WTO, IMF, World Bank: Synonyms for Plunder
William Kaufman
By Denis Moynihan
Over 150 activists from North America and beyond gathered recently on an
organic farm north of Seattle to plan for the Nov 29 to Dec 3 anti-WTO
events. The Global This! Action Camp, sponsored by The Ruckus Society and
the Rainforest Action Network (RAN), rallied front-line direct action
campaigners to organize what has been touted as the "Protest of the
Century": shutting down the World Trade Organization's Third Ministerial
meeting in Seattle.
Since its creation in 1994 as the new incarnation of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the WTO has served transnational corporate
interests by repeatedly compelling member governments to overturn or weaken
labor, environmental and human rights laws that impede the blind pursuit of
profit. The long list of offenses has been summarized by Public Citizen's
point-man on the Ministerial protests, Mike Dolan, as "the three B's: Burma,
beef, and bananas." Massachusetts' selective procurement law penalizes
companies that profit from doing business with the repressive regime in
Burma. The European Parliament voted unanimously to ban the importation of
hormone-treated beef from the U.S. until it can be proven safe. The European
Union reserved a portion of its banana market for its members' former
colonies in the Caribbean, allowing local farmers to subsist. In each case,
one or more governments at the behest of corporations appealed to the WTO
and won, claiming that such laws amounted to unfair trade barriers. In a
recent ruling, the WTO ruled against a U.S. government tax break that
benefited U.S. companies whose export products contained at least 50%
domestically-derived components. It seems not even corporate welfare is safe
from the WTO sledgehammer, if it indirectly endorses strengthening
communities over profit.
This November, the WTO hopes to set the agenda for the so-called "Millenium
Round" of trade talks, to accelerate globalization and free trade into the
21st century. The smorgasbord includes the Global Free Logging Agreement,
trade-related intellectual property rights, and the piecemeal advancement of
the stalled Multilateral Agreement on Investments, regarding services.
Insurance and banking behemoths claim that it is their right, as well as an
inevitable consequence of globalization, a "natural progression," that their
vast pools of capital should slosh around the globe forever seeking the
greatest immediate return. Not only would increased liberalization of
capital flows ignore the lessons of the Asian financial crisis that swept
Russia and South America, but it would also open to foreign acquisition such
sacred community assets as hospitals, public schools and municipal water
systems.
This meeting, said to be the largest trade conference ever on American soil,
was sited in Seattle, America's gateway to the Asian market, in Washington
State, where, according to the Seattle Host Organization, one in four jobs
are export-related. Seattle is also the heart of the Pacific Northwest's
thriving direct action culture. Thousands of serious activists are champing
at the bit to vacate their home trenches for a couple of weeks to take a
non-violent shot at the cyclopean head of the corporate world takeover.
Warehouses are being scouted as potential squats. Seattle Food Not Bombs is
making preparations to feed the troops. A sophisticated media collective has
formed to ensure that the good work of the protestors is neither ignored nor
marginalized. Low-power, "pirate" radio activists are coordinating
communications for the masses, and a network of inconspicuous bike
messengers will feed information from the street to the clandestine
transmitters. A continuously updated website will serve as an alternative
newswire for the global public.
Behind this organizing is the newly-formed Direct Action Network, composed
of West Coast activist organizations and street theater troupes. Currently
based in the cramped, shared office space of Seattle's Community Action
Network, DAN is coordinating the mass non-violent direct action component of
the welling resistance to the Ministerial. The intellectual phalanx of the
dissent will be well represented, with a teach-in sponsored by the
International Forum on Globalization, at the 2,500 seat Benaroya Auditorium
on Saturday, Nov. 27th. Similar days of lectures, press briefings and
rallies will occur throughout the week. DAN is providing the infrastructure
for an aggressive, coordinated and colorful week of civil disobedience that
will shut down the meeting, and inspire the global public to educate
themselves and demand a seat at the table the next time the WTO tries to
meet.
