From mstainsby at tao.ca Fri Sep 1 01:01:54 2000 From: mstainsby at tao.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:06:59 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Part II References: Message-ID: <002b01c013e2$835e35e0$395a7318@rct1.bc.wave.home.com> who was that Tom? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Warren" To: Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 4:32 AM Subject: Re: [CrashList] Part II > Don't worry Georges, > > As his last admin act before going on hiatus, Mark unsubbed this guy for > hubris. > > ... and blocked him, thankfully. > > Tom > > >From: Georges Drouet > >Reply-To: crashlist@lists.wwpublish.com > >To: crashlist@lists.wwpublish.com > >Subject: Re: [CrashList] Part II > >Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 10:10:34 +0200 > > > >Is this a very useful stuff to find a solution for the Crash? > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > http://profiles.msn.com. > > > _______________________________________________ > Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist From aabdo at webtv.net Fri Sep 1 03:51:17 2000 From: aabdo at webtv.net (Tony Abdo) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Reforms and falling short In-Reply-To: "aaron hoffer" 's message of Fri, 01 Sep 2000 01:26:45 GMT Message-ID: <6168-39AF7C15-3407@storefull-235.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Aaron, I got to tell you, Man, this idea liberals have of being pragmatists, while more revolution oriented activists are seen as sitting around with their thumbs up their asses, is unbridled poppycock. My argument with you, is against your idea of working via small compromises with power, for small incremental changes. That's a road to obtaining zip, make that capital letter ZIP. Don't work to weaken the system instead of working to beat the system. Is that really all you want, changes in the system? Change comes in bursts. as the system is broken down, not in little granted-from-the-top reforms. So stop writing down your list of requests on the petition to hand to the Czar, and get with the program of struggling for victory. My apologies to all the list members for this overly abstract discussion. It's just that liberals awhine, should be slapped in the face. HARD. Work with liberals, gasp))))..... do we have to??? Tony ________________________________ Tony, I agree completely that the capitalist system must go, lets get that straight. What I don't agree with is that we all sit around with are thumbs up our asses until the crash rips the foundations of capitalism apart. That day may still be a ways off, and I personally think we can do a lot of good, even if capitalism remains strong for some time, although we should, and probably must, be working to weaken the system even as we fight for changes within it. ??????My argument with you is your all or nothing attitude, which I see as self defeating. Why not work towards making a better world now, this may mean collaboration with social dems, and (gasp!) even liberals. And yes I do agree that many gains won will be attacked immediately under our current system. However at the same time we will be building a bigger, more effective mass movement that will be essential if our goal is to get rid of this rotten system. ??????Bye for now Tony, I need a drink, ??????????????????Aaron. From twood at uwc.ac.za Fri Sep 1 03:56:15 2000 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (TAHIR WOOD) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Will Anyone Take Any Notice??? Message-ID: >>> 09/01 5:46 AM >>> In a message dated 8/31/00 5:00:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time, twood@uwc.ac.za writes: << know I keep quoting Loren Goldner, but this man's work is just so rich and if I can't get any of you to go to his website I will have to keep posting snippets >> OK, so let's have the web address. I'm interested... Joan Here it is: http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/ Tahir _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist From twood at uwc.ac.za Fri Sep 1 04:05:07 2000 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (TAHIR WOOD) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] What is really worth talking about Message-ID: >>> "John Bunzl" 09/01 6:56 AM >>> Changing the system means a) a vision of a new system as a target to aim for, and, b) a way of getting from the system we are in now to the target in a responsible and secure manner which everyone can understand and support. It's as 'simple' as that and that is what I suggest we mainly discuss. John, I wonder whether you would like to expand a bit on some aspects of your point b) above. I was one of the people who expressed some scepticism earlier about the specifically political aspects of this. How exactly is the political process towards the changes that you want even feasible, never mind 'secure'? If we all on this list said that we back your proposals 100%, what would be the set of steps following just after that? Tahir _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist From tomzbox at hotmail.com Fri Sep 1 10:42:43 2000 From: tomzbox at hotmail.com (Tom Warren) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Part II Message-ID: >From: "Macdonald Stainsby" >Reply-To: crashlist@lists.wwpublish.com >To: >Subject: Re: [CrashList] Part II >Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:01:54 -0700 > >who was that Tom? > The person who was posting all the King George and lonnggggggggg arcane stuff about how we colonists should get back under the control of the crown. MacReady? .. somebody like that. He's prolly lucky we don't take him up on it. Can you imagine 270 million americans suddenly clamoring for National Health, the Dole and etc etc from parliament? Plus, if EYE returned I would want to cause a stink about the crown having given up the Acquitaine and Normandy ... but you know how us red-baiting imperialist apologists are. Best, Tom _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From INMOEMBRO at aol.com Fri Sep 1 17:09:17 2000 From: INMOEMBRO at aol.com (INMOEMBRO@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Reforms and falling short Message-ID: <55.a652d89.26e1911d@aol.com> In a message dated 09/01/2000 03:58:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, hofferaaron@hotmail.com writes: << Tony, I agree completely that the capitalist system must go, lets get that straight. What I don't agree with is that we all sit around with are thumbs up our asses until the crash rips the foundations of capitalism apart. That day may still be a ways off, and I personally think we can do a lot of good, even if capitalism remains strong for some time, although we should, and probably must, be working to weaken the system even as we fight for changes within it. My argument with you is your all or nothing attitude, which I see as self defeating. Why not work towards making a better world now, this may mean collaboration with social dems, and (gasp!) even liberals. And yes I do agree that many gains won will be attacked immediately under our current system. However at the same time we will be building a bigger, more effective mass movement that will be essential if our goal is to get rid of this rotten system. >> Thank you, Aaron. I struggled with trying to formulate an answer this succinct, and finally gave up. This is exactly what I was striving for. Joan From cbcox at ilstu.edu Fri Sep 1 20:51:16 2000 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Reforms and falling short References: <6168-39AF7C15-3407@storefull-235.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Message-ID: <39B06B23.64EB10A9@ilstu.edu> Tony Abdo wrote: > Aaron, I got to tell you, Man, this idea liberals have of being > pragmatists, while more revolution oriented activists are seen as > sitting around with their thumbs up their asses, is unbridled poppycock. > I realized about 30 years ago that the chief weakness of reformism is its utter failure to achieve reforms. (One can learn this from Lenin -- but not by just or even mostly by reading his "big" works of theory. It emerges from reading page by page in order the first 10 to 15 volumes of his CW -- seeing him engaged in the daily practice of making sense of the struggle as it unfolded.) I mention here just three points among many that have to be taken into consideration in constructing tactics and strategy. First, we (however "we" is defined) are never going to have a majority -- and to win our victories (small or large) must depend on the determination of the masses who do rally to the struggle. Secondly, voluntarism (the idea that by our correctness we can as it were force people into action) is utterly hopeless. In fact the conditions that generate popular resistance are almost never predictable. Rather we must be ready to respond to such upsurges when they occur (as they will) behind our backs as it were. And third -- it is always worthwhile, when possible, to strive to make life a bit better for those who suffer now. But those who aim only at that (as.apparently Aaron does) will achieve nothing, not even a few extra rations or vials of anti-biotic for the dying. Tony is certainly correct on the utter utopianism of "pragmatic" liberals. Carrol From kenfree at nettaxi.com Fri Sep 1 21:42:24 2000 From: kenfree at nettaxi.com (kenfree@nettaxi.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Au revoir! Message-ID: <200009020342.UAA08421@mail18.bigmailbox.com> Greetings all, It seems that virtually all those with whom I have really enjoyed communicating here have taken their leave already. On the other hand, among those few whom I have come to resent because of their style and/or substance, one has actually been promoted to co-moderator status here (Tahir)! Had I more time away from work to keep up with these developments, I would have unsubbed sooner. But better late then never. Mark, I am disappointed that you have chosen to promote rudeness and crudeness (ensconced in empty rhetoric) to such heights here on the list. I am also disappointed that you did not respond to my most recent challenge to your erroneous position on the question of open immigration in the US (given the huge number of unemployed in the US). However, I do appreciate the erudition of which many of your posts have consisted, and I hope you (or your surrogates) will continue the practice of posting scholarly works separately on the website. Many of them are very worthwhile. I wish you Godspeed in your recovery, and regret that I will not be on the list to welcome you back. Adieu! Peace, Ken ------------------------------------------------------------ Nettaxi Shopping Exchange - compare products and prices, even negotiate! You pick your own price.... http://www.nextag.com/serv/nettaxi/buyer/Home.jsp From hofferaaron at hotmail.com Fri Sep 1 21:31:00 2000 From: hofferaaron at hotmail.com (aaron hoffer) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Fwd: [stop-imf] Moscow tries to calm IMF concerns over energy controls Message-ID: This article brings up an issue I haven't seen much about on this list. It seems to me that the U.S and maybe some of the larger EU countries will be able to obtain sufficient resources even when shortages are occurring elsewhere. NAFTA, for example, forbids either Canada or Mexico from curtailing the export of any commodity in times of shortage unless, they cut back an equal amount in their home countries. Next year there will be a big meeting in Quebec city to bring all countries in the hemisphere under these same trade rules. I would like to know what list members think the ramifications to the crash will be, if any, from these types of trade agreements, and conditional ties on loans. It seems to me that they buffer the U.S, at least, from feeling the full consequences of an energy shortage and would hence prolong U.S power. > >Moscow tries to calm IMF concerns over energy controls > >MOSCOW, Aug 30 (AFP) - Russian deputy prime minister Viktor Khristenko >attempted to justify Moscow's decision to reimpose energy sector controls >in talks Wednesday with International Monetary Fund and World Bank >officials here. > >At a meeting with the IMF's Moscow representative Martin Gilman and World >Bank representative Michael Carter, he said the measures were only >temporary and aimed at preventing energy shortages during the coming >winter, said ITAR-TASS news agency. > >The controls will force Russian oil companies to sell some of their >product on the home market even though they could make more money through >exporting. > >The restrictions were originally lifted in June on IMF insistence as part >of structural reforms it demanded in return for loans. > >The IMF has already said that the reimposition could delay new agreements, >Russian media reports said. > >Carter said that on September 12 the World Bank would be considering loans >to Russia worth about 200 million dollars for its coal and timber sectors. > >The Russian budget for 2001 is counting on IMF loans worth 1.8 billion >dollars and 900 million dollars from the World Bank. > >The IMF suspended loans to Russia in September last year because of the >lack of progres sin economic reforms. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From INMOEMBRO at aol.com Fri Sep 1 21:54:11 2000 From: INMOEMBRO at aol.com (INMOEMBRO@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Loren Goldner.... Message-ID: In a message dated 9/1/00 6:27:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, twood@uwc.ac.za writes: <> You are right again. There is a goodly amount for me to chew on there--perhaps a weekend's worth; since it's raining here (hooray), I can use the weather to advantage. Thank you. Joan From aabdo at webtv.net Sat Sep 2 00:32:31 2000 From: aabdo at webtv.net (Tony Abdo) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Pollution Damages Message-ID: <25340-39B09EFF-3428@storefull-233.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Radar probes pollution damage By environment correspondent Alex Kirby in Longyearben, Svalbard Scientists on an Arctic mountaintop studying pollution in the upper atmosphere believe it may be changing the Earth's protective systems. But their leader says he cannot afford to run his sophisticated radar array long enough to collect all the data that is needed. The radar is already obtaining data that could be collected nowhere else on Earth. The array, on a peak near Longyearben in Svalbard, Norway's Arctic archipelago, is part of Eiscat - the European Incoherent Scatter Scientific Association. The technique relies on the scattering of radio waves from the incoherent motions of the electrons in the ionosphere. Establishing trends Eiscat, whose members are Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Norway, Sweden and the UK, has radar installations in several countries. The project's leader, its science director, Tony van Eyken, from the United Kingdom, says his team needs to be able to amass enough data to establish clear trends. The ESR mobile antenna The Svalbard radar costs ?300,000 a year to run. Tony van Eyken told BBC News Online: "If I had more cash, I'd run more. "We have all this equipment, and we run for 1,000 hours annually. I'd run for 3,000 hours if I could, and it would be infinitely more useful. "In September I'll run the array 24 hours a day for 16 consecutive days, the longest stretch ever. Running for longer gives you trends, not just snapshots." Eiscat says: "There are indications that the upper atmosphere is very sensitive to environmental changes resulting from man-made pollutants transported upwards from the biosphere. "This could have an influence on the shielding properties of the upper atmosphere. Consequently, there may be a feedback effect on the biosphere." Echoes found Tony van Eyken says this refers to noctilucent clouds, which shine at night and are found at up to 85 kms above the Earth: "Nobody understands what causes them to form. "Probably they form around dust particles. But there's no record of them being seen before the 1880s, although they are more visible than the aurora, which is described in the records. "So the supposition is that they're the result of industrial pollution. We're finding strong echoes close to where they are. "What we don't know is what effect they may be having there, and possibly on the Earth's surface." Tony van Eyken wants to do more The Eiscat Svalbard Radar, ESR, began work in 1996, making improved measurements of the ionosphere and atmosphere at high latitudes in the polar cap, as well as of the coupling with the magnetosphere and the solar wind. Eiscat says the ESR's observations "will lead to major advances in the understanding of the whole chain of solar-terrestrial relations". Svalbard is the ideal choice for the ESR. The sunward side of the auroral oval, the region where the Northern Lights can be seen, and the cusp in the Earth's magnetic wind are usually at magnetic latitudes around 70 to 80 degrees. "Svalbard is at the optimum location for ground-based instrumentation to study the magnetosphere-ionosphere interactions in this region." Beacon Tony van Eyken is proud of the sophistication of the ESR array, which comprises a 32-metre mobile antenna and a 42 m fixed one. "They can detect a Stealth aircraft-sized object at the distance the US is from here," he says. "This is a very bright beacon for any civilisation that may be out there. Switching it on is a bit like going out into the jungle and making a lot of noise, and wondering who's going to come and eat you." __________________________________ JAMES K. WYERMAN Kids shoulder burden of dirty air Asthma rates are expected to double every decade. Summertime is gone, and schooltime is here -- with children walking or riding their bikes to school and participating in outdoor activities. Unfortunately, summer has left us with killer heat waves, smoggy cities and air-pollution alerts. In cities, the hazards fall disproportionately on the poor and minorities who are most likely to live next to highways and bus stations. This isn't just a matter of aesthetics and noise; it's downright unhealthy, especially for kids. Children are highly vulnerable to air pollution because their bodies are more sensitive and, being more active, they inhale more pollutants. Asthma rates are skyrocketing for kids, and are expected to double every decade, unless we change the current trends. The health impacts of dirty air are increasingly documented. Residents of our nation's most polluted cities face a one-to-two-year shorter life span than do residents of cleaner areas. More people die prematurely from particulate-matter air pollution than in auto accidents, about 50,000 per year. What's going on? Didn't Congress pass the Clean Air Act in the 1970s to clean up air pollution? Yes, but most lobbyists know that the deal is not done until the regulatory process ends and enforcement begins, often decades later. Industry has been a master at delays, and without citizen watchdogs, laws can sit on the books for years. It is true that air in most of our major cities now is cleaner than in the last century. New power plants are cleaner as are many industries. Auto pollution is being reduced, thanks in part to the recently adopted rule requiring SUVs to meet the same emission standards as passenger cars. Yet serious problems continue. Fuel-efficiency standards haven't changed in 17 years, even though ``green-car?? technology is capable of producing low-emission vehicles that get 50-70 miles per gallon. Older power plants escape under a loophole. Global-warming pollutants persist despite growing consensus that temperatures will rise two to six degrees this century. For the healthiest among us, coping with dirty air might mean not jogging on a ``high-alert?? smog day. But for kids, seniors and anyone with an impaired immune system, bad air can be deadly. Moderate air pollution may trigger sudden death in people with existing heart problems, according to new scientific studies. The Environmental Protection Agency has just taken an important step to cleaning up our air: It proposes tougher fuel and emissions standards for diesel trucks and buses that would cut pollution by 90 percent. The result will be cleaner air in our cities, suburbs and small towns. Because diesel accounts for up to 70 percent of the cancers caused by air pollution, the new rule is not debatable from a health perspective. The public has had a chance to comment on the proposed ruling, and now we wait for EPA's decision later this year. Meantime, there's still much for the public to do to clean up our nation's air: ?Residents can urge their municipalities to buy low-pollution fleet vehicles and take steps to reduce their own use of cars. ?Voters can elect candidates who pledge to work for clean air. An industry lobbyist once said that on bad-air days ``asthmatic kids need not go out and ride their bicycles.?? Let?s stop the pollution instead of forcing people to stay indoors. James K. Wyerman is the executive director of 20/20 Vision, a grass-roots group in Washington, D.C From hofferaaron at hotmail.com Fri Sep 1 23:05:29 2000 From: hofferaaron at hotmail.com (aaron hoffer) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Reforms and falling short Message-ID: So this is abstract? Compared to what? Take a valium, I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were sitting around with your thumb up your butt. Aaron. > >My apologies to all the list members for this overly abstract >discussion. It's just that liberals awhine, should be slapped in >the face. HARD. Work with liberals, gasp))))..... do we have >to??? > >Tony _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From hofferaaron at hotmail.com Sat Sep 2 00:33:00 2000 From: hofferaaron at hotmail.com (aaron hoffer) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Fwd: SEPTEMBER 26 CALL TO ACTION Message-ID: > > > >SEPTEMBER 26 CALL TO ACTION > >Mark the IMF/WB Annual Meetings September 26: >Localize the Fight for Global Justice! > >[Slightly modified from Jobs with Justice call to action. See contact >information below.] > >The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) will hold >their semi-annual joint meeting on September 26, 2000 in Prague, >Czech Republic. The World Bank and the IMF, two of the cornerstones of >the international financial system, claim to be working to eliminate >poverty, but their real purpose is to force developing nations to >embrace corporate globalization. > >The result is rampant abuse of workers' rights and the environment and >the further impoverishment of the very people the World Bank and IMF >are supposedly there to help. > >Tens of thousands will take to the streets in Prague on September 26 >to protest these harmful institutions and their advance into Eastern >Europe. In cities across the U.S., coalitions of labor, community, >student and faith-based activists will organize actions against local >targets to highlight the same issues that our sisters and brothers >will be protesting in Prague. Here is what some are planning in the >U.S. on September 26: > >* Confront a union-busting employer in your community who is ignoring >his/her workers' right to organize. >* Protest a local privatization plan in your city. >* Hold a forum on canceling third world debt. >* Target a toxic-waste dumper in your area. >* Leaflet or protest at a Kohl's or Target outlet, to support >sweatshop workers in Nicaragua who are resisting union-busting at the >Chentex and Mil Colores factories. >* Do a leafleting or protest at a store location or corporate >headquarters of some other offensive corporation. >* Do an action at a CitiBank branch to pressure them to stop >purchasing World Bank bonds. > >On the occasion of the 55th annual meetings of the governing bodies of >the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, we call for the >immediate suspension of the policies and practices that have