• 8 Posts
  • 35 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: December 17th, 2022
  • Lemmy_Mouse@lemmygrad.mltoCommunism@lemmygrad.ml•Richard Wolff interview with Brian Becker on today's socialist program was pretty hot
    51·
    1 year ago

    I wonder if Brian learned anything from this colossal betrayal of trust

    Context:

    spoiler

    link

    On the subject of the 1990s US war on Iraq in relation to the US anti-war movement:

    “The US had previously brought in Jesse Jackson to effectively negotiate the release of small groups so they decided to use more high profile “VIP’s” to convince Saddam Hussein to release the remaining hostages. Stephen Thibeault, a US Foreign Service officer in Baghdad at the time explains : Ramsey Clark was another American who was a part of this. I think that the consistent message… of these VIPs to Saddam is that he should release the hostages as a prerequisite for then de-escalating the situation diplomatically. I think that he basically was fooled as, in fact, the hostages were protecting him. How then did Ramsey Clark fool Saddam Hussein? He claimed that the American anti-war movement would surely stop any potential American invasion.

    “Mr. Ramsey Clark emphasized that most of the American people don’t want war… Noting that there is a wide movement in its ranks against the war, he said that the US government is ignorant of the will of the American people regarding current events in the region in its call to war through the media. He added that the peace movement in the United States will escalate its struggles to prevent war in the Arab Gulf region.” - Al Thawra Newspaper; Baghdad November 12, 1990 It is said that Ramsey Clark backed up his claim with a photo of an anti-war rally a few weeks before. Yet, the weekend rally in NYC (the largest one in the country) had no more than a few thousand people present. It could hardly be said that this represented a majority or even a critical mass of Americans. Nonetheless, Ramsey Clark told Saddam Hussein that he could rely on American protestors to stop the US from invading Iraq. Clark’s purpose, as we would come to understand was to serve as a hostage negotiator on behalf of the United States government. In late November, world-renowned Boxer Muhammad Ali was sent to Baghdad for further hostage negotiations, as a way to build credibility with Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people. Ali, a world famous Muslim, received much respect on his visit. According to ex-CIA officer James Kolb, this was not the first time George HW Bush had requested Muhammad Ali to “use your status as a respected Muslim to enter into a secret dialogue…to try to procure the release of the American hostages”. (Ali had previously been used by the Carter regime to recruit African nations to boycott the 1980 olympics in the USSR.)”

    → “International con-man Brian Becker, another leader in the American anti-war movement, was a part of Muhammad Ali’s visit. His account emphasizes how much the visit was “a threat” to the US government and proved how “negotiations were clearly available as a means to prevent war.” Just because parts of the US government ‘denounced the trip’ does not prove anything at all.

    This point is evidenced by a 1995 US Navy paper titled Persian Gulf Hostages: A Case Study in Terrorism, Diplomacy, and Strategy which details the United States hostage policy at the time. It had to maintain the facade of non-negotiation to “be tough on terrorists” while engaging in under the table diplomacy to release said hostages. The paper also details that while the US and UK publicly maintained rhetoric that they would bomb Iraq despite the presence of hostages, this was an empty threat. In essence, the United States needed the hostages released while also saving face. The reality is that these anti-war activists did the work of the US government by taking hard power away from the Iraqi government. This is regardless of whether they were acting on behalf of the US government (although, evidence indicates they likely were). Joseph Wilson notes in the same interview that:

    “We were successful in getting one or two hostages out every time, and we would try to load up hostages onto every American who came out. It didn’t make any difference to us. The more, the merrier. If we could get 10 out with [boxer] Muhammad Ali, if they promised us 10 we’d go for 12.”

    In December, Saddam Hussein let the remaining British and Americans leave Kuwait. We Are The Mighty magazine (affiliated with the US military) praises Muhammad Ali for “freeing the hostages” and notes that he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his actions.

    Muhammad Ali (center) and the remaining 15 American hostages leaving Iraq on December 2nd, 1990.

    Saddam Hussein gave up the hostages, his insurance against American invasion, based on lies. In January 1991, only six weeks after releasing the American hostages, under the guise of the United Nations Security Council an American-led coalition would begin a horrific bombing campaign and invasion of Iraq.”

  • Lemmy_Mouse@lemmygrad.mltoTechnology@lemmygrad.ml•We talk a lot about the Reddit thing, but can we also talk about the moderation strike at Stack Exchange?
    171·
    1 year ago

    A strike I admire since it is in opposition to AI generated content. One of the mods makes a good point when they point out Stack Exchange is a site which is designed around real, substantive, quality answers from real professionals in their fields answering questions with the upmost truth. They go on to explain that AI functions as a parrot (not unlike radlibs who follow the CIAs every word) uncritically forwarding information regardless of it’s accuracy or even logical sense, which contradicts the site’s current purpose in the information space. They go on to say this would reduce the value of the site to 0. I believe it would simply transform the site into Facebook without families. (All bullshit, no IRL social connection)

    Regardless, solidarity with the striking workers.

  • Lemmy_Mouse@lemmygrad.mltoCommunism@lemmygrad.ml•How can i help?
    6·
    1 year ago

    Study and play to your strengths. If you’re someone people lean on for help, help them understand the real causes of their misery. If you’re someone who is good at math, perhaps create propaganda which demonstrates the math of capitalism and socialism. If you’re someone who is popular perhaps educate your peers. Etc…

    You are young and likely still requiring essential education and to develop experience. The job of the youth is always learn and socialize no matter what form society takes. Simply apply Marxism to this paradigm 👍

  • Lemmy_Mouse@lemmygrad.mltoCommunism@lemmygrad.ml•No red in the rainbow? Cold War law blocks Oklahoma Communists from PrideEnglish
    9·
    1 year ago

    CPUSA is explicitly named. Any other org would indeed be covered under colour of law (this law specifically) however it would require a court case to resolve such an invocation of colour of law which is always a gamble.

    Depending on how much constitution ours have in OK, challenging such a movement not explicitly named in the referenced law in a court of law could end very badly for the prosecution. However, considering if our efforts were so substantial in OK I would not have to question the constitution of it would I?

    Aside from being a gamble, all one has to do is consult law-practicing comrades to create a play list of legal foot dragging to be utilized in each and every single case so as to cost the state as much time and effort as possible challenging every single group from the PSL to the ABCDEFG. Until neoliberalism falls, money is no object to the regime, however this would create publicity for all of the left movements involved, which gives birth to more continuity, as well it would take up space in the legal process which could be used to fuck over our class.

  • Lemmy_Mouse@lemmygrad.mlOPtoCommunism@lemmygrad.ml•PSL’s Brian Becker promotes the flawed argument that reinforcing key liberal ideas is a worthwhile compromise
    01·
    1 year ago
    spoiler

    "The first major indication that this is what the PSL’s practice has become appeared in 2020, when Becker announced a policy of critical support for Bernie Sanders in the primary and a refusal to run the party’s candidate in swing states if Sanders won the nomination. Becker’s reasoning was that even though he recognized Sanders held reactionary stances in certain important areas, supporting him represented a net gain for the socialist movement due to Sanders supposedly being an overall progressive force. As in a force that was hurting the DNC more than he was helping it. Becker concluded: “Tactics can never be absolute, designed for all situations or last forever. On the contrary, revolutionaries must combine a rock-hard adherence to core principles with tactical suppleness to advance the movement for socialism under varying conditions and on shifting terrain. For now, the Sanders campaign represents a dynamic insurgency promoting radical social changes in the face of increasingly stiff headwinds from a criminal ruling class that fears the loosening of its absolute grip over U.S. politics and the economy. We support the insurgency against the reactionaries.”

    The problem with this calculus was that for years by that point, it had been evident Sanders was more of a help than a hindrance to the DNC. He had made a non-aggression pact with Clinton prior to running in 2016, he had tried to bring his base into the Democratic Party by endorsing Clinton, then he had furthered this project to leverage his platform in favor of reformism by promoting the new cold war with Russia. Becker either directly or implicitly recognized that Sanders had committed these offenses, yet he felt in spite of this that Sanders was worth supporting. Not because Sanders himself was a friend to revolutionary politics, but because his project supposedly represented something which brought revolution closer.

    The flaw in Becker’s argument about Sanders weakening the DNC is clear when you see what Becker didn’t want to admit: that the effect the Sanders campaigns had is one where their leader brought many ideologically developing individuals into a reformist project, then reinforced the anti-Russian biases the media had previously begun instilling these individuals. The Sanders campaigns were a net negative for the revolutionary cause, because they overall reinforced the DNC’s grip. The only ways they weakened the DNC were when many Sanders supporters broke away from his cult of personality, and came to view him as a dishonorable enabler of corruption and imperialism. By calling for PSL members to come into pro-Sanders circles and recruit them into the party, Becker was rationalizing supporting Sanders by asserting that Marxists can bring Sanders supporters to Marxism via this strategy."

    “The problems with this plan, and with the parallel reformist actions the PSL has taken since then, were 1) that backing Sanders meant backing a project which had a net negative impact for the revolutionary cause, and 2) that the PSL’s reformist tendencies made it unable to bring whatever Sanders supporters it recruited into a genuinely revolutionary organization.”

    There is a third actually that I see: He places his party in a weakened position first by telling them to support Bernie, then by telling them to infiltrate Bernie groups and explain to them why Bernie is inferior to the PSL. But he just ordered PSL to support Bernie, this is a contradictory set of orders and it places his followers in a weakened position when discussing the subject of Bernie and social democracy vs revolutionary socialism in general. A leader who seeks the revolutionary success of his party would not do this. he would seek to insulate his party members from revisionism, not make them more susceptible to it.