The call to action is for early on Tuesday, Nov. 30th, when President
Clinton is slated to open the Ministerial with an address. The mass action
follows a decentralized, affinity-group structure. Affinity groups of from
five to 20 people are asked to abide by the action guidelines, agreed upon
by DAN and other sponsoring groups (to date, Ruckus, RAN, the Nat'l Lawyers
Guild, Global Exchange, People's Global Action, and Seattle's CISPES, IWW
and EarthFirst!), which are
no violence, either physical or verbal
no weapons
no drugs or alcohol
no property damage
Each affinity group should have a member responsible for support should
other members risk arrest. These groups are encouraged to participate as
best they can, be it street theater, banner hanging, silent prayer, or more
aggressive, confrontational tactics. A legal collective has formed to assist
the demonstrators, using jail solidarity among all those arrested to bargain
with the authorities.
An impressive security apparatus has formed to confront this rag-tag army.
The U.S. Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the State Department, The Federal Emergency
Management Agency, The King County Sheriff, and the Seattle police have
joined forces. The police promise "access to pepper spray" (to which many of
those at the action camp are no strangers) and a "flexible SWAT team." The
courts in Seattle have reportedly been closed for three days around the
Ministerial, a judge has been assigned the task of processing detainees full
time, and outlying jails have been contracted for overflow. Add to this the
resources of the principals of the Seattle Host Organization, Bill Gates,
CEO of Microsoft and Phil Condit, CEO of Boeing, and one understands the
intensity of the planning and discussion during the week at the Prag Tree
farm.
Whereas Ruckus typically helps groups acquire skills necessary to include
effective, non-violent direct action in their campaigns, this camp was
dedicated solely to bringing together the experts to shut down the WTO.
Workshops ranged from urban climbing and banner making to non-violence
training and peacekeeping, scouting, technical lock-downs and blockades,
media, website design, street theater, legal tactics, even drumming. Every
hint of free time was filled with meetings and discussions. Campfires, a
traditional mainstay of these off-the-grid activists, served as rostrums for
speakers from around the country, and for song and dance as well.
The action camp propelled the group into overdrive. A Seattle convergence to
prepare for the mass action is set for Nov 20 - 28. San Francisco's Art and
Revolution Collective took off to start a three-week Road Show from
Vancouver, BC to Santa Cruz. The staffer from the Sea Turtle Restoration
Project returned to San Francisco to ensure that the 200 sea turtle costumes
were on schedule. The Radical Jeerleaders had made copies of their
anti-corporate cheers for dissemination. The wheels were in motion to bring
to the streets of Seattle a showdown of people versus profit, on the eve of
the millenium.
For more infor, contact the Direct Action Network at 206-632-1656
www.seattlewto.org www.agitprop.org/artandrevolution/wto.
DAN can receive tax-deductible contributions to support this work. Please
call for info.
IMF, WTO:
"I Can Change, I Can Change!"
By Robert Naiman
"On the Left"
Preamble Center
"People say that I am evil -- they may be right. But it's not as if I don't
try -- I just screw up, try as I might. But I can change, I can change!" So
says the "Saddam Hussein" character in the movie "South Park."
This sounds a lot like the rhetoric coming from Washington about
globalization. Activists have called for a halt to plans for expanding the
World Trade Organization, which has consistently ruled in favor of corporate
interests at the expense of developing countries. WTO and Clinton
Administration officials respond by saying the new round will be a
"development round," which will in some unexplained way redress the
devastation caused by forced trade liberalization.
Now, in a brazen display of "doublespeak," we are being told that the
International Monetary Fund, an institution whose economic policies kill
thousands of poor children in the developing world each day, has suddenly
been transformed into an anti-poverty organization. The IMF's "Enhanced
Structural Adjustment Facility," infamous for imposing brutal economic
austerity policies on the poorest countries in the world, is being renamed
the "Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility." Last week IMF Deputy Managing
Director Stanley Fischer, in what may have been a Freudian slip, referred to
the new program as the "Poverty and Growth Reduction Facility." And with a
number of "advocacy groups" cheering them on, the Administration and
Congress are poised to pass a bill sponsored by Representative Leach which
would give the IMF more US tax dollars and expand its power, under the guise
of "debt relief for the poorest countries."
