties to such sources of destabilization 
> is that you are not providing a serious political analysis.>>>>


 The left has no 
> business solidarizing with the Akayev and Putins of the world..>>>

 Whenever the need arises, I'll make sure to consult with you that I'm taking a 
proper "marxist" position...

> >It's especially disingenious that you do this now in light of all
> >you've been arguing  at Marx mail for the past two years on the  topic of 
> >Russia, its
> >former satellites and the caucasuses...And then not to outdo your previous 
> >chutpatz
> >you slam me, again, and, in your usual cowardly manner, Rick -- agan 
> >--  (someone
> >who isn't even a member of this list) for posting of this U.S. regime 
> >change as if to
> >say that what's happening in eastern europe has no bearing for the rest of 
> >the world,
> >and specificlaly the working classes,, the poor, the oppressed?...
> Why don't you do yourself a favor and lay off crossposting Rozoff's stuff 
> for a couple of months or so. Take the time to develop your own ideas and 
> spell them out. That would be helpful in terms of deepening the debate.>>>

  Seriously,  Lou... you have this really annoying habit of condensending..to hide 
something? A chip on your shoulder, perhaps?...At least with your psychiatry 
postings, you admitted (in your usual round about way) that you have no clue about 
what you're discussing....

> >Obviously a
> >unipolar world order at the direction of the U.S. is for you no different 
> >to a world
> >polarized on the one hand by U.S. and western capital and on the other 
> >hand by a
> >motly alliance of oppressed nations and states currently under attack by 
> >the U.S and
> >Western europe.: Russia/China/Indian/Iranian/Cuban/Venezuelan/Bellarussia,
> >etc......
> But there are multiple contradictions. Rightwing elements in the USA, 
> George Soros, et al are opposed to the invasion and occupation of Chechnya. >>>>>
 Does this mean that we should support it? Just because imperialism says X, 
> our role is not to say not-X. Marxism has a more nuanced approach to such 
> questions and should be able to deal with multiple contradictions.>>>

 News to me.... He is most certainly not opposed to funnelling millions to Russian opposition parties... 
I'd be surprised if his slush funds haven't reached the Chechan "liberation" parties, 
by some direction...I guess you can provide a "nuanced"  explanation so as to again 
dismiss significance the above holds for understanding U.S. /western geopolitcal 
designs for Russia as you  managed to do already with every other issue related to 


More information about the Marxism mailing list