[Debate] FW: The gentleperson's guide to forum spies

peter waterman peterwaterman1936 at gmail.com
Mon Jul 16 11:59:21 BST 2012 

May I try to offer a serious argument to answer this somewhat heavy ironic
sneer?

It seems to me - without having previously given the matter the attention
it deserves - that there is no such thing as an unlimited pluralism. Unless
it is like the famous open mind: everything in and everything out.

So even the relatively open Monthly Review magazine (to be here
distinguished from Yoshie's MRZine) has limits to its pluralism.

So, no doubt, does Links. And if it fails some special Yoshie Pluralism
test, and even if I may disagree with much of what it publishes or even its
general orientation, I nonethelss think that most Debaters with sufficient
time at their disposal would find it a 'Left Pluralist' or 'Pluralist Left'
site.

And for a Left exception that proves the (general) rule, Debaters could and
should take a look at UnionBook, <http://www.unionbook.org/> created and
controlled by Labour Zionist, Eric Lee, also responsible for the much
better-known and more widely-distributed LabourStart. Despite his Zionist
predelictions, displayed full-frontally on his TULIP site, And his
pro-ITUC-ETC orientation on LabourStart, Eric has so far permitted the
posting, without limitation, on UnionBook of items both hostile to the
Histadrut and the ITUC-ETC. As well as a variety of items from Communists,
IWW activists, Anti-Imperialists, etc.

PeterW



On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi <
critical.montages at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's so hard to accept pluralism if it means inclusion of criticism of
> anticommunism and red-baiting.
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Henning Melber
> <henning.melber at dhf.uu.se> wrote:
> > Yoshie, can't you just once stop it?!
> > It's so annoying that it makes it really difficult for me to resist the
> temptation to quit the list. If you want to talk to you alone, then just
> continue like that...
> > -------
> > Henning Melber (Executive Director)
> > The Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation
> > Övre Slottsgatan 2, S-753 10 Uppsala/Sweden
> > Tel. +46-18-4101001; Fax +46-18-12 20 72
> > Henning.Melber at dhf.uu.se, http://www.dhf.uu.se
> >
> > "IT IS WHEN WE ALL PLAY SAFE THAT WE CREATE A WORLD OF UTMOST
> INSECURITY."
> > Dag Hammarskjöld
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jul 16, 2012, at 12:13 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> >
> >> LINKS, where we all learned a lot about "Gaddafi's African
> mercenaries," right?
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:09 AM, peter waterman
> >> <peterwaterman1936 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Mandi
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps Debate has something to learn from the admitedly Northern (if
> >>> Southern) Links list. It seems to be pluralistic, to carry forceful
> debate
> >>> (small d) and yet avoid that which you quite justly castigate.
> >>>
> >>> Pw
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Mandi Smallhorne <
> mandiwrite at icon.co.za>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> And I do come from a school of thought (primary school) that says name
> >>>> calling is nasty and not productive of decent discussion - or
> discussion
> >>>> that translates into action. If I may remind everyone: Debate is a
> >>>> listserve
> >>>> that attempts to promote information and analyses of interest to the
> >>>> independent left in South and Southern Africa. That is the purpose of
> this
> >>>> list as I understand it. I am of the INDEPENDENT left - nothing in
> that
> >>>> statement says that I or any other debater needs to follow a party
> >>>> political
> >>>> line. I want to hear debate, thought, analysis about a left future
> that is
> >>>> not stultified by rigid ideology but that has a real hope of making
> >>>> headway
> >>>> in the real world which is comprised, not purely of 'keyboard
> activists'
> >>>> in
> >>>> comfortable global north academia, but desperately poor people,
> workers,
> >>>> the
> >>>> middle class, and the full spectrum of human beings morally,
> politically,
> >>>> economically active in this life. I have respect for anyone who will
> >>>> contribute to the creation of a way that works to really change the
> world.
> >>>> In many, many of the people on debate, I see openness and willingness
> to
> >>>> think beyond labels.
> >>>> I am tired, tired, tired, of the dukes-up attack mode of 'debate'. For
> >>>> pity's sake, how does this get us anywhere? Given the nightmare of
> climate
> >>>> change rolling steadily towards us - a direct result of the
> fundamentalist
> >>>> free-marketry that has reigned for so long - can we please get over
> this
> >>>> petty ideological bitchery and talk about how to get real, I beg?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: debate-list-bounces at fahamu.org
> >>>> [mailto:debate-list-bounces at fahamu.org]
> >>>> On Behalf Of Yoshie Furuhashi
> >>>> Sent: 16 July 2012 10:59 AM
> >>>> To: Debate is a listserve that attempts to promote information and
> >>>> analyses
> >>>> of interest to the independent left in South and Southern Africa
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Debate] FW: The gentleperson's guide to forum spies
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't come from a school of thought that says communists must
> respect
> >>>> anticommunist red-baiters.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Mandi Smallhorne <
> mandiwrite at icon.co.za>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Contempt for older people is, it seems to me, highly characteristic
> of
> >>>>> a fundamental free market system which values people for what they
> can
> >>>>> produce rather than who and what they are (for example, we were told,
> >>>>> two years back when a 70 year old friend was killed by medical
> >>>>> negligence in a private hospital here in Joburg, that it wasn't worth
> >>>>> suing as he wasn't 'worth anything' since he was no longer a
> >>>>> breadwinner). I long since learnt to respect and appreciate the
> >>>>> experience and understanding of those older than me - they have often
> >>>>> been able to contribute valuable elements to my own thinking. And
> >>>>> crucial history: I love it when someone can show me that something's
> >>>>> been
> >>>> tried before and did or didn't work. R-e-s-p-e-c-t!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: debate-list-bounces at fahamu.org
> >>>>> [mailto:debate-list-bounces at fahamu.org]
> >>>>> On Behalf Of peter waterman
> >>>>> Sent: 15 July 2012 08:48 PM
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To: Debate is a listserve that attempts to promote information and
> >>>>> analyses of interest to the independent left in South and Southern
> >>>>> Africa
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Debate] FW: The gentleperson's guide to forum spies
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Evasion, projection and...umm?...ageism?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Pw
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PS. Got to go now. Have to evaluate and/or edit a paper on unionism
> by
> >>>>> some probably young person who is contributing to the development of
> a
> >>>>> new conceptualisation of and strategy for unionism. Definitely more
> >>>>> creative work than butting heads with someone whose ideology and mode
> >>>>> of expression belong to the Left of the Cold War or earlier.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi
> >>>>> <critical.montages at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you know you are part of a tiny (and aging) minority on the Left?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 12:10 PM, peter waterman