Of course we should all support reforming unjust institutions, unless
they're incapable of being reformed. What we have to be on our guard
against, though, is attempts to put "old wine in new bottles" by dressing up
the same old unjust policies in fancy new rhetoric. There's never a shortage
of policy wonks to spin proposals about "new global financial architecture,"
"civil society" and other globaloney. Indeed, this is the sort of thing that
foundations love to give money for, because they can claim they're doing
something about an issue without actually challenging the privileges of the
powerful.
And the word "reform" itself has become more than a little debased. When the
IMF and the World Bank force a country to cut wages, lay off workers,
produce for export instead of the needs of their own people, and sell off
public property to cronies for less than its value, that's called "economic
reform."
We need a reality check. What's the likelihood that policymakers who pursue
policies that hurt workers and poor people at home are going to pursue
policies that help workers and poor people abroad? Clinton abolished the New
Deal guarantee that poor families would have income and called it "welfare
reform," thus exacerbating poverty in the United States. Yet we're supposed
to believe that Clinton's IMF is going to encourage other countries to
pursue policies to reduce poverty.
You don't have to leave the United States to see that our government's
efforts to "reform" globalization are a cruel joke. The Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), a U.S. protectorate in the Pacific (closer
to the Philippines than to Hawaii), is allowed to set its own minimum wage
and immigration policies. As a result of the lack of federal government
oversight, garment manufacturers have been able to set up sweatshops there
in which indentured workers from China toil all day behind barbed wire. ABC
News found that pregnant garment workers there are "forced to have abortions
to keep their jobs." Yet garment manufacturers are allowed to sew "Made in
the USA" labels into clothes produced by this slave labor. You might think
that if you purchased a garment with a "Made in USA" label, you'd could
assume that workers who produced it got paid the federal minimum wage and
had their rights respected. You'd be wrong. Why should the same federal
officials who won't enforce our own laws to protect workers who live under
the American flag be trusted to protect the rights of workers overseas
through the corporate-controlled WTO?
The next time you hear someone go on about "reforming globalization,"
"greening" the WTO, or turning the IMF into an anti-poverty organization,
hang onto your wallet. Expanding the power of organizations controlled by
multinational corporations isn't going to help workers in poor countries --
and it isn't going to help workers here, either.
Robert Naiman nai...@preamble.org
Preamble Center
1737 21st NW Washington, DC 20009
phone: 202-265-3263 x277
fax: 202-265-3647
http://www.preamble.org/
James A. Donald
any sexual relationship with any human being of any age or sex?
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
A. G. Phillbin
wrote:
^Did trotsky have a child, or a wife, or a girlfriend, or
^any sexual relationship with any human being of any age or sex?
Absolutely! He had a wife, a son, two(?) daughters, and has at least
one living grandson, who is a Zionist. In addition to his political
work while in Mexico, he had an affair with the surrealist artist
Frida Kahlo, wife of the muralist Diego Rivera. Think you could do
better?
^ ------
^We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
^of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
^right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
^
^http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
Sam Pawlett
wrote:
>Did trotsky have a child, or a wife, or a girlfriend, or
>any sexual relationship with any human being of any age or sex?
Why do you ask? His sons Leon and Sergey were murdered by
stalinists. His daughter Zina committed suicide in Germany in 1933.
He had an affair with the Mexican painter Frida Kahlo. Numerous
attempts were made on his wife's life.
So,yes, Trotsky got "some."
> ------
>We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
>of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
>right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
Oh, I see. Saying so makes it so.
Black Dragon
(James A. Donald) wrote:
> Did trotsky have a child, or a wife, or a girlfriend, or
> any sexual relationship with any human being of any age or sex?
> ------
For someone who bashes Socialism and Socialists so much, I'd expect you to
know more about them. Yes, Trotsky had a wife ( two, in fact, in
different periods of his life ), and he had a few children to boot.
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are.
