Re: Kyrgyzstan 'Regime Change' Masterminded By West

 This is hilarious. The  issue for me  is why you're attacking my credentials all of a 
sudden?...Run out of arguments?...Again, You were  taken to school by Jim Yarker 
in his brief flirtation with this list. And to be honest, had you a had a real go at him, 
the guy would have swept you under the rug with the blink of an eye...Incidentally, 
when he tried debating you, you happily ended the conversation (i.e., suspended my 
posting priviledges since I was forwarding his messages)...it's analogous to storming 
off when challenged...Regarding  Rick,  the guy has his reasons to avoid debating 
people like yourself...I honestly doubt it has anything to do with not having the 
capacity to defend his argument...it's probably more along the lines at not wanting to 
be bothered with someone of your infantile insignificance... Kind of like Leo Panitch, 
far greater Marxist credentials than yourself but can't be bothered with petty 
discussions... ) With Jim,  I think it's fare to say that you realized how completely 
out of your league you were and therefore weren't keen to test the waters... I can 
repost the exchnage, so please don't deny this....

No, seriously, Lou, you take cowardliness to the next level. You do so by hiding 
behind "marxist" this, Leninism that, whenever you're on the ropes...Let's just clarify 
something...I have never purported to be some expert on marx...... But It's also 
funny how you question my (anyone who puts you on the ropes)  credentials at the 
same that you prop yourself up as this "great" marxist scholar/debater. It's funny 
since I had been getting 15  000 e-mails at the time of our earlier exchange on 
Russia from people who I had never previously met providing me with  ancectdotes 
or actual e-mails of conversations you had had at other lists, particularly. reg. the 
topic of Russia,  basically telling how you were completely outdebated, that you 
constantly contradict yourself, and that your only escape when cornered was to cite 
"Lenin". Sound familiar? 

Obviously you unable to do in others groups what you constantly resort to here:   
unsub the person whom you're losing a debate to...

And perhaps the persons in these other lists aren't as impressed with your "marxist" 
credentials, which, really, in the larger scheme of things, has nothing whatsover to 
do with whether encircling Russia is good or bad thing and where marxists , and 
particularly the left, should stand on the topic...

I guess this is where the difference between me and yourself lies: 

1) I'll debate an argument on it own merits, you have to questison the messenger's 
credentials (e.g., regarding the psychiatry debate a well back, to paraphrase you: "I 
wouldn't cite Thomas Szaz b/c/ he's a right wing libertarian...On other topics, "Justin 
Ramaindo is conversative"..."Jared Israel is a zionist"...

I even remember when i accidentally cited a source on pre-WW2 Jewish German 
monopolies from a nazis website a while back to challenge a point you raised 
concerning the supposed non-existence of German-Jewish corporate monoploies, 
and your reaction was to go into a tirade...You did the same thing for the Chinese 
(or was he Vietnaness) chap who use to post regularly here...In fact you unsubbed 
him b/c he alledgedly quoted from an anti semitic source...Mind you, you never 
allowed him opportunity to defend himself...Where I come from, that's just being 
intectually dishonest. you don't simply not debate someone (an issue) on the 
grounds that your opponent is uncredible...For one thing, it doesn't leave yourself in 
good stead...For another thing, an argument should stand on its own merit...

2) I stick with the topic at hand; you resort to every slimy backhanded tactic to 
"defeat" your opponent...as you are doing now with your myriad smokescreens...

3) I try to my best to be gracious in defeat.. If I don't know something, I will usually 
acknowledge this...e.g., I don't purport to be well versed on marxism, for example, 
have not read that many seminal marxist texts (at least not to the extent of many 
people  here), and will acknowledge this...

You, on the other hand, become ad hominem, namely, attack your opponent's  
credibility (e.g., he is zionist, he's a anti semite, he's "not well versed in Marxism"), 
prop up your own (I am superious debater), change the subject (e.g.. hide behind 
Lenin...and "write me a 500 word analysis") , invent things...e.g., "no U.S. interest in 
Russia..."