> >>>>> <peterwaterman1936 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Yoshie's problem with almost everyone on the Left apart from those
> >>>>>> who agree with Yoshie, strengthens my feeling that we should surpass
> >>>>>> the concept of a Left that includes both of these
> >>>>>> mutually-castigating parties with a concept of global social
> >>>>>> emancipation. This would enable us to debate, discuss and
> >>>>>> (preferably) dialogue about a not-yet constructed concept and force.
> >>>>>> And Yoshie could tell us about the utopia - beyond capital, state,
> >>>>>> racism, imperialism, patriarchy etc - to which her theory, ideology,
> >>>>>> strategy is directed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Pw
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi
> >>>>>> <critical.montages at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'd rather see a good divorce happen: the Left would be better off
> >>>>>>> if anti-anti-imperialists turned leftwing keyboard warriors like
> >>>>>>> Pham Binh & Co. just went ahead and followed in the footsteps of
> >>>>>>> Fred Halliday, Norman Geras, Christopher Hitchens, etc.  That would
> >>>>>>> be a win-win divorce.  Those of us who think that NATO doesn't
> bring
> >>>>>>> freedom or democracy and that veterans of the Afghan jihad and the
> >>>>>>> like don't make good democratic revolutionaries don't have to
> >>>>>>> constantly fight with those who do; and those who think that
> >>>>>>> anti-imperialism is generally bad (except when a proposed war looks
> >>>>>>> to be expensive) can get to make much more money than they are
> >>>>>>> earning now by making the same argument but to the right audience.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 11:27 AM, David Everatt
> >>>>>>> <David at everatt.co.za>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Sound more like ground-rules for a good marriage....
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 14 Jul 2012, at 4:24 PM, "Mandi Smallhorne"
> >>>>>>>> <mandiwrite at icon.co.za>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This comes from a website I have no info about, and seems to be
> >>>>>>>> intended as advice for those facing attack from something more
> >>>>>>>> serious than trolls, but I found some of these 'methods of
> >>>>>>>> spreading disinformation' amusingly on point! See nos 4-9 and 13,
> >>>>>>>> 17 and 19, for example. Ways of discussing best avoided..
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on
> >>>>>>>> situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of
> >>>>>>>> the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally
> >>>>>>>> used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or
> >>>>>>>> planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover
> >>>>>>>> up.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what
> >>>>>>>> you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public
> >>>>>>>> figure, news anchor, etc.
> >>>>>>>> If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal
> >>>>>>>> with the issues.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues
> >>>>>>>> and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic
> >>>>>>>> as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme.
> >>>>>>>> This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all
> >>>>>>>> charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild
> >>>>>>>> accusations.
> >>>>>>>> Other
> >>>>>>>> derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well.
> >>>>>>>> This method which works especially well with a silent press,
> >>>>>>>> because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through
> >>>>>>>> such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the
> >>>>>>>> Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch
> >>>>>>>> of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your
> >>>>>>>> opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make
> >>>>>>>> yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an
> >>>>>>>> issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of
> >>>>>>>> the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest
> >>>>>>>> aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and
> >>>>>>>> destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges,
> >>>>>>>> real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of
> >>>>>>>> the real issues.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is
> >>>>>>>> also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though
> >>>>>>>> other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate
> >>>>>>>> opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing',
> >>>>>>>> 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs',
> >>>>>>>> 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual
> >>>>>>>> deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out
> >>>>>>>> of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with
> >>>>>>>> issues.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your
> >>>>>>>> opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an
> >>>>>>>> answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works
> >>>>>>>> extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments
> >>>>>>>> where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without
> >>>>>>>> having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an
> >>>>>>>> accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never
> >>>>>>>> answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the
> >>>>>>>> opponent's viewpoint.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be
> >>>>>>>> taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal
> >>>>>>>> agenda or other bias.
> >>>>>>>> This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the
> >>>>>>>> defensive.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with
> >>>>>>>> authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and
> >>>>>>>> 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it
> >>>>>>>> isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why
> >>>>>>>> or citing sources.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is
> >>>>>>>> offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any
> >>>>>>>> credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a
> >>>>>>>> point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum
> >>>>>>>> effect.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the
> >>>>>>>> straw man