caused >widespread poverty and suffering among the world's peoples and damage >to the world's environment. We oppose those policies that have >encouraged the suppression of basic human rights and freedoms, >especially those specific to women, workers and the poor. We assert >the responsibility of these institutions, together with the World >Trade Organization and multi-national corporations, >for an unjust world economic system. > >We issue this call in the name of global justice, in solidarity with >the peoples of the Global South struggling for survival and dignity in >the face of unjust economic policies. We seek to create just >societies, where governments are accountable first and foremost to the >will of their peoples for equitable economic development. Only when >the coercive powers of the international financial institutions are >rescinded can such a society exist. Only when international >institutions are no longer controlled by the wealthiest governments >for the purpose of dictating policy to the poorer ones shall all >peoples and nations be able to forge bonds - economic and >otherwise - based on mutual respect and their common needs. Only when >the well-being of all, including the most vulnerable people and >ecosystems, is given priority over corporate profits shall we achieve >genuine sustainable development and create a world of justice, >equality and peace. > >Endorsing Organizations Include: Jobs with Justice * 50 Years is >Enough Network * International Brotherhood of Teamsters * Witness for >Peace * AFL-CIO * Essential Action * Communications Workers of America >* Center for Economic and Policy Research * Continental Direct Action >Network * United Students Against Sweatshops * Alliance for Global >Justice * Rainforest Action Network * Eighth Day Center for Justice * >Just Act: Youth Action for Global Justice * Global Exchange * Center >for Economic Justice * Nicaragua Network * Campaign for Labor Rights * >Citizens Trade Campaign * United for a Fair Economy * Alliance for >Democracy * Mexico Solidarity Network * The Shalom Center * Pride at >Work AFL-CIO. > >Cities Planning Actions Include: Albany, NY * Asheville, NC * Atlanta, >GA * Baltimore, MD * Blacksburg, VA * Bloomington, IN * Boston, MA * >Buffalo, NY * Burlington, VT * Chapel Hill, NC * Chicago, IL * >Cleveland, OH * Dallas, TX * Denver, CO * Detroit, MI * Durham, NC * >Erie, PA * Greenville, SC * Helena, MT * Indianapolis, IN * Ithaca, NY >* Knoxville, TN * Lancaster, PA * Los Angeles, CA * Louisville, KY * >Miami, FL * Nashville, TN * New York, NY * Oakland, CA * Orange >County, CA * Philadelphia, PA * Pittsburgh, PA * Portland, ME * >Portland, OR * Providence, RI * Raleigh, NC * Richmond, VA * >Salt Lake City, UT * San Diego, CA * San Fernando, CA * San Francisco, >CA * Seattle, WA * Springfield, MA * Syracuse, NY * Trenton, NJ * >Tucson, AZ * Washington, DC * Wilmington, DE. > >If you are organizing a local event for September 26 or if you would >like to learn who in your community is organizing an event, contact >Campaign for >Labor Rights at 202/544-9355 or . > >To receive a September 26 organizing packet, contact Jobs with Justice >at 202/434-1106 or . The Jobs with Justice web >site and the 50 Years Is Enough web site > have information on September 26 activities. > >Localize the Movement for Global Justice >Issues we can all understand: > >UNION BUSTING: A constant IMF/World Bank prescription for countries >where they operate is increasing "labor market flexibility." In >practice this means opposing increases in the minimum wage, weakening >trade unions and workers' bargaining power and opposing any social >protections that would make workers less willing to work for low >wages. In the U.S., working people face similar campaigns to erode >their power. Thousands of workers are fired each year by American >employers for joining together to organize unions. > >PRIVATIZATION: As a condition of lending money to poor countries, the >World Bank and the IMF often demand that governments privatize >state-run enterprises providing services such as university education, >health care, electricity and water. In Bolivia last year, the World >Bank encouraged the government to privatize the water system, making >water rates triple and making water unaffordable for many families. >Local labor, student, community and indigenous groups fought back >against the government's plan and reversed the privatization. The >drive for the privatization of health care and social security in the >U.S. reflects the same economic policies here at home. > >DEBT: The World Bank and the IMF continue to force poor countries to >pay back their debt despite the fact that many lack the funds to >properly care for their own people. The IMF/World Bank's control of >the debt issue preserves their power to impose unpopular austerity >policies. Sub-Saharan African countries spend more on debt payment >than on primary education and health care combined. > >HEALTH: Debt payments and neoliberal structural adjustment policies >have a negative impact on health in both developing and developed >countries. In most Sub-Saharan African nations, governments spend >four times as much on debt repayment as on health care, despite the >frighteningly quick spread of HIV and AIDS. In the U.S., 42 million >Americans are without health care coverage. > >ENVIRONMENTAL ABUSE: Policies of the World Bank and the IMF have had a >devastating impact on the environment. After granting Nicaragua a loan >in 1994, the IMF supported the expansion of the logging industry, >causing an increase in Nicaragua's already high rate of deforestation >(370,000 acres/year). At this rate, the few forests that remain in >Nicaragua will disappear quickly. In the U.S., corporate toxic-waste >dumpers benefit from similar policies. > >CORPORATE CONTROL: IMF/ World Bank policies have paved the way for >U.S. corporations to exploit the human and ecological resources of >developing countries. The WB/IMF encourage "free trade zones," or >"export processing zones," where a countries' tax and labor laws are >suspended to attract foreign corporations. Companies like Nike and the >Gap benefit enormously from such programs. Oil companies like >ExxonMobil have benefitted from World Bank- sponsored pipeline >projects that harm the environment and displace longtime residents. > >WORLD BANK BONDS: Universities, faith-based organizations, unions, >governments and other institutions that we control buy the bonds that >finance the World Bank. The World Bank Bonds Boycott is an >international campaign using grassroots economic power to demand an >end to structural adjustment lending and other environmentally and >socially destructive World Bank policies. > >WOMEN: Extensive data from around the world show that IMF-imposed >austerity and economic reform programs have stripped many women of >what meager health and education benefits were once available to them. >Women's formal sector unemployment has increased due to IMF-induced >recessions, privatizations and government cutbacks. > >_______________________________________________ >Iww-news mailing list >Iww-news@iww.org >http://iww.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/iww-news > >I N D U S T R I A L W O R K E R S O F T H E W O R L D > > FOR A WORLD WITHOUT BOSSES > > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From hofferaaron at hotmail.com Fri Sep 1 22:46:35 2000 From: hofferaaron at hotmail.com (aaron hoffer) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Reforms and falling short Message-ID: I'll let my friends know that I'm a liberal, they would be suprised. One more time for those who I seem to have trouble communicating with effectively. I believe we need to be fighting battles on many fronts. Some of these battles will be alongside those who do not think fundemental change is necessary. I WANT RADICAL FUNDEMENTAL CHANGE, but I am not comfortable waiting around for just the right set of circumstances to occur. A case in point would be the protests we've seen against powerful international organizations. Do you think we should not support these people just because many of them are not {yet} at the point of saying that we should scrap the whole system? I choose to support actions that I believe will benefit our world now, BUT I also keep in mind that my ultimate goal is to see the end of capitalism. Aaron > >Tony Abdo wrote: > > > Aaron, I got to tell you, Man, this idea liberals have of being > > pragmatists, while more revolution oriented activists are seen as > > sitting around with their thumbs up their asses, is unbridled poppycock. > > > >I realized about 30 years ago that the chief weakness of reformism is its >utter failure >to achieve reforms. (One can learn this from Lenin -- but not by just or >even mostly >by reading his "big" works of theory. It emerges from reading page by page >in order >the first 10 to 15 volumes of his CW -- seeing him engaged in the daily >practice of >making sense of the struggle as it unfolded.) I mention here just three >points among >many that have to be taken into consideration in constructing tactics and >strategy. >First, we (however "we" is defined) are never going to have a majority -- >and to win >our victories (small or large) must depend on the determination of the >masses who do >rally to the struggle. Secondly, voluntarism (the idea that by our >correctness we can >as it were force people into action) is utterly hopeless. In fact the >conditions that >generate popular resistance are almost never predictable. Rather we must be >ready to >respond to such upsurges when they occur (as they will) behind our backs as >it were. >And third -- it is always worthwhile, when possible, to strive to make life >a bit better for >those who suffer now. But those who aim only at that (as.apparently Aaron >does) will >achieve nothing, not even a few extra rations or vials of anti-biotic for >the dying. >Tony is certainly correct on the utter utopianism of "pragmatic" liberals. > >Carrol > > > >_______________________________________________ >Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From hofferaaron at hotmail.com Fri Sep 1 20:21:55 2000 From: hofferaaron at hotmail.com (aaron hoffer) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re:Will Anyone Take Any Notice??? Message-ID: > ><< Joan, I only wish I had a plan. >> > >Me, too, Aaron. I'm so tired I need a plan to get up tomorrow. And the next >day.:) >Actually, I am not a planner by nature. It is very difficult for me to look >very far ahead, and much of what I do is spontaneous and process-oriented. >Thus, my natural inclination regarding the crash is: gee, how interesting >that's gonna be--I want to be sure to not miss anything. (You know I'm >tired >when I let an admission like that slip out...). >That's probably why I'm hoping one of you guys is going to get a 'big plan' >brainstorm of whatever nature. Any plan is better than no plan, or is it? >Joan > Hi Joan, for me the real dilemma is how to build the foundations to implement any plan big or small. I'm very much hoping that the activism we see around the WTO and IMF/WB is the beginnings of that foundation. Aaron. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From JoeMosley at aol.com Sat Sep 2 09:48:46 2000 From: JoeMosley at aol.com (JoeMosley@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] change me to daily digest!! Message-ID: <6f.9fc6128.26e27b5e@aol.com> In a message dated 8/2/00 2:40:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, crebello@antares.com.br writes: << Subj: Re: [CrashList] change me to daily digest!! Me too, please! Digest me! JoeMosley@aol.com > Too many emails!! > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist From aabdo at webtv.net Sat Sep 2 12:06:51 2000 From: aabdo at webtv.net (Tony Abdo) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] : SEPTEMBER 26 CALL TO ACTION In-Reply-To: "aaron hoffer" 's message of Sat, 02 Sep 2000 06:33:00 GMT Message-ID: <8754-39B141BB-4706@storefull-231.