What is "our" property? Is this the peoples' property, or is the private
property of Capitalists, which is gained through the robbery of the money
made by the labour of the proletariat?
True law derives from this
> right,
This "right", if it means the right to property gained through robbery of
a workers' deserved rewards, does not even actually exist; It is simply
assumed that one has to right to hold on to what they have unjustly
gotten.
not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
Since noone is advocating an omnipotent state, what does this prove?
Stephen R. Diamond
Phillbin) wrote:
> Think you could do
> better?
No. Donald is too much of a bore.
Stephen R. Diamond
Hunter H. Watson
Sam Pawlett wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Oct 1999 16:02:25 GMT, jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
> wrote:
>
> >Did trotsky have a child, or a wife, or a girlfriend, or
> >any sexual relationship with any human being of any age or sex?
>
> Why do you ask? His sons Leon and Sergey were murdered by
> stalinists. His daughter Zina committed suicide in Germany in 1933.
> He had an affair with the Mexican painter Frida Kahlo. Numerous
> attempts were made on his wife's life.
> So,yes, Trotsky got "some."
This is an example of the disgusting Trotskyist whining, Andrew. Trotsky
was part of the narrow clique around Lenin who were capable of ordering
the murder of something like 700,000 Don Cossacks in roughly two months
in the Summer of 1918---for whom not a tear has ever been shed here here
on apst. Yet we are supposed to display great grief at the death of the
mass murderer himseslf. It is more or less the equivalent of a demand
that we mourn Hitler's suicide.
HW
bobg...@my-deja.com
sorc...@mailcity.com (Black Dragon) wrote:
> In article <380020c6...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, jam...@echeque.com
> (James A. Donald) wrote:
>
> > Did trotsky have a child, or a wife, or a girlfriend, or
> > any sexual relationship with any human being of any age or sex?
>
> For someone who bashes Socialism and Socialists so much, I'd expect
you to
> know more about them. Yes, Trotsky had a wife ( two, in fact, in
> different periods of his life ), and he had a few children to boot.
>
> > We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> > of the kind of animals that we are.
>
> What is "our" property? Is this the peoples' property, or is the
private
> property of Capitalists, which is gained through the robbery of the
money
> made by the labour of the proletariat?
>
> True law derives from this
> > right,
>
> This "right", if it means the right to property gained through robbery
of
> a workers' deserved rewards, does not even actually exist; It is
simply
> assumed that one has to right to hold on to what they have unjustly
> gotten.
>
> not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
> >
>
> Since noone is advocating an omnipotent state, what does this prove?
>
> > http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
>
Trotsky's Murders and the Fake Proletariat Issue of the Reds
The so-called "labor of the Proletariat" to which you refer is merely
the thinnest of "red herrings" in the entire Communist Conspiracy. The
proletariat were really NEVER considered by the Reds. Oh, yes, they were
mentioned in the rhetoric. But that was it.
What the entire Red Revolution was about was Jews. These persons
controlled the entire mechanism of death, and the real aim was to create
a war to the death between atheism and religion.
The Jews who were always at the top of the communism mechanism were, in
all honesty, NOT religious Jews. Instead, they were enraged persons who
were anti-theism, who considered Jewish and Christian religions alike to
be monstrous illusions attached to the otherwise sane mind of men.
The Red Commissariat was a Jewish Affair as well. This commissar system
of Jewish revenge on religion, ending in the death of 100 million
Christians can be seen at
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgovernments-USSR.html where
everything you need to know including the pages, volumes, and
publications which contain this information can be accessed and quoted.
The vast number of Jews in the original conspiracy which led to their
smallest of numbers controlling the entire Soviet Union is at
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgovernments-USSR-revolution.html for
your perusal.
The assassination of Tzars by the Jews plus the New York International
Jewish Banking connection which paid for the Red Revolution and sent 350
New York Jews to Russia to run the anti-Christian monstrosity are found
detailed at
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgovernments-USSR.html#anchor1218070
for your study.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Einde O'Callaghan
>
> On Tue, 05 Oct 1999 16:02:25 GMT, jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
> wrote:
>
> ^Did trotsky have a child, or a wife, or a girlfriend, or
> ^any sexual relationship with any human being of any age or sex?
>
> Absolutely! He had a wife, a son, two(?) daughters, and has at least
> one living grandson, who is a Zionist. In addition to his political
> work while in Mexico, he had an affair with the surrealist artist
> better?
>
Correction (although I must admit I haven't checked the details):
Trotsky was married twice. His first wife Alexandra Sokolova was the
person who won him to Marxism from his original Narodnik position. They
had two daughters, one of whom committed suicide in Berlin in 1933, the
other perished in Stalin's Gulag simply because she was Trotsky's
daughter. Alexandra, his first wife, also died in the purges. Trotsky
separated from his first wife when he escaped from his first exile in
Siberia (in 1902, I think), mainly I would imagine because of the
difficulty of clandestinely escaping with two small children.
During his exile he formed a relationship with Natalia Sedova, who
remained his companion until his death. They had two sons, Leon and
Sergei. Leon Sedov accompanied his father into exile and played a major
role in exposing the sham character of the Moscow Show Trials. He was
secretary of the Fourth International when he died under very suspicious
circumstances after a routine operation, probably at the hands of agents
of the Stalinist secret police. Sergei, an apolitical scientist remained
in Russia and was killed in the purges, simply because he was Trotsky's
son.
There are two grandsons that I know of. One, Esteban (Seva) Sedov, the
son of Leon Sedov, lived with Trotsky in Mexico during the last few
years before his murder. Esteban still lives in Mexico and looks after
the house where Trotsky lived, which is now a museum. The other
grandson, whose name is Bronstein (I don't know his first name), was
brought up in Russia in ignorance of the fact that he was Trotsky's
grandson. He is I believe quite a religious Jew and went to Israel
during the early 80s I believe under the terms of the agreement for the
emigration of Soviet Jews to Israel. When he arrived in the West he was
asked about his grandfather but said that he knew nothing of him.
In general, Trotsky seems to cut quite a dashing figure and was much
admired by those around him. I should imagine he was, to use a very
old-fashioned and slightly sexist term, "very attractive to the ladies".
eo'c
China Miéville
> work while in Mexico, he had an affair with the surrealist artist
> Frida Kahlo, wife of the muralist Diego Rivera.
Tiny detail. Frida Kahlo, despite being feted by surrealists and their
admirers, always denounced surrealism as 'bourgeois decadence' (that's a
direct quote). She was wrong, obviously, and you can see why people
associate her (superb) art with surrealism: it has a similar dreamlike
dynamic. But she saw herself coming out of a Mexican folk-art tradition,
*explicitly* in distinction to the surrealists.
Hunter H. Watson
Black Dragon wrote:
> What is "our" property? Is this the peoples' property, or is the private
> property of Capitalists, which is gained through the robbery of the money
> made by the labour of the proletariat?
You, Dragon, are proletarian. It is obvious that left to your own devices you
will generate little or no property.
> True law derives from this
> > right,
Of course, you should have the right to protect little or no property as the
man says.>
>
> Since noone is advocating an omnipotent state, what does this prove?
Yes, Noone *is* advocating an omnipotent state. This proves he is incapable
of assimilating the history of the 20th Century.
HW
A. G. Phillbin
<einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de> wrote:
^A. G. Phillbin schrieb:
^>
^> On Tue, 05 Oct 1999 16:02:25 GMT, jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
^> wrote:
^>
^> ^Did trotsky have a child, or a wife, or a girlfriend, or
^> ^any sexual relationship with any human being of any age or sex?
^>
^> Absolutely! He had a wife, a son, two(?) daughters, and has at least
^> one living grandson, who is a Zionist. In addition to his political
^> work while in Mexico, he had an affair with the surrealist artist
^> Frida Kahlo, wife of the muralist Diego Rivera. Think you could do
^> better?
^>
^Correction (although I must admit I haven't checked the details):
^Trotsky was married twice. His first wife Alexandra Sokolova was the
^person who won him to Marxism from his original Narodnik position. They
^had two daughters, one of whom committed suicide in Berlin in 1933, the
^other perished in Stalin's Gulag simply because she was Trotsky's
^daughter. Alexandra, his first wife, also died in the purges. Trotsky
^separated from his first wife when he escaped from his first exile in
^Siberia (in 1902, I think), mainly I would imagine because of the
^difficulty of clandestinely escaping with two small children.
^
^During his exile he formed a relationship with Natalia Sedova, who
^remained his companion until his death. They had two sons, Leon and
^Sergei. Leon Sedov accompanied his father into exile and played a major
^role in exposing the sham character of the Moscow Show Trials. He was
^secretary of the Fourth International when he died under very suspicious
^circumstances after a routine operation, probably at the hands of agents
^of the Stalinist secret police. Sergei, an apolitical scientist remained
^in Russia and was killed in the purges, simply because he was Trotsky's
^son.
^
^There are two grandsons that I know of. One, Esteban (Seva) Sedov, the
^son of Leon Sedov, lived with Trotsky in Mexico during the last few
^years before his murder. Esteban still lives in Mexico and looks after
^the house where Trotsky lived, which is now a museum. The other
^grandson, whose name is Bronstein (I don't know his first name), was
^brought up in Russia in ignorance of the fact that he was Trotsky's
^grandson. He is I believe quite a religious Jew and went to Israel
^during the early 80s I believe under the terms of the agreement for the
^emigration of Soviet Jews to Israel. When he arrived in the West he was
^asked about his grandfather but said that he knew nothing of him.
^
^In general, Trotsky seems to cut quite a dashing figure and was much
^admired by those around him. I should imagine he was, to use a very
^old-fashioned and slightly sexist term, "very attractive to the ladies".
^
^eo'c
^
Thank you for the correction -- I'm often fuzzy on that sort of
detail about a historical figure's personal history. I guess that's
what biographies are for.
Tom (A Real Paine)
<hwa...@portup.com> wrote:
^
^
^Sam Pawlett wrote:
^
^> On Tue, 05 Oct 1999 16:02:25 GMT, jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
^> wrote:
^>
^> >Did trotsky have a child, or a wife, or a girlfriend, or
^> >any sexual relationship with any human being of any age or sex?
^>
^> Why do you ask? His sons Leon and Sergey were murdered by
^> stalinists. His daughter Zina committed suicide in Germany in 1933.
^> He had an affair with the Mexican painter Frida Kahlo. Numerous
^> attempts were made on his wife's life.
^> So,yes, Trotsky got "some."
^
^This is an example of the disgusting Trotskyist whining, Andrew. Trotsky
^was part of the narrow clique around Lenin who were capable of ordering
^the murder of something like 700,000 Don Cossacks in roughly two months
^in the Summer of 1918---for whom not a tear has ever been shed here here
^on apst. Yet we are supposed to display great grief at the death of the
^mass murderer himseslf. It is more or less the equivalent of a demand
^that we mourn Hitler's suicide.
^
^HW
^
What has this got to do with the original question, asked by James A.
Donald? How does it relate to Sam Pawlett's answer, also reproduced
above? At what point was Mr. Pawlett attempting to evoke tears, or any
other emotional response, with his answer? Mr. Donald asked for
autobiographical details regarding Mr. Trotsky's personal relations,
and Mr. Pawlett obliged him. Relax, Watson. Finish your drink, pay
yourr tab, and lay your fevered brow back down on the bar. It'll be
alright in a few days.
bob dahlgren
"Crank Anti-Semite Pseudo-Historian?" Let me know if you need some
help with the interview stage.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Black Dragon
Real Paine)) wrote:
He comes here to whine about Marxism in general and Leninism in
particular, heedless to facts that dispute or refute his viewpoint that
Leninism and Marxism are simply doctrines for terror and tyranny over a
group of people. People who do refute or dispute these views are assumed
to be totalitarians, even if they have a record of continually opposing
any group or individual that promotes such systems as an alternative to
Capitalism. If they promote Socialism instead of Capitalism, and
nonetheless soundly dismiss Totalitarianism as an option, he assumes
they're just hiding something, or that they're ignorant - which is kind of
funny coming from a man who knows absolutely nothing about Marxism,
Socialism or genuine Leninism whatsoever.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot - to answer the question in the topic about
Watson getting sex, yes, he gets plenty, but not from women ( or men, if
he's gay ), but from small, furry felines. So many years of isolation
have an effect on a man, you know.
uchural
sorc...@mailcity.com (Black Dragon) wrote:
What facts? What refutation? It is history that makes these decisions,
Dragon, not fancy. The history of Marxism and Leninism has been one of
terror and tyranny. You are a denier.
People who do refute or dispute these views are assumed
to be totalitarians, even if they have a record of continually opposing
any group or individual that promotes such systems as an alternative to
Capitalism.
When you get to the guts of what they want, it is one party,
undemocratic, and oppressive. This century is a history of
totalitarianism. The grand designer of all of this was Marx, and his
man Lenin, and his man Trotsky. This all led to Stalin and Hitler.
Totalitarians all. Now, what was this about an alternative to
Capitalism? What do you have in mind, that doesn't mean just
one party, no democracy, and certain oppression? Please tell us
how it will all work. I remind you, we have a century of experience
in these matters, so make your argument clever. It will have to
pass muster.
If they promote Socialism instead of Capitalism, and
nonetheless soundly dismiss Totalitarianism as an option, he assumes
they're just hiding something, or that they're ignorant - which is kind of
funny coming from a man who knows absolutely nothing about Marxism,
Socialism or genuine Leninism whatsoever.
Yes, it is obvious that YOU know nothing about Marxism, Socialism, or
"genuine" Leninism. You are a fraud, Dragon. You are an occultist, you
admit. You can not be taken seriously by anyone on this list, which, by
my observation, has its share of physicists, who do not, to the last
man, believe in spooky action at a distance. If you believe in the
Occult, you are a proven fool. I call for a boycott of all occultists
on apst. Too creepy for words.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot - to answer the question in the topic about
Watson getting sex, yes, he gets plenty, but not from women ( or men, if
he's gay ), but from small, furry felines. So many years of isolation
have an effect on a man, you know.
Creepy. Very sick. The Son of Proyect. The little boy who admits his
mother does not understand him and wishes he would change.
Dragon, grow up, read, study physics, and give up any interest in the
occult. It may not be too late for you to learn how to think.
uchural
Hunter H. Watson
China Miéville wrote:
> > In addition to his political
> > work while in Mexico, he had an affair with the surrealist artist
> > Frida Kahlo, wife of the muralist Diego Rivera.
>
> Tiny detail. Frida Kahlo, despite being feted by surrealists and their
> admirers, always denounced surrealism as 'bourgeois decadence' (that's a
> direct quote). She was wrong, obviously, and you can see why people
> associate her (superb) art with surrealism: it has a similar dreamlike
> dynamic. But she saw herself coming out of a Mexican folk-art tradition,
> *explicitly* in distinction to the surrealists.
And though she came from an elegant, educated family and absorbed all
things Indian and campesino at second hand, and though as you say it is
perfectly legitimate to associate her art with surrealism, she does,
indeed, come out of the Mexican folk art tradition. There can be little
question she was right about that, though wrong as to the "bourgeois
decadence" observation. That objectively sophisticated dreamlike dynamic is
evidenced to one degree or another in folk art throughout Mexico.
HW
P.S. The Bolshevik assassination of Trotsky is said to have been rendered
easier as a result of withdrawal of active support by Diego Rivera--after
he had been cuckolded. Is there a "moral" here?
Hunter H. Watson
It is a reference to another thread in which you were not involved. Shall we
say it's a "literary reference" you didn't get.
> How does it relate to Sam Pawlett's answer, also reproduced
> above?
Take a look at the thread involving Andrew. Seek and ye shall find.
> At what point was Mr. Pawlett attempting to evoke tears, or any
> other emotional response, with his answer?
In the quote above.
> Mr. Donald asked for
> autobiographical details regarding Mr. Trotsky's personal relations,
> and Mr. Pawlett obliged him.
It was more than that. It was maudlin.
> Relax, Watson. Finish your drink, pay
> yourr tab, and lay your fevered brow back down on the bar. It'll be
> alright in a few days.
Sorry, Pain, but my fevered brow is alright now.
HHW
Hunter H. Watson
bob dahlgren wrote:
> Memo to Kevin Murphy: Do we have a position open for Bob Gorcas as
> "Crank Anti-Semite Pseudo-Historian?" Let me know if you need some
> help with the interview stage.
Please notify Mr. Gorcas that my suit for wrongful discharge is pending. He
will apply for my position at his own risk.
HW
>
Hunter H. Watson
"Stephen R. Diamond" wrote:
> In article <37fa258c...@news.eni.net>, agfi...@webcombo.net (A. G.
> Phillbin) wrote:
>
> > Think you could do
> > better?
>
> No. Donald is too much of a bore.
You're a coward, Diamond. Donald took you apart the last time he passed
through.
HW
Einde O'Callaghan
>
> In article <sorcer-E-051...@207.170.243.30>,
> sorc...@mailcity.com (Black Dragon) wrote:
> > In article <380020c6...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, jam...@echeque.com
> > (James A. Donald) wrote:
> >
> > > Did trotsky have a child, or a wife, or a girlfriend, or
> >
> > For someone who bashes Socialism and Socialists so much, I'd expect
> you to
> > know more about them. Yes, Trotsky had a wife ( two, in fact, in
> > different periods of his life ), and he had a few children to boot.
> >
> > > We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> > > of the kind of animals that we are.
> >
> private
> > property of Capitalists, which is gained through the robbery of the
> money
> > made by the labour of the proletariat?
> >
> > > right,
> >
> of
> > a workers' deserved rewards, does not even actually exist; It is
> simply
> > assumed that one has to right to hold on to what they have unjustly
> > gotten.
> >
> > not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
> > >
> >
> >
Into a not too bad-tempered discussion of Trotsky jumps a card-carrying
anti-semitic moron with the arcgument that it wasn't just a Red
conspiracy but a Jewish Red conspiracy straight out of the "Protocols of
the Elders of Zion" to boot. I think the only place for people like this
is alt.moron.
eo'c
jpl...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Russia", by Valery Bronstein, in "The Trotsky Reappraisal", Brotherstone &
Dukes (eds). This article includes a family tree, showing LDT's 4
children. This updates the material on the Revolutionary History website.
On Trotsky's sex-life, there's plenty of gossip about him in Mexico -
check out any book about Frida Kahlo for references. Plus two of his love
letters to Sedova were web published by a right wing historian last year.
But you won't get any cheap thrills there - you only see the Russian
manuscript.
Jim F.
>
> For data on Trotsky's family see "Stalin and Trotsky's relatives in
> Russia", by Valery Bronstein, in "The Trotsky Reappraisal", Brotherstone &
> Dukes (eds). This article includes a family tree, showing LDT's 4
> children. This updates the material on the Revolutionary History website.
>
Would Valery Bronstein be a member of Trotsky's family?
Marc Viglielmo
jpl...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> For data on Trotsky's family see "Stalin and Trotsky's relatives in
> Russia", by Valery Bronstein, in "The Trotsky Reappraisal", Brotherstone &
> Dukes (eds). This article includes a family tree, showing LDT's 4
> children. This updates the material on the Revolutionary History website.
>
> On Trotsky's sex-life, there's plenty of gossip about him in Mexico -
> check out any book about Frida Kahlo for references. Plus two of his love
> letters to Sedova were web published by a right wing historian last year.
> But you won't get any cheap thrills there - you only see the Russian
> manuscript.
When are the Bogdanov and Lunacharsky letters you were working on going
to be published, or put on a website?
M.V.