> >>>>>>>> -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone
> >>>>>>>> will make charges early on which can be or were already easily
> >>>>>>>> dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter
> >>>>>>>> not be so easily
> >>>>>>>> contained.)
> >>>>>>>> Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man
> >>>>>>>> issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial
> >>>>>>>> contingency plans.
> >>>>>>>> Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground
> >>>>>>>> uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge
> >>>>>>>> and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address
> >>>>>>>> current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was
> >>>>>>>> involved with the original source.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor
> >>>>>>>> matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess'
> >>>>>>>> with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made --
> >>>>>>>> but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all
> >>>>>>>> out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just
> >>>>>>>> isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and
> >>>>>>>> even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense'
> >>>>>>>> because
> >>>>>>>> you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can
> >>>>>>>> garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to
> >>>>>>>> your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of
> >>>>>>>> events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and
> >>>>>>>> events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This
> >>>>>>>> causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose
> >>>>>>>> interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by
> >>>>>>>> reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which
> >>>>>>>> forbears any actual material fact.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring
> >>>>>>>> opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which
> >>>>>>>> works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative
> >>>>>>>> thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions
> >>>>>>>> in place.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not
> >>>>>>>> fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the
> >>>>>>>> other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion
> >>>>>>>> with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning
> >>>>>>>> attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially
> >>>>>>>> well with companions who can 'argue'
> >>>>>>>> with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in
> >>>>>>>> order to avoid discussing more key issues.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do
> >>>>>>>> anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into
> >>>>>>>> emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and
> >>>>>>>> overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat
> >>>>>>>> less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in
> >>>>>>>> the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses
> >>>>>>>> the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on
> >>>>>>>> how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is
> >>>>>>>> perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what
> >>>>>>>> material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim
> >>>>>>>> the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for
> >>>>>>>> the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal,
> >>>>>>>> or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or
> >>>>>>>> withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid
> >>>>>>>> discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically
> >>>>>>>> deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that
> >>>>>>>> witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by
> >>>>>>>> government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or
> >>>>>>>> clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent
> >>>>>>>> presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or
> >>>>>>>> impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed
> >>>>>>>> with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily
> >>>>>>>> separated from the fabrications.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered
> >>>>>>>> investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and
> >>>>>>>> effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open
> >>>>>>>> discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required
> >>>>>>>> to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the
> >>>>>>>> prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful
> >>>>>>>> evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to
> >>>>>>>> subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved,
> >>>>>>>> the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this
> >>>>>>>> technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also
> >>>>>>>> be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s),
> >>>>>>>> author(s),
> >>>>>>>> leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground
> >>>>>>>> via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony
> >>>>>>>> which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually
> >>>>>>>> address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be
> >>>>>>>> working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted
> >>>>>>>> media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger
> >>>>>>>> news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider
> >>>>>>>> removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so
> >>>>>>>> that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be
> >>>>>>>> by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of
> >>>>>>>> their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by
> >>>>>>>> destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging
> >>>>>>>> their health.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly
> >>>>>>>> illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid
> >>>>>>>> the issues, vacate the kitchen.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> __________________________________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> ____________________
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> >>>>>>>> signature database 7297 (20120713) __________
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://www.eset.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> >>>>>>>> signature database 7298 (20120714) __________
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://www.eset.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> >>>>>>>> signature database 7298 (20120714) __________
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://www.eset.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Debate-list mailing list
> >>>>>>>> Debate-list at fahamu.org
> >>>>>>>> http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> Debate-list mailing list
> >>>>>>>> Debate-list at fahamu.org
> >>>>>>>> http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Yoshie Furuhashi
> >>>>>>> <http://mrzine.org/>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> Debate-list mailing list
> >>>>>>> Debate-list at fahamu.org
> >>>>>>> http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> 1. Contribute to Journal Special on 'New Worker Movements'!
> >>>>>> 2. Blog: http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman
> >>>>>> 3. EBook 2011, 'Under, Against, Beyond - Essays 1980s- 1990s
> >>>>>> shttp://www.into-ebooks.com/book/under-against-beyond/
> >>>>>> 4. WorkingPaper 2012: 'Emancipatory Labour Studies':
> >>>>>> 5. Draft EBook 2012: 'Recovering Internationalism - Essays 2000-10'
> >>>>>> (draft):
> >>>>>>     http://www.scribd.com/doc/82125289/ReCovIntComp-A-2
> >>>>>>     http://www.scribd.com/doc/82129474/ReCovtIntComp-B-2
> >>>>>> 6. Essay 2012: 'The 2nd Coming of the World Federation of Trade
> >>>> Unions':
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Debate-list mailing list
> >>>>>> Debate-list at fahamu.org
> >>>>>> http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Yoshie Furuhashi
> >>>>> <http://mrzine.org/>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Debate-list mailing list
> >>>>> Debate-list at fahamu.org
> >>>>> http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> 1. Contribute to Journal Special on 'New Worker Movements'!
> >>>>> 2. Blog: http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman
> >>>>> 3. EBook 2011, 'Under, Against, Beyond - Essays 1980s- 1990s
> >>>>> shttp://www.into-ebooks.com/book/under-against-beyond/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 4. WorkingPaper 2012: 'Emancipatory Labour Studies':
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 5. Draft EBook 2012: 'Recovering Internationalism - Essays 2000-10'
> >>>> (draft):
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     http://www.scribd.com/doc/82125289/ReCovIntComp-A-2
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     http://www.scribd.com/doc/82129474/ReCovtIntComp-B-2
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 6. Essay 2012: 'The 2nd Coming of the World Federation of Trade
> >>>>> Unions':
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> >>>>> signature database 7301 (20120715) __________
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.eset.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Debate-list mailing list
> >>>>> Debate-list at fahamu.org
> >>>>> http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Yoshie Furuhashi
> >>>> <http://mrzine.org/>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Debate-list mailing list
> >>>> Debate-list at fahamu.org
> >>>> http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
> >>>>
> >>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> >>>> signature
> >>>> database 7302 (20120716) __________
> >>>>
> >>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.eset.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> >>>> signature
> >>>> database 7302 (20120716) __________
> >>>>
> >>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.eset.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Debate-list mailing list
> >>>> Debate-list at fahamu.org
> >>>> http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> 1. Contribute to Journal Special on 'New Worker Movements'!
> >>> 2. Blog: http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman
> >>> 3. EBook 2011, 'Under, Against, Beyond - Essays 1980s-
> >>> 1990s shttp://www.into-ebooks.com/book/under-against-beyond/
> >>> 4. WorkingPaper 2012: 'Emancipatory Labour Studies':
> >>> 5. Draft EBook 2012: 'Recovering Internationalism - Essays 2000-10'
> (draft):
> >>>     http://www.scribd.com/doc/82125289/ReCovIntComp-A-2
> >>>     http://www.scribd.com/doc/82129474/ReCovtIntComp-B-2
> >>> 6. Essay 2012: 'The 2nd Coming of the World Federation of Trade
> Unions':
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Debate-list mailing list
> >>> Debate-list at fahamu.org
> >>> http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Yoshie Furuhashi
> >> <http://mrzine.org/>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Debate-list mailing list
> >> Debate-list at fahamu.org
> >> http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Debate-list mailing list
> > Debate-list at fahamu.org
> > http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
>
>
>
> --
> Yoshie Furuhashi
> <http://mrzine.org/>
> _______________________________________________
> Debate-list mailing list
> Debate-list at fahamu.org
> http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
>



-- 
*1.* Contribute to Journal Special on 'New Worker
Movements<http://www.interfacejournal.net/2011/06/call-for-papers-volume-4-issue-2-for-the-global-emancipation-of-labour-new-movements-and-struggles-around-work-workers-and-precarity/>
'!
*2. Blog:* http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman
*3. EBook 2011, 'Under, Against, Beyond - Essays 1980s-
   1990s* s <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/under-against-beyond/>
http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/under-against-beyond/
*4.* WorkingPaper *2012*: 'Emancipatory Labour
Studies'<http://www.iisg.nl/publications/respap49.pdf>
:
*5.* Draft EBook 2012: 'Recovering Internationalism - Essays 2000-10'
(draft):
     http://www.scribd.com/doc/82125289/ReCovIntComp-A-2
     http://www.scribd.com/doc/82129474/ReCovtIntComp-B-2
*6. *Essay 2012: 'The 2nd Coming of the World Federation of Trade
Unions': <http://www.unionbook.org/profiles/blogs/peter-waterman-the-second-coming-of-the-wftu-updated>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fahamu.org/pipermail/debate-list/attachments/20120716/001fd631/attachment-0001.htm

More information about the Debate-list mailing list