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Aaron, I think we are more together in our thinking than our exchanges might seem to suggest. Building the September 26 actions is exacly something we agree on, and I have sent the information you posted to a group of student activists in Monterrey connected with the Zapatista current who are also planning a September 26 demonstration. They had been asking info about what is going on in the US. So together in the struggle, Teamsters and Turtles, Communists and Anarchists, Liberals and those with their thumbs up somewhere high..... And most of all, together in struggle, all of us that mostly fit somewhere in-between these categories above. Solidarity together, All! The Movement is beginning to build. Tony From INMOEMBRO at aol.com Sat Sep 2 15:48:37 2000 From: INMOEMBRO at aol.com (INMOEMBRO@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Reforms and falling short Message-ID: <13.a4c6fce.26e2cfb5@aol.com> In a message dated 9/2/00 12:40:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, hofferaaron@hotmail.com writes: <> I think, Aaron, that to someone who thinks in binary terms (black and white), all the the greys and colors in-between are abstract (to them). It's simply a color-blindness of a sort. Sometimes it's simply a matter of being young... perhaps not just in age. It may be the emotional immaturity that seems to characterize much of our culture that conditions people to be impatient. It takes a lot of patience to learn to see all the 'colors'. (And there are some colors that our physical eyes cannot apprehend, but our minds do, and thus we have dreams in colors we cannot describe upon waking.) But before we can learn to see, we need to learn how to look. That was actually the subject of the first lecture I had in art school. But only the introduction to the subject, which was renewed with every instructor in every course. The college no longer exists, and I suspect that art is no longer taught in this fashion. Fashions change... with the times. If we looked at our times, and our century with a long lens, we could realize how great the changes have been in our lifetimes, more so than in those of our parents (who marvelled at changes, themselves). And how unprepared all of us have been for the changes of our own causing...and the results, bringing yet more change. Truly the only constant. Impatience is unnecessary; it mainly serves to blur the vision. Joan From INMOEMBRO at aol.com Sat Sep 2 16:00:55 2000 From: INMOEMBRO at aol.com (INMOEMBRO@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re:Will Anyone Take Any Notice??? Message-ID: In a message dated 9/2/00 2:40:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time, hofferaaron@hotmail.com writes: << for me the real dilemma is how to build the foundations to implement any plan big or small. I'm very much hoping that the activism we see around the WTO and IMF/WB is the beginnings of that foundation. >> Do you have in mind something like the sort of thing the religious right was using to organize grass-roots groups? Because they used local churches as a base, they had a safer and more focused staging mechanism. I say safer, because you will have a great number of persons who are motivated and on your side, but who also remember vividly the paranoia of the sixties and seventies, who stopped protesting because of the 'goons with cameras' everywhere they went. Also the harrassment in their homes...(Also my memory goes back to the McCarthy days, when people actually hid in their homes from their neighbors. The witch-hunting became a neighborhood sport. THAT was paranoia.) You need a community focal point that offers this canopy of protection (well, somewhat) in order to get these folks out from in front of their toobs. Otherwise, they will lurk to watch you with the TV as an interface. Body-count is what will matter for you from the outset. And commitment. And some way to rouse it. Joan From aabdo at webtv.net Sat Sep 2 16:25:49 2000 From: aabdo at webtv.net (Tony Abdo) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Black ad White, or in Living Color? Message-ID: <25337-39B17E6D-7164@storefull-233.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <> In rely, Joan offers- Joan, I have a family member who attacks my politics in the same manner, though a much ruder style yet. I, in his view, am Mr. Black and White, All or Nothing. I just don't get how much difference there is between Al and George W. like he does. And worse yet, I just don't understand how Clinton has done so much progress. To him, this is seeing the world in color, being mature as opposed to immature. You add yet another version, by referring to non-reformism as being 'binary' and 'impatient'. I always tell him that I feel so sad for him, as he ours over Bush and Gore with a microscope, looking for differences. Oh yes, he knows how to look and imagine! How sad and delusionary is the world of the reformist, liberal. Your mystical, and yet rude, out-lining of the mind set, does nothing to give it a colorful glow, or change this world view that leads to constant defeat. Tony From INMOEMBRO at aol.com Sat Sep 2 15:50:45 2000 From: INMOEMBRO at aol.com (INMOEMBRO@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Reforms and falling short Message-ID: <5d.2fdbc4.26e2d035@aol.com> In a message dated 9/2/00 2:03:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, hofferaaron@hotmail.com writes: << BUT I also keep in mind that my ultimate goal is to see the end of capitalism. >> BUT: what do you visualize in its place? Joan From INMOEMBRO at aol.com Sat Sep 2 17:43:51 2000 From: INMOEMBRO at aol.com (INMOEMBRO@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Black ad White, or in Living Color? Message-ID: In a message dated 9/2/00 3:26:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time, aabdo@webtv.net writes: << by referring to non-reformism as being 'binary' and 'impatient'. >> You are making an assumption, here, Tony. This is not what I am suggesting. Part of what I wanted to say was that you will never, ever be satisfied with any progress at all if your goals are absolute, not incremental. And no one will ever agree with you completely, so you need to allow for differences in individual viewpoints. Otherwise, it will always seem to you like it's you against everyone else, and you can't even hope for cooperation, let alone being heard. This is an extremely tolerant forum, compared to many. So--rave on. Joan From tomzbox at hotmail.com Sat Sep 2 12:56:24 2000 From: tomzbox at hotmail.com (Tom Warren) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] change me to daily digest!! Message-ID: Okay, Here's the deal... See this message? -------> > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist (It's at the bottom of each post to the list.) Click on the link, load the page up, scroll down to the bottom of the page, put your email address in the empty box, and click on the "Edit Options" button. It works, it really does. Please attempt to use this method first. Why? It makes MY life very much easier if you can try to do these things on your own. It makes Tahir's life easier too. Until I became co-moderator I never realized the number of these kinds of messages (along with bounces, unsubscribes and address changes)that Mark had to deal with daily. It's a lot. If you go there and are unsuccessful in your attempts to use the system, then I will go in manually and make changes or unsubscribe you. It would be best if those requests came to me off list. I thank you very much for your co-operation. And please, think about trimming headers and not sending 2 gigs of copied message below your "Me too" reply. Thank you very much in advance for your kind consideration in this housekeeping stuff. Tom Sincerely, Tom _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From tomzbox at hotmail.com Sat Sep 2 12:57:32 2000 From: tomzbox at hotmail.com (Tom Warren) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Housekeeping Message-ID: Sorry for the duplicate message. It suddenly occurred to me that 99% of the list won't read it under the original title. Okay, Here's the deal... See this message? -------> > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist (It's at the bottom of each post to the list.) Click on the link, load the page up, scroll down to the bottom of the page, put your email address in the empty box, and click on the "Edit Options" button. It works, it really does. Please attempt to use this method first. Why? It makes MY life very much easier if you can try to do these things on your own. It makes Tahir's life easier too. Until I became co-moderator I never realized the number of these kinds of messages (along with bounces, unsubscribes and address changes)that Mark had to deal with daily. It's a lot. If you go there and are unsuccessful in your attempts to use the system, then I will go in manually and make changes or unsubscribe you. It would be best if those requests came to me off list. I thank you very much for your co-operation. And please, think about trimming headers and not sending 2 gigs of copied message below your "Me too" reply. Thank you very much in advance for your kind consideration in this housekeeping stuff. Tom Sincerely, Tom _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From hofferaaron at hotmail.com Sat Sep 2 20:42:47 2000 From: hofferaaron at hotmail.com (aaron hoffer) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Reforms and falling short Message-ID: > ><< BUT I also keep in mind that my ultimate goal is > to see the end of capitalism. >> > >BUT: what do you visualize in its place? > >Joan > Joan, this is the question that I ask myself a lot. I, along with everyone else are so mired in our current system that it is very difficult to see past it. One of the reasons why I joined this list is, that I had never before taken into account the reality of the crash. I of course had been aware of the vast ecological damage we are doing to this planet, but somehow did not integrate it into any long term thinking I may have done. I just assumed we would be living in a world with more or less the same infrastructure and same energy capabilities as we have today. I still do not know if the crash changes any thing that much, because for me, any society that I would envision, deals with the values that the society would promote, and those values would apply crash or no crash. What I do know is that capitalism thrives on humanities worst characteristics, the 7 deadly sins comes to mind, and striving to make society work in such a way that peoples better qualities are rewarded is what I support. As to exactly what that would look like I don't know. There are some things I think are important, such as, people having as much say in an issue as to which they are affected by it, Splitting up work in such a way that everyone does as much rewarding work and drudge work as another. And of course no way to make a profit off of property ownership. This of course deals only with the economic sphere and are not my ideas, they are from the work of Robin Hahnel and Michael Albert. There are so many other things to consider, so much so that it is overwhelming, and subject to where future events lead us. I am hardly qualified to know, in any detail, what is truly workable and what is not. All I can do is support movements that espouse values in which I agree. And also learn as much as possible from others along the way. I wish I could be more clear but I cannot. Sincerely, Aaron. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From gdrouet at brutele.be Sun Sep 3 08:59:17 2000 From: gdrouet at brutele.be (Georges Drouet) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Change the world Message-ID: Change the world is not an easy thing to do, nor is to create a new one in a sustainable way, i.e. avoiding the historical trick of going to war and start again because the only result of this kind of strategy is to provoke pain and misery and fall again in the capitalistic system dominated by the oligarchy who managed the war. The first step is not to ask how will be that world we all want because is not defined yet and it's impossible to do so... The first question to ask for is "How to proceed?" I think we must define our fields of action, i.e. economy, politics, sciences, education, sociology, etc. We may use different sectors, following the organizational chart of the UNO or the EC, and create teams in each field depending on the interests and capacities of each of us... How to compile this information? Is not an easy thing because we must choose one place with a kind of data desk in which everyone can download and pick-up the required information... Another important point is to define the priorities of our action: do we must act at a local level, a national one or, at least on a global way? I believe we can act locally by our own, I suppose we all live in so-called "democratic" countries and we can also change our politicians point of view acting through existing political parties, finally I'm convinced our international action can be conducted through a common political programme to be implemented worldwide. Concerning the last step, the global one, a question arises: Is it necessary to create a world party to promote the new vision of the society we are going to define? I think not, because that will take to long and will require so huge efforts. In a sustainable point of view, why should we create a new party if there is millions of them around the world yet? Thus, my proposal is to develop two different kind of actions, the Reflexive Team could be a team in charge of the definition of the policies we would implement in the nearest future as possible, and the second one, the Partisan Team, could be made of the people in charge of lobbying the current political parties to make them adopt a common politic able to change the world. How could we define the activities of each team? The Reflexive Team could use a common virtual place to propose, compile and synthetize the proposals sent by every participant in the process of policies' definition. Internet is one of this tools, but it shouldn't be the exclusive one, in fact most of the people requiring the real effects of the change we are promoting don't have access to the Net, thus we should complete our action using more widespread ways of communication as television, radios and newspapers on a national and local level. Through articles and free ads, we can ask people to express theirselves, thus compile and classify that huge amount of information and draw a sustainable world chart to be lobbyied by the Partisan Team. The Partisan Team would be in charge of convincing existing political parties to adopt the sustainable world chart. This actions should be carried at three different levels: - locally through meetings with our friends, conferences, personal encounters with local political representatives, distributing leaflets, writing articles, participating in radio and television interviews, etc - nationally promoting policies as a people's concern on political meetings - globally following the adoption of the policies in each country and acting into international entities (UNO, EC and other internationl bodies) through personal and official promotion, i.e. contacting people inside the organisation (person to person contact) and using official sollicitudes (entity to entity contact) Which are the problems we should resolve first? The most usual counter argument used by conservatives, and recently by left parties also is if we implement a sustainable policy including the necessary reforms to be effective, i.e. economical, environmental and social reforms, the transnational companies will first threaten the daring government and thus leave the country with their capital and jobs... The definitive and practical solution in to proceed in two stages: first make all the countries to adopt the policies without implementing them, thus in a second stage implement the policies simultaneously in all the countries. The second trouble is a question of time, the more we wait to change the current system, the more we will face deeper troubles, e.g. the ozone problem is not to be solve in one summer but, currently, will require twenty to thirty years to be fixed... As the whole situation of world problems is mathematically a exponential system, the more we wait to applied alterations, the more this alteration should be important! Remember, two years ago, a company making 15 percent more benefit one year to the previous one was commended, now companies have to reach incredible 25 or 40 per cent increase in their year to year benefit to be respected... This crazy race to nowhere is driving us to a faster depletion of natural ressources and an increasing and insane poor countries workforce exploitation, a neo-colonialism mixed with the implementation of local future war points (Colombia, Sierra-Leone, Bosnia, etc) under the false premise of world security... The sooner we'll act, the easier (sic!) will be our work... This consideration drive us to a contradiction in our calendar: do we have enough time to ask the world population about its concerns, compile them, analyse that huge amount of datas, synthetize the full stuff, draw the policies and promote them? I'm affraid not. So let us be pragmatic. Why don't we start from the root points, I mean promote first the basic changes that have to be made to create a correct framework and use the two teams concept. - Partisan Team working on the terrain, convincing people, parties, governments, ngos and corporations to adopt policies - Reflexive Team defining policies to be adopted. What can we do today? Most of us are convinced that economical, environmental and social troubles can be stabilized through few basic policies. Which are this proposals? - Re-regulation of global financial market - Cancellation of Third World debt - Political stabilisation through abolition of private funding - Precautionary principle in potentially dangerous new technologies - Dismantling and banishment of nuclear and mass-destruction weapons How can we cooperate on that? Currently, there's only one proposal answering all the previous questions, it's called Simultaneous Policy (SP). Many of us have been reading it on our site, but may be not deeply enough. E.g. have you noticed the section "Your Ideas" which goal is to compile people's concerns? Did you ask yourself: Is there another alternative in the current political, social, environmental world which could be as simple and efficient as SP is? Six month ago, John contacted me through a e-list, I read his book once, and then read it a second time and found no flaw on it. Was SP the panacea I was waiting for? No, of course, but it's mainly the best existing proposal I heard to change the world on a sustainable way... I think it's important to propose a sustainable way of change to be constant in our thoughts... How could we promote a sustainable world if we aren't sustainable since the beginning of our action? All this long post is made to convince you to think more precisely about SP proposals. We are currently reshaping the site and translating it to French, Spanish and German, but you can still adopt SP online and send your proposals, everything is free. You can be a member of other organizations, political parties, governments, you can be a student or a worker, a teacher or an entrepreneur, woman, man, Swedish, South African, Peruvian, British, Indian, Chinese or Belgium, whoever you are, you are living on this world and the world is sick of a incorrect managment. On the behalf of all the kids, and because it's the only world we can live on, we must change the rules and we must be cautious in doing that change to avoid falling in the usual wargame... Take a look at http://www.simpol.org and may be you can define yourself about adopting SP or even participate on one of the two teams, the Partisans one or the Reflexive one... See you on board! ------------------------------------------ Georges Drouet 28, place Morichar 1060 Bruxelles tel: 32-486 751 668 fax: 32-2 538 10 82 gdrouet@brutele.be From jbunzl at simpol.org Sun Sep 3 07:44:49 2000 From: jbunzl at simpol.org (John Bunzl) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re:Will Anyone Take Any Notice??? References: <18.1c100e4.26e09ddc@aol.com> Message-ID: <006601c015be$92b244e0$f65a87d4@oemcomputer> Aaron writes: << Joan, I only wish I had a plan. >> Joan writes: > Me, too, Aaron. ...Any plan is better than no plan, or is it? Sorry to push it yet again but a plan is available on www.simpol.org. To date, no cogent argument has been made to show that a better one exists. John From jbunzl at simpol.org Sun Sep 3 09:33:27 2000 From: jbunzl at simpol.org (John Bunzl) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] What is really worth talking about References: Message-ID: <006b01c015be$97587460$f65a87d4@oemcomputer> Hello Tahir and thanks for the message. I take it you are refering to the Simultaneous Policy (SP) proposal. Regarding the point about a 'secure and responsible' transition from the existing paradigm to the new one we all desire, first of all it should be clear that there are no guarantees in life so no proposal or plan will ever be 100% secure. What I wanted to draw attention to was that the ability of capital and corporations to cross national borders at will forces nations to compete with one another for investment and jobs. Since we have a more or less global economy, what this really means is global competition. Now competition is a funny thing because any player withdrawing from the competition or who fails to compete as vigorously as the other players will lose out. So our current predicament is one where political will/action for substantive change to the system cannot be unilateral but must be global. Furthermore, to provide maximum trust and security, any proposed change must take place simultaneously to avoid the risk/danger of anyone losing out. This is what SP proposes. It means that politicians can adopt SP without risking their political positions because the measures of SP only get implemented when adoption by all nations has been achieved. It also means that just about anyone of any political leaning can also adopt it. You ask "If we all on this list said that we > back your proposals 100%, what would be the set of steps > following just after that?" 1. Continue the back-breaking task of gathering adoption for SP as widely as possible. This will take a long time but we have always to keep in mind: "What is the alternative?". This lack of alternative, combined with the impending crash, should act as a spur to encourage adoption worldwide. But everyone who adopts SP needs to spread word of the idea and to promote it as far as their time permits. We are right at the beginning but, as you know, already have the support of some fairly eminent people. 2. To give you an idea of what might eventually occur, I forsee the UK political system offering a good opportunity for SP to come to wider public attention. Following is an extract from my book which illustrates how the dynamics could work: Quote: SP's non-party political approach can, perhaps, best be illustrated if one imagines a situation likely to occur in marginal constituencies in the run-up to a UK General Election. In these constituencies, candidates quite often become Members of Parliament by a margin of a mere handful of votes. When adoption of SP develops in those constituencies to the point where a critical number of voters - perhaps just a few hundred - had adopted and were willing to vote for any candidate that adopts, one could imagine the local SP organisation writing to each candidate in advance of the election telling them of this fact and asking them to carefully consider whether they, too, would like to adopt. In such circumstances, it is rather difficult to see how any of the mainstream candidates could avoid doing so and they would have to reply accordingly or face virtually certain defeat. It would then only remain for the local SP organisation to advise all those candidates that it will be delighted to confirm their adoption on the lawn outside the House of Commons in the presence of the national media. One can then imagine the newsworthiness and novelty of a policy that, perhaps for the first time in history, has been adopted by every mainstream candidate, if not by all candidates, across the entire political spectrum. News of such a novel phenomenon is then likely not only to spread rapidly and generate a vibrant national debate that focuses on SP, but it will also give added impetus and encouragement to the adoption campaign elsewhere. Indeed, in today's boring and vacuous political environment, I suggest this kind of news will travel fast. Unquote. 3. To really get a proper understanding of the dynamics of how the idea could spread, you would need to see my book (which I'll gladly send you if you wish). (By the way, Mark already has a copy and I'm waiting for his comments which I would be happy for him to post on the list if you think it appropriate.) I realise the above probably raises more questions than it answers but, I'm afraid, for those genuinely interested there is no real alternative to reading the book. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide at least some explanation. best wishes John From pjarnett at pdqnet.net Sun Sep 3 11:08:57 2000 From: pjarnett at pdqnet.net (perry arnett) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] the Plan References: <18.1c100e4.26e09ddc@aol.com> <006601c015be$92b244e0$f65a87d4@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <001f01c015c9$a6a64c20$1748adcf@perryarn> that 'plan' is flawed; - i.e. 1) it requires the voluntary compliance of millions against whose own best interest it is to comply 2) there is insufficient time for mega-solutions to be executed before the crash effects begin 3) the only 'solutions' are local : personal, individual, family, small community; not mega-state or global; 4) the only effective 'plans' are those not published to the world via the WWW 5) Joan writes: > > ...Any plan is better than no plan, or is it? it isn't . sorry; won't work... Perry ----- Original Message ----- From: John Bunzl To: Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 07:44 Subject: Re: [CrashList] Re:Will Anyone Take Any Notice??? > Aaron writes: > << Joan, I only wish I had a plan. >> > > > > Sorry to push it yet again but a plan is available on www.simpol.org. To > date, no cogent argument has been made to show that a better one exists. > John > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist From jbunzl at simpol.org Sun Sep 3 14:11:39 2000 From: jbunzl at simpol.org (John Bunzl) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] the Plan References: <18.1c100e4.26e09ddc@aol.com> <006601c015be$92b244e0$f65a87d4@oemcomputer> <001f01c015c9$a6a64c20$1748adcf@perryarn> Message-ID: <000b01c015e3$6c3a6660$065a87d4@oemcomputer> Hello Perry, You wrote: > "that 'plan' is flawed". I take it you were referring to the Simultaneous Policy. Thank you for visiting our website and I will respond to your points beneath each one in capital letters for clarity: > > 1) it requires the voluntary compliance of millions against whose own best > interest it is to comply I DON'T BELIEVE THIS ASSERTION IS GENERALLY CORRECT. PLEASE SPECIFY PRECISELY WHICH OF THE PROPOSED POLICIES WOULD BE AGAINST THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE MILLIONS EXPECTED TO ADOPT SP. > > 2) there is insufficient time for mega-solutions to be executed before the > crash effects begin YOU MAY BE RIGHT, BUT HAVE YOU ANY BETTER IDEA OR SHOULD WE JUST WAIT FOR THE CRASH? > > 3) the only 'solutions' are local : personal, individual, family, small > community; not mega-state or global; I THINK THERE ARE SOLUTIONS AT EVERY LEVEL. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT A SOLUTION AT ONE LEVEL DOES NOT NECESSARILY PRECLUDE SOLUTIONS AT OTHER LEVELS. I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND. > > 4) the only effective 'plans' are those not published to the world via the > WWW NOT QUITE SURE WHERE YOU'RE GOING HERE PERRY... > > 5) Joan writes: > > > ...Any plan is better than no plan, or is it? > > it isn't . > > sorry; won't work... I REALLY THINK WE ARE HARDLY GOING TO GET VERY FAR WITH SUCH GLIB DISMISSALS. AS, REQUESTED ABOVE, PLEASE SPECIFY WHICH OF THE PROPOSED POLICIES WOULD BE AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THOSE WHO ARE EXPECTED TO ADOPT SP. THEN LET'S HAVE A SENSIBLE DISCUSSION. LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU. BEST WISHES JOHN. From cbcox at ilstu.edu Sun Sep 3 14:32:29 2000 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] What is really worth talking about References: Message-ID: <39B2B55D.AA50A284@ilstu.edu> TAHIR WOOD wrote: > >>> "John Bunzl" 09/01 6:56 AM >>> > Changing the system means a) a vision of a new > system as a target to aim for, and, b) a way of getting from > the system we are in now to the target in a responsible and > secure manner which everyone can understand and support. > It's as 'simple' as that and that is what I suggest we > mainly discuss.>>> The following observations are more topic sentences than a developed argument, but they might be of some use. Marx (before he ad even himself became a marxist) wrote what remains the definitive comment on (a) above: "It is not our thing to write recipes for the cookshops of the future." Through our understanding of the present we can glimpse, in the vaguest terms, what *must be* if we (as a species or a 'civilization') are to survive. But it is not from such glimpses that the concrete future comes: that arises within the struggle to destroy that which is destroying us. "Positive" visions are at best foolish -- at worst totalitarian nightmares. For one thing, not one of us (or probably even our grandchildren) will live in that future. Our lives and the lives of generations to come must be lived out in the midst of a struggle for a world we will never see. It is a cruel mockery to pretend that that future can be our "reward" for the struggle. It also mocks the lives of all who have already died in the struggle -- and those who are dying today. That does not mean that Rosa Luxemburg was wrong in affirming (in opposition to Bernstein) that 'The final goal is everything, the process nothing,' but in grasping her truth one must remember that she was a historical materialist, not a utopian dreamer. Marx observed that we can understand the ape better through knowing the human: put otherwise, what we know is history, and to know the present we must see the present as history, which is to look back on the present from the perspective of the future. (Bertell Ollman is very good on this.) The final goal is everything in that it is only by our (very general) grasp of what must be, from the perspective of the classless future, that we can understand, make sense of, and organize the present struggle. But as a target to aim for, as the reward as it were for struggle, that future is nothing. John's (b), "a way of getting from the system we are in now to the target," is incoherent. Such a way does not exist nor will it ever exist. Mao noted that Marxists have no crystal ball (and neither do anarchists or social democrats) -- and it would require a most amazing crystal ball indeed to map out such a route from a chaotic present to a distant and only vaguely grasped future. Napoleon said something to the effect that is military plan was to act and then see what happens. We can work out general principles of struggle (though most have long since been worked out, so it is more a matter of archaeology than "new" thinking), but revolution (or even major reform) cannot be planned in advance. The world is too contingent. Hence the demand that a plan be prepared "in a responsible and secure manner which everyone can understand and support" is in fact a demand that the world never change. It accepts the present capitalist world as eternal -- history has indeed ended. Carrol Cox From aabdo at webtv.net Sun Sep 3 15:00:24 2000 From: aabdo at webtv.net (Tony Abdo) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Speaking The Same Language? Bilingual Education Does Work. Message-ID: <28909-39B2BBE8-1371@storefull-237.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Below, I have placed an article from the San Antonio paper, that contrasts bilingual education programs in Texas with those of California. What is core to the difference in results, is the attitude of the different business communities. Its not that Al Gore and George Bush both support bilingual education, as is asserted in the article. Since both are at best neutral to the presence of these programs coming out of the communities. But neutral is better than outright hostile. What is the difference between California and Texas, then? It has to do with the Texas business community seeing profit to be made off of bi-national commerce, as being a primary goal. Northeastern Mexico is the industrial powerhouse of Mexico, whereas California has no trading partner of similar status, sitting south of its border in Tijuana. Add to this, the fact that South Texas is predominantly Mexican-American, and this is an even further incentive to back off from overt opposition to bilingual education. These communities can design bilingual education programs run by the parents, not just a group of 'bilingual specialists', like in the California schools. And the parents use common sense to design the programs where Spanish language kids, are placed in an EQUAL status with the Anglo kids. In other words, English is not given preferential status. Guess what? This system works. And the big difference simply being, that the economic eiltes here don't actively work to sabotage the program. There's money to be made by leaving it alone. Tony Abdo __________________________________ Bilingual programs thriving By Edmund S. Tijerina Express-News Staff Writer While opponents of bilingual education are basking in news from California that appears to support them, a much quieter movement is building in South Texas among affluent and low-income parents alike ? to make sure their children know both English and Spanish. Ana McDonald: Learning should be forever "The upper class has always known and acknowledged the need for another language," said Ellen Riojas Clark, a bicultural studies professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio. "Now we're seeing other people realizing this." In California, limited English speakers posted dramatically higher test scores two years after bilingual education was curtailed. Opponents of bilingual education say the test results only prove that children don't need those programs. But others, including Texas educators, say California's numbers aren't that clear-cut. And many Texas parents apparently support learning in two languages. In districts as disparate as Alamo Heights ? with its Spanish immersion program ? and Edgewood ? where students at Burleson Elementary say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning twice, in English and again as the juramento a la bandera ? dual-language programs are emerging. At Bonham Elementary School in the San Antonio School District, many parents want the program to follow their kids into middle school. The sentiment differs greatly from California. In 1998, voters approved Proposition 227, a measure that dramatically curtailed bilingual education. Instead, the state encouraged immersion in English. After that vote, bilingual education supporters had predicted that Spanish-speaking children would perform miserably on state-mandated standardized tests. They didn't. In some districts that abandoned bilingual education, the scores went up. Supporters dispute those