I jolly old marxist of you too to be questioning my marxist credibility...I imagine in 
the rare instances when you're in the trenchs with New York's working class, 
debating workers ( as opposed the usual routine of sitting on your *ss in the halls of 
Columbia  or grabbing an expresso in the mean streets of Morningside heights) that 
when  challenged on a subject, you question the credentials of your challenger?

Anyway, I have said what needs to be stated on this topic...No more time to waste 
with you...

And P.S. I am NEVER unsubbing from the list...nor was I implying that i would...

DOQ

On 31 Mar 2005 at 22:59, Louis Proyect wrote:

> David O:
> >  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...
> 
> Actually, Rozoff was on the a-list for a month or so, but stormed off in a 
> huff when I challenged him. And that's a list that is much more friendly to 
> his point of view than my own.
> 
> >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 mind it when you post something that is uncontroversial. I only 
> object to crosspostings that contain an implicit defense of Putin's foreign 
> policy. What attitude to take toward the the Caucasus is extremely 
> important. It would be useful for somebody like Rozoff to actually spell 
> out a Marxist approach, but I am afraid that neither you, nor Rozoff, nor 
> Yarker seems capable of stringing together a 500 word Marxist analysis on 
> the topic. If crossposting items from the bourgeois press or the Kremlin 
> Ministry of Truth is supposed to be substitute for this, then I am not sure 
> how serious your commitment to Marxism is. Since this is probably the only 
> issue you have been truly engaged with here on an ongoing basis, one might 
> expect you to assume the political responsibility to spell out your ideas. 
> That is, if you have any beyond putting a minus where Washington puts a plus.
> 
> >  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)?
> 
> I have no plans to unsub you, although I have failed to detect much more 
> than a glancing familiarity with Marxism in your interventions here. 
> Basically, I regard the Rozoff, Yarker, Chussodovsky, Jared Israel 
> (pre-Zionist implosion) approach to be of dubious value. It would be of 
> some use to have a full-scale debate over how their methodology differs. 
> However, Jared Israel didn't like being challenged by Mark Jones here over 
> how to evaluate Putin and finally ran off, as Rozoff ran from the a-list.
> 
> >But don't take my word for it, send Jim an invite?
> 
> I have a better idea. Why don't you carve out 3 hours over the next week or 
> two to compose your thoughts and write an explicit defense of Russian 
> foreign policy that is implicit in all your crosspostings.
> 
> >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
> >responding...
> 
> I am sorry you find being challenged so burdensome. But this list is meant 
> for debate, after all. Perhaps if you just stopped posting items that gave 
> backhanded support to Putin's foreign policy, you wouldn't have to put up 
> with being questioned.
> 
> >"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...
> 
> What are the "politics" of Zimbabwe that you are defending? Like these?
> 
> Southern Africa Report
> SAR, Vol 11, No 4, July 1996
> GAY BASHING IN ZIMBABWE:
> 
> BY IDEN WETHERELL
> 
> Iden Wetherell is assistant editor of the weekly Zimbabwe Independent
> 
> Zimbabwe may soon find itself once again embroiled in a row over gay rights 
> as the World Council of Churches prepares to host its 1998 assembly in 
> Harare. The small Southern African country made headlines last year when 
> President Robert Mugabe vilified homosexuals in a speech at the opening of 
> the Zimbabwe International Book Fair whose theme was human rights. "If we 
> accept homosexuality as a right, as is being argued by the association of 
> sodomists and sexual perverts, what moral fibre shall our society ever have 
> to deny organised drug addicts, or even those given to bestiality, the 
> rights they might claim under the rubrics of individual freedom and human 
> rights?" Mugabe told a shocked audience that included Nobel laureates 
> Nadine Gordimer and Wole Soyinka.
> 
> full: http://www.africafiles.org/article.asp?ID=3877
> 
> >  Whenever the need arises, I'll make sure to consult with you that I'm 
> > taking a
> >proper "marxist" position...
> 
> A better idea would be to simply stop forwarding Kremlin propaganda,
> 
> >  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'd be surprised if you've ever read anything on Chechnya except the slop 
> from Rozoff's trough.
> 

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism <at> lists.econ.utah.edu
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism