[Marxism] Lasting Green success

Peggy Dobbins pegdobbins at gmail.com
Sat Aug 14 18:18:42 MDT 2010


In re "who's been successful as a Green candidate?". Art Goodtimes has twice defeated challengers from Dem and Rep parties to hold his seat as a county commissioner in San Miguel county colo   The county seat is Telluride

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 13, 2010, at 2:00 PM, marxism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu wrote:

> Send Marxism mailing list submissions to
>    marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    marxism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    marxism-owner at lists.econ.utah.edu
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Marxism digest..."
> 
> 
> ======================================================================
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ======================================================================
> 
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re:  Grim Voter Mood Turns Grimmer (Mark Lause)
>   2.  The Question for Third Party campaigns [was Grim Voter
>      Mood...] (Mark Lause)
>   3.  Critical support for the Islamic Republic of Iran!
>      (Louis Proyect)
>   4.  Will Ferrell's anti-capitalist comedy (Louis Proyect)
>   5.  Churchill's Empire (Louis Proyect)
>   6. Re:  Churchill's Empire (Midhurst14 at aol.com)
>   7. Re:  self-indulgence (Andrew Pollack)
>   8. Re:  Churchill's Empire (Matt)
>   9. Re:  Churchill's Empire (Midhurst14 at aol.com)
>  10. Re:  Churchill's Empire (Andrew Pollack)
>  11. Re:  Churchill's Empire (Midhurst14 at aol.com)
>  12.  Kucinich won't challenge Obama in 2012 primaries (Dan DiMaggio)
>  13. Re:  self-indulgence (Shane Mage)
>  14.  Veritas Handbook: a new guide puts Palestine history,
>      debates in activists? hands (Dennis Brasky)
>  15. Re:  self-indulgence (Tom Cod)
>  16.  WYCLEF FOR PRESIDENT? (Dennis Brasky)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 08:46:19 -0400
> From: Mark Lause <markalause at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Grim Voter Mood Turns Grimmer
> To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
>    <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Message-ID:
>    <AANLkTin5cF3HrToR3GBJBCE1nz5pYUVpVk9_t4=6eKpB at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> The most likely beneficiary of all this on the Left should be the Greens,
> but the larger state organizations on the coasts seem to be in decline.
> Some of the state parties, such as Illinois, seem to be showing some sparks
> of new life.
> 
> Ohio remains self-mummified and accords leadership to people who openly
> Democrats or who believe that the party should consistently defer to the
> pro-Democrats.  The main accomplishment of our state party has been
> red-baiting to keep anyone serious about an independent third party away
> from playing any role whatsoever in shaping its course....  What Ohio does
> now is to run exclusively in state and local races rather than to have to
> challenge Democrats over national issues.  So we discuss regulations about
> recycling and saving forest preserves, but never discuss global warming, BP,
> etc.  It varies from state to state, of course...
> 
> This is a minor variant on the standard scenario for any third party with
> potential in U.S. history.  If voters give you enough attention, you have
> people within the party coming up as would-be power brokers with a major
> party and if you're organized stupidly enough--where leaders are
> unaccountable--you get open Democrats coming in from the outside.
> 
> ML
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 08:59:37 -0400
> From: Mark Lause <markalause at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Marxism] The Question for Third Party campaigns [was Grim
>    Voter    Mood...]
> To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
>    <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Message-ID:
>    <AANLkTi=jJJMT4q17HBbT_-=SEknA3ampEo9SxbZRBc05 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> Running independent political campaigns are supposed to aim at more than
> "getting out the ideas."  That is, you could do that any number of ways and
> don't have to invest the time, energy and effort into a political campaign
> to do so.
> 
> We run such campaigns in hopes of mobilizing people to do something beyond
> the election....  And I don't mean just joining the organization that's
> running the campaign....
> 
> What do you want to leave behind the campaign?  The misleadership of the
> Greens has failed to do this consistently.  McKinney and Nader, who have
> personally-centered campaign styles have failed to leave much of anything
> behind.
> 
> Who's been successful at this?
> 
> And how?
> 
> ML
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:04:00 -0400
> From: Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>
> Subject: [Marxism] Critical support for the Islamic Republic of Iran!
> To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
>    <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Message-ID: <4C6542C0.9030007 at panix.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1302482/UK-slams-Irans-lack-respect-vice-president-claims-Britons-thick.html
> UK slams Iran's lack of respect after vice president claims Britons are 
> a bunch of thick people ruled by a mafia
> 
> By Mail Foreign Service
> 
> The Foreign Office has sharply rebuked Iran after the country's vice 
> president for called British people 'thick'.
> 
> In a speech Monday, Mohammad Reza Rahimi said Britons were 'a bunch of 
> idiots ruled by mafia,' and criticized Prime Minister David Cameron's 
> inexperience.
> 
> Though British officials usually let such remarks pass, Ambassador Simon 
> Gass wrote a blog posting in Farsi on a government Website sharply 
> criticizing Rahimi.
> 
> He said the Iranian official had shown a lack of respect with his 
> 'illogical and worthless remark.'
> 
> The Foreign Office says it decided Rahimi's comments merited a response.
> 
> In the blistering diatribe, Rahimi said: ?They have plundered the world 
> in the last 500 years and the young lad in charge now is even more 
> stupid than his predecessor. It?s as if God has made this nation 
> servants of America and Zionists.?
> 
> Iran?s First Vice President added: ?England has nothing. Its inhabitants 
> are not human, its officials are not responsible, and it doesn?t even 
> have any natural resources. (They are) a bunch of thick people ruled by 
> a mafia.?
> 
> The incendiary remarks went too far for Simon Gass.
> 
> ?To state that the British are not human and to call them thick shows a 
> lack of respect for human dignity and is an illogical and worthless 
> remark,? he wrote.
> 
> Writing in Farsi, the official language of Iran, Mr Gass added: ?To 
> discuss the political differences between countries is natural, but when 
> a high-ranking official who represents the Islamic Republic of Iran 
> makes such insulting remarks about the people of another country, it 
> reflects badly only on the person who made such remarks.?
> 
> Rahimi denounced countries that had supported the latest round of UN 
> sanctions against Iran and, like the U.S., Britain and Australia, 
> imposed extra ones of their own.
> 
> He called the Australians a ?bunch of cow herders? and suggested that 
> the South Koreans should be ?smacked in the face until they become human?.
> 
> Ironically, in the same speech in Tehran on Monday Rahimi told his 
> audience of senior education officials that teachers need to teach their 
> students manners.
> 
> Iranian officials frequently lambast Britain, but calling the British 
> ?thick? is new.
> 
> The British are usually depicted as a crafty and cunning ?little Satan? 
> pulling the strings of the ?Great Satan? America which is seen as having 
> more brawn but fewer brains.
> 
> The Iranian regime has accused both London and Washington of stirring up 
> last summer?s unrest that followed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?s 
> fiercely dis?puted re-election.
> 
> Mr Gass wrote: ?The contribution made by Britain in shaping the modern 
> world, from invention to cultural achievements, values and respect for 
> individual rights, has been clearly and rightly recorded in history and 
> is respected throughout the world.?
> 
> Britain is one of six nations negotiating with Tehran over its disputed 
> nuclear program. Iran denies it is developing nuclear weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:11:47 -0400
> From: Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>
> Subject: [Marxism] Will Ferrell's anti-capitalist comedy
> To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
>    <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>,    Progressive Economics
>    <pen-l at lists.csuchico.edu>
> Message-ID: <4C6552A3.8090103 at panix.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2010/08/09/other-guys-end-credits-sequence-video/
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:16:16 -0400
> From: Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>
> Subject: [Marxism] Churchill's Empire
> To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
>    <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Message-ID: <4C6553B0.4090308 at panix.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
> 
> Paper Cuts - A Blog About Books
> August 13, 2010, 7:00 am
> Stray Questions for Richard Toye
> By THE NEW YORK TIMES
> Richard Toye
> 
> Richard Toye?s book ?Churchill?s Empire? is reviewed in this Sunday?s 
> Book Review.
> 
> Your history explores a dark side of Winston Churchill ? his racism and 
> avid imperialism ? that will come as a surprise to many readers. How do 
> you feel personally about Churchill?
> 
> Churchill?s dark side will certainly come as a surprise to those who 
> know about him mainly through his image in the Western media ? people 
> living in Africa or India might start off with a much more negative 
> impression. Actually, part of the point of my book was that during some 
> sections of his career (notably when he was in his first ministerial 
> post, at the Colonial Office) some right-wing imperialists saw Churchill 
> as a dangerous radical who was too sympathetic to liberal ideas and thus 
> posed a danger to the Empire from the left! I argue that he consciously 
> chose to move to the right in the 1930s with his campaign against 
> greater self-government for India.
> 
> How I feel about him personally depends very much upon which part of his 
> career I am thinking about at the time. I have little sympathy for many 
> of his views, and I don?t think that many of the defenses put up for his 
> racism hold water. On the other hand, he was often capable of remarkable 
> good sense, even on some imperial issues like Ireland, and it is hard 
> not to develop affection for him.
> 
> How has your work been received in Britain? Do you see Churchill?s 
> legacy changing?
> 
> Very well, I am happy to say! There are two categories of people in 
> Britain: those who will never hear a bad word about Churchill, and those 
> who will never hear a good one. Somehow I seem to have pleased everyone 
> (so far) ? presumably because the book contains enough evidence for 
> people to make up their own minds.
> 
> What are you working on now?
> 
> I?m currently planning a book on Churchill?s war speeches ? not just the 
> famous ones of 1940 but the whole range.
> 
> What have you been reading or recommending lately?
> 
> Hans Fallada, ?Alone in Berlin? ? a very moving novel about resistance 
> to the Nazis.
> 
> Ronald Hyam, ?Understanding the British Empire? ? a collection of essays 
> by an eminent imperial historian.
> 
> I strongly recommend that, when it comes out in a few month?s time, 
> everyone reads my colleague James Mark?s book, ?The Unfinished 
> Revolution? ? a groundbreaking work about the political legacy after the 
> end of communism in Eastern Europe.
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> NY Times Sunday Book Review August 12, 2010
> The Two Churchills
> By JOHANN HARI
> 
> CHURCHILL?S EMPIRE
> 
> The World That Made Him and the World He Made
> By Richard Toye
> Illustrated. 423 pp. A John Macrae Book/Henry Holt & Company. $32
> 
> Winston Churchill is remembered for leading Britain through her finest 
> hour ? but what if he also led the country through her most shameful 
> one? What if, in addition to rousing a nation to save the world from the 
> Nazis, he fought for a raw white supremacy and a concentration camp 
> network of his own? This question burns through Richard Toye?s superb, 
> unsettling new history, ?Churchill?s Empire? ? and is even seeping into 
> the Oval Office.
> 
> George W. Bush left a big growling bust of Churchill near his desk in 
> the White House, in an attempt to associate himself with Churchill?s 
> heroic stand against fascism. Barack Obama had it returned to Britain. 
> It?s not hard to guess why: his Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango 
> Obama, was imprisoned without trial for two years and tortured on 
> Churchill?s watch, for resisting Churchill?s empire.
> 
> Can these clashing Churchills be reconciled? Do we live, at the same 
> time, in the world he helped to save and the world he helped to trash? 
> Toye, one of Britain?s smartest young historians, has tried to pick 
> through these questions dispassionately. Churchill was born in 1874 into 
> a Britain that was coloring the map imperial pink, at the cost of 
> washing distant nations blood-red. He was told a simple story: the 
> superior white man was conquering the primitive dark-skinned natives, 
> and bringing them the benefits of civilization.
> 
> As soon as he could, Churchill charged off to take his part in ?a lot of 
> jolly little wars against barbarous peoples.? In the Swat valley, now 
> part of Pakistan, he experienced, fleetingly, an instant of doubt. He 
> realized that the local population was fighting back because of ?the 
> presence of British troops in lands the local people considered their 
> own,? just as Britain would if she were invaded. But Churchill soon 
> suppressed this thought, deciding instead that they were merely deranged 
> jihadists whose violence was explained by a ?strong aboriginal 
> propensity to kill.?
> 
> He gladly took part in raids that laid waste to whole valleys, writing: 
> ?We proceeded systematically, village by village, and we destroyed the 
> houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the shady 
> trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive 
> devastation.? He then sped off to help reconquer the Sudan, where he 
> bragged that he personally shot at least three ?savages.?
> 
> The young Churchill charged through imperial atrocities, defending each 
> in turn. When the first concentration camps were built in South Africa, 
> he said they produced ?the minimum of suffering? possible. At least 
> 115,000 people were swept into them and 14,000 died, but he wrote only 
> of his ?irritation that kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men.? 
> Later, he boasted of his experiences. ?That was before war degenerated,? 
> he said. ?It was great fun galloping about.?
> 
> After being elected to Parliament in 1900, he demanded a rolling program 
> of more conquests, based on his belief that ?the Aryan stock is bound to 
> triumph.? As war secretary and then colonial secretary in the 1920s, he 
> unleashed the notorious Black and Tans on Ireland?s Catholics, to burn 
> homes and beat civilians. When the Kurds rebelled against British rule 
> in Iraq, he said: ?I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against 
> uncivilized tribes.? It ?would spread a lively terror.? (Strangely, Toye 
> doesn?t quote this.)
> 
> Of course, it?s easy to dismiss any criticism of these actions as 
> anachronistic. Didn?t everybody in Britain think that way then? One of 
> the most striking findings of Toye?s research is that they really 
> didn?t: even at the time, Churchill was seen as standing at the most 
> brutal and brutish end of the British imperialist spectrum. This was 
> clearest in his attitude to India. When Gandhi began his campaign of 
> peaceful resistance, Churchill raged that he ?ought to be lain bound 
> hand and foot at the gates of Delhi and then trampled on by an enormous 
> elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back.? He later added: ?I 
> hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.?
> 
> This hatred killed. In 1943, to give just one example, a famine broke 
> out in Bengal, caused, as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen 
> has proven, by British mismanagement. To the horror of many of his 
> colleagues, Churchill raged that it was their own fault for ?breeding 
> like rabbits? and refused to offer any aid for months while hundreds of 
> thousands died.
> 
> Husse




More information about the Marxism mailing list