figures. "What is occurring in California gives Texans very little to learn," said Mar?a "Cuca" Robledo Montecel, executive director of the Intercultural Development Research Association, a group that studies education issues. "The state of California can learn a lot from the state of Texas, in terms of developing good bilingual education that helps students learn English and achieve academically." But while California's action has spawned similar referendums in Arizona and Colorado, movements to do away with bilingual education have not sprouted here. "I don't get the impression that bilingual programs in Texas are as bad as they are in California," said Ron Unz, the Silicon Valley entrepreneur behind the measure. One obstacle for opponents is that Texas does not have a way for residents to place measures on the ballot. "In California, without the initiative process, nothing would have happened," Unz said. "After what happened here, we would hope that the politicians would find the courage to introduce it." If Texas did have one, such a measure might very well succeed, said Joe Bernal, former state legislator and current member of the State Board of Education. "An issue like that would bring out the worst in people rather than the best," Bernal said. On the other hand, politicians and businesses support knowing two languages. Both Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore support bilingual education. In South Texas, businesses are expanding into northern Mexico and advertising for bilingual workers. The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce's bilingual initiative, Imag?nate San Antonio, has wide support. Beyond the boardrooms, the drive for children to grow up bilingual is spreading. Earlier this year, U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley called for creating 1,000 dual-language immersion programs, where students learn both English and another language, in the next five years. In addition to programs in Alamo Heights, Edgewood and San Antonio, dual-language is operating in the South San Antonio, Pearsall and Ysleta school districts. Next year, Northside is to start a dual-language pilot program at two elementary schools in response to a "growing interest," said Pat Blattman, deputy superintendent for instruction. North East offers only the more traditional bilingual focus, teaching subjects in a native language while easing English into the lessons. "While we're teaching them to read in Spanish, we're going to have a strong English component," said Elmosa Herrera, a bilingual specialist at Stahl Elementary. "You can't have a program where you do all Spanish and then magically they're going to learn English." In the dual-language programs, the ideal mix of students combines native Spanish and English speakers. From pre-kindergarten to fifth grade, the students go from having most of their lessons in Spanish to an equal mix of both languages. At Burleson Elementary, Principal Delma Luna said her kindergarten class scored on the third-grade level in math and reading abilities. "When they're young, our kids pass the TAAS (Texas Assessment of Academic Skills) in Spanish," she said. "By fourth grade, they can pass it in English or Spanish." But ironically, the parents often most resistant to dual-language efforts are those who speak Spanish as their first language. They remember the days when their tongue was something shameful. "We have parents who say, 'They already know Spanish,' but what they know is conversational Spanish. They don't know the academic language," Luna said. "In December, we have a program where the children read to their parents. They read a book in Spanish and then they read a book in English. At that point, we don't have to sell it to the parents. They sell it to each other." etijerina@express-news.net 09/02/2000 From pjarnett at pdqnet.net Sun Sep 3 15:00:05 2000 From: pjarnett at pdqnet.net (perry arnett) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] What is really worth talking about References: <39B2B55D.AA50A284@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: <002801c015e9$eff44420$1948adcf@perryarn> Carrol, some fresh thinking! Perry From pjarnett at pdqnet.net Sun Sep 3 15:00:48 2000 From: pjarnett at pdqnet.net (perry arnett) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] the Plan References: <18.1c100e4.26e09ddc@aol.com> <006601c015be$92b244e0$f65a87d4@oemcomputer> <001f01c015c9$a6a64c20$1748adcf@perryarn> <000b01c015e3$6c3a6660$065a87d4@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <002f01c015ea$0a143180$1948adcf@perryarn> ----- Original Message ----- From: John Bunzl To: Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 14:11 Subject: Re: [CrashList] the Plan > Hello Perry, > You wrote: > > "that 'plan' is flawed". > > I take it you were referring to the Simultaneous Policy. Thank you for > visiting our website and I will respond to your points beneath each one in > capital letters for clarity: > > > > 1) it requires the voluntary compliance of millions against whose own best > > interest it is to comply > I DON'T BELIEVE THIS ASSERTION IS GENERALLY CORRECT. PLEASE SPECIFY > PRECISELY WHICH OF THE PROPOSED POLICIES WOULD BE AGAINST THE BEST INTERESTS > OF THE MILLIONS EXPECTED TO ADOPT SP. > > 'which proposal' doesn't matter; what matters is whether one can get others to do his will - i.e. go along with, or impliment his 'plan' ; and the only way that can happen, as Jay has so well pointed out, is through politics : persuasion, coercion or force... people are not want to volitionally change their personal ingrained habits for 'causes'; they do so for selfish personal benefit : food, security, sex and power > > 2) there is insufficient time for mega-solutions to be executed before the > > crash effects begin > YOU MAY BE RIGHT, BUT HAVE YOU ANY BETTER IDEA OR SHOULD WE JUST WAIT FOR > THE CRASH? yes, #3 below; what some fail to realize is that this snowball is already rolling; we can either lie down in front of it, get out of the way, or help push it along > > > > 3) the only 'solutions' are local : personal, individual, family, small > > community; not mega-state or global; > . I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND. agreed, so long as that 'open-mindedness' does not include wishful thinking or false beliefs in the impossible or the unattainable > > > > 4) the only effective 'plans' are those not published to the world via the > > WWW > NOT QUITE SURE WHERE YOU'RE GOING HERE PERRY... anyone who has thought about this for longer than three years knows that mass action is silly; that the only effective action is private action ; and for that to be effective, it needs to be kept private... > > > > 5) Joan writes: > > > > ...Any plan is better than no plan, or is it? > > > > it isn't . > > > > sorry; won't work... > I REALLY THINK WE ARE HARDLY GOING TO GET VERY FAR WITH SUCH GLIB > DISMISSALS. where did you plan to go? "GLIB"... do you mean : short, sweet, concise, to the point? while some are proposing to shout from the rooftops to change the world, others are putting into motion their own carefully considered 'plans'; if that is being 'glib', so be it! this IS the 'crashlist' after all, not the 'false-hope list'... I don't have to agree with everything that pops up on the Net; similarly, no one has to agree with anything I offer ; that's called exercising one's freedom to choose - and implies the use of critical thinking... AS, REQUESTED ABOVE, PLEASE SPECIFY WHICH OF THE PROPOSED > POLICIES WOULD BE AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THOSE WHO ARE EXPECTED TO ADOPT > SP. THEN LET'S HAVE A SENSIBLE DISCUSSION. > LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU. > BEST WISHES > JOHN. ...got wood to chop and water to carry - Perry > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublis From jbunzl at simpol.org Sun Sep 3 16:03:19 2000 From: jbunzl at simpol.org (John Bunzl) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] What is really worth talking about References: <39B2B55D.AA50A284@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: <061b01c015f4$eed4c960$065a87d4@oemcomputer> Thanks Carol for your message. I don't pretend to have understood all of it but it does seem that your comments are made without having checked out the SP website. If I am wrong about that, I'd welcome your specific comments on it rather than the all too familiar retreat behind the past observations of Marx, Mao or others, however appropriate they may have been to the world predicament in their time. Look forward to hearing from you. Best wishes John From jbunzl at simpol.org Sun Sep 3 16:11:16 2000 From: jbunzl at simpol.org (John Bunzl) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] the Plan References: <18.1c100e4.26e09ddc@aol.com> <006601c015be$92b244e0$f65a87d4@oemcomputer> <001f01c015c9$a6a64c20$1748adcf@perryarn> <000b01c015e3$6c3a6660$065a87d4@oemcomputer> <002f01c015ea$0a143180$1948adcf@perryarn> Message-ID: <061c01c015f4$ef7ca220$065a87d4@oemcomputer> Perry, It is clear from your message that you have not taken the trouble to consider the Simultaneous Policy proposal and unfortunate that, perhaps as a result, you are unable to substantiate your earlier criticism. Quite apart from that, if as you insist, the only actions worth taking are purely private ones, I don't quite know why you are participating in this list. all the best John From cbcox at ilstu.edu Sun Sep 3 16:05:38 2000 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] What is really worth talking about References: <39B2B55D.AA50A284@ilstu.edu> <061b01c015f4$eed4c960$065a87d4@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <39B2CB32.651D8386@ilstu.edu> John Bunzl wrote: > all too > familiar retreat behind the past observations of Marx, Mao or others, > however appropriate they may have been to the world predicament in their > time. You misunderstand. I don't think this because I admire Marx and Mao. I admire Marx and Mao because they said it. It would be true even if they had not written on the point. Abstract plans of a new world are *bad* -- they are destructive. They help keep the world as it is rather than help change it. As long as we believe we need plans for the future we will be unable to struggle to bring that future about. The future (the quite unpredictable future) will be discovered in the process of the struggle to destroy that which is destroying us now. There probably is a scattering of people around who were persuaded to socialism (or to any kind of revolution) by glowing plans of what the world might be. But in my 70 years I have never met anyone like that. Rather I have encountered many people who got into struggle against certain evils and in the process of struggle discovered that those specific evils were related to other evils -- and also in the process of struggle discovered the delight that comes from solidarity in the struggle. Only at that point, usually, and this was my own case, did they at all start to think about what the society of the future should be like. Those of us who early realized that this planning was a mug's game stayed in the struggle. Those who got mired in plans for the future eventually dropped out. Carrol From pjarnett at pdqnet.net Sun Sep 3 16:22:48 2000 From: pjarnett at pdqnet.net (perry arnett) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] the Plan References: <18.1c100e4.26e09ddc@aol.com> <006601c015be$92b244e0$f65a87d4@oemcomputer> <001f01c015c9$a6a64c20$1748adcf@perryarn> <000b01c015e3$6c3a6660$065a87d4@oemcomputer> <002f01c015ea$0a143180$1948adcf@perryarn> <061c01c015f4$ef7ca220$065a87d4@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <007801c015f5$7e344720$1948adcf@perryarn> > if as you insist, the only actions worth taking are purely > private ones, I don't quite know why you are participating in this list. > John because at 60, I am still 'actively' learning ( i.e. I have not yet stopped thinking critically...); and if I listen well, say little, and have some luck, I will learn something; - and maybe meet someone of like mind... (Hi, Joan!) Perry From jbunzl at simpol.org Sun Sep 3 16:34:47 2000 From: jbunzl at simpol.org (John Bunzl) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] What is really worth talking about References: <39B2B55D.AA50A284@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: <06a601c015f7$82784780$065a87d4@oemcomputer> Carol, Apologies for my previous reply to this message of yours. I was under the misaprehension that it was made in response to the Simultaneous Policy proposal which, I now see, it probably wasn't - sorry. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carrol Cox" Cc: ; Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 9:32 PM Subject: Re: [CrashList] What is really worth talking about > TAHIR WOOD wrote: > > > >>> "John Bunzl" 09/01 6:56 AM >>> > > Changing the system means a) a vision of a new > > system as a target to aim for, and, b) a way of getting from > > the system we are in now to the target in a responsible and > > secure manner which everyone can understand and support. > > It's as 'simple' as that and that is what I suggest we > > mainly discuss.>>> > > The following observations are more topic sentences than a developed > argument, but > they might be of some use. Marx (before he ad even himself became a > marxist) wrote > what remains the definitive comment on (a) above: "It is not our thing > to write recipes > for the cookshops of the future." Through our understanding of the > present we can > glimpse, in the vaguest terms, what *must be* if we (as a species or a > 'civilization') are > to survive. But it is not from such glimpses that the concrete future > comes: that arises > within the struggle to destroy that which is destroying us. "Positive" > visions are at best > foolish -- at worst totalitarian nightmares. > > For one thing, not one of us (or probably even our grandchildren) will > live in that future. Our > lives and the lives of generations to come must be lived out in the > midst of a struggle for a > world we will never see. It is a cruel mockery to pretend that that > future can be our "reward" > for the struggle. It also mocks the lives of all who have already died > in the struggle -- and those who are dying today. > > That does not mean that Rosa Luxemburg was wrong in affirming (in > opposition to Bernstein) that 'The final goal is everything, the process > nothing,' > but in grasping her truth one must remember that she was a historical > materialist, > not a utopian dreamer. Marx observed that we can understand the ape > better > through knowing the human: put otherwise, what we know is history, and > to know > the present we must see the present as history, which is to look back on > the present > from the perspective of the future. (Bertell Ollman is very good on > this.) The final > goal is everything in that it is only by our (very general) grasp of > what must be, > from the perspective of the classless future, that we can understand, > make > sense of, and organize the present struggle. But as a target to aim for, > as the reward > as it were for struggle, that future is nothing. > > John's (b), "a way of getting from the system we are in now to the > target," > is incoherent. Such a way does not exist nor will it ever exist. Mao > noted that > Marxists have no crystal ball (and neither do anarchists or social > democrats) > -- and it would require a most amazing crystal ball indeed to map out > such a > route from a chaotic present to a distant and only vaguely grasped > future. > > Napoleon said something to the effect that is military plan was to act > and then > see what happens. We can work out general principles of struggle (though > most have > long since been worked out, so it is more a matter of archaeology than > "new" > thinking), but revolution (or even major reform) cannot be planned in > advance. > The world is too contingent. Hence the demand that a plan be prepared > "in a > responsible and secure manner which everyone can understand and > support" > is in fact a demand that the world never change. It accepts the present > capitalist > world as eternal -- history has indeed ended. > > Carrol Cox > > > _______________________________________________ > Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > From gdrouet at brutele.be Sun Sep 3 17:01:09 2000 From: gdrouet at brutele.be (Georges Drouet) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] What is really worth talking about In-Reply-To: <39B2B55D.AA50A284@ilstu.edu> References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 4070 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20000904/85c1bda1/attachment.bin From jbunzl at simpol.org Sun Sep 3 16:59:01 2000 From: jbunzl at simpol.org (John Bunzl) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] What is really worth talking about References: <39B2B55D.AA50A284@ilstu.edu> <061b01c015f4$eed4c960$065a87d4@oemcomputer> <39B2CB32.651D8386@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: <000201c0162a$e808c420$3d5a87d4@oemcomputer> Carol, Thanks for your further message (which crossed with one of mine). You wrote: Abstract plans of a new world are *bad* -- they are destructive. > They help keep the world as it is rather than help change it. As long as we > believe > we need plans for the future we will be unable to struggle to bring that future > about. > > The future (the quite unpredictable future) will be discovered in the process of > the > struggle to destroy that which is destroying us now. My reply: I think I see what you are getting at but, surely, 'struggling to destroy that which is destroying us now' could be said to be both a plan and a struggle; i.e. it is struggle to acheive an aim: to destroy that which is destroying us now. The aim to do away with something is therefore also a plan of sorts and certain beneficial future effects are envisaged. I would agree with you if any plans were made without the struggle to achieve them. After all, theory without practice is a waste of time. In the case of the Simultaneous Policy proposal, both theory and practice are present. Of course the future or aim envisaged by any theory, plan or struggle may well not turn out as expected. best wishes John From jbunzl at simpol.org Sun Sep 3 23:02:24 2000 From: jbunzl at simpol.org (John Bunzl) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] the Plan References: <18.1c100e4.26e09ddc@aol.com> <006601c015be$92b244e0$f65a87d4@oemcomputer> <001f01c015c9$a6a64c20$1748adcf@perryarn> <000b01c015e3$6c3a6660$065a87d4@oemcomputer> <002f01c015ea$0a143180$1948adcf@perryarn> <061c01c015f4$ef7ca220$065a87d4@oemcomputer> <007801c015f5$7e344720$1948adcf@perryarn> Message-ID: <008101c0162e$0a6a01c0$3d5a87d4@oemcomputer> Perry wrote: > because at 60, I am still 'actively' learning ( i.e. I have not yet stopped > thinking critically...); and if I listen well, say little, and have some > luck, I will learn something; - and maybe meet someone of like mind... (Hi, > Joan!) My reply: Fair enough, but then is it really worth commenting on proposals you have'nt taken the trouble to read/consider properly? That doesn't sound like listening well, critical thinking or active learning to me. best wishes John From durable at earthlink.net Sun Sep 3 09:23:22 2000 From: durable at earthlink.net (Barry Brooks) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:00 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Go on regardless? Message-ID: <39B26CEA.FF80FFC5@earthlink.net> Subject: Economic Repair Dear people, We need to find what kind of economy can provide people's needs without making too much pollution and without running out of resources rapidly. Our present consumer economy has many nice features, yet it is basically at odds with resource stewardship. Labor has been surplus relative to local natural resources for a long time. In today's crowded world migration can no longer provide an escape from depleted local resources, and imported resources are no longer abundant and cheap. Even though we face a growing shortage of resources we still pretend that labor shortage is limiting production. Our fear of labor shortage is obsolete. Since the dawn of the industrial age it has been necessary to constantly find ways to increase consumption in order maintain full employment. The left and the right agree that jobs are the only acceptable way to dole out money to the masses. Yet, when we create nearly full employment our powerful technology and out large supply of workers will always consume far too many resources for such hyper-activity to be sustainable. Only in our dreams is there no conflict between expanding the economy to make jobs and contracting the economy to conserve resources. Our present views rarely include any awareness that wealth comes from nature and inheritance more than from any work we do. To make our system work under present conditions we must admit that human labor is no longer scarce because machines with computer control can replace most paid labor, even in services. We should expect to shift our dependence from wages toward unearned income as automation replaces more human labor. Our system already has unearned income, but for now it is only for a few. Changing that is the key to becoming sustainable. Unearned income can end our dependence on jobs and growth. Whether our goal is to preserve the present pecking order or to help improve the lives of the poor, we must have a sustainable system for anything to really matter to anyone. Excess growth is the cause of our high consumption, and high consumption is the reason our economic system is not sustainable. Growth is the common problem of all classes! True conservation cuts consumption and that cuts production and that cuts real paying jobs and profits. No one supports a sustainable economy. Without true conservation we can continue to squander scarce resources to exercise all our surplus labor. Without conservation we can have our giant SUVs. That is our plan, left or right. There are four basic ways, I can think of, to conserve resources: increased efficiency, increased durability, recycling and by doing less. Durability allows doing less without having less. Efficiency allows using less in what we are doing. We can make deep cuts in consumption without sacrifice by designing new products to maximize their life time, efficiency and reparability. Durability will make it possible to stop the waste and pollution that are making our economy unsustainable. Because durability has been neglected we have a lot to gain when we starting using durability to conserve. Conservation of perishables using recycling and efficiency are already our goals, but the use of durability to conserve has had little notice. Yet, a stable population could use a general increase in durability to cut its resource consumption to very low levels while maintaining high living standards. If we could somehow accept unearned income for all classes then we could adjust the dole to stabilize wages. (No more tight money.) This will provide a mechanism allowing us to match the labor force to the real need for labor, instead of making jobs to match the labor force, regardless of the consequences. Barry Brooks durable@earthlink.net From twood at uwc.ac.za Mon Sep 4 07:26:27 2000 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (TAHIR WOOD) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] the Plan Message-ID: John Thanks for engaging with us further. I intend to go back to your website for another look as soon as I can clear my desk a little. In the meantime could I make one small request: please would you not reply in capitals like this? It is hell to read, at least on my eyes, and it is not hard at all to tell whose voice is coming through. If you need to signal who is speaking you can just put your name or initials in front of a colon, followed by your text, like this: JB: ............. Thanks Tahir >>> "John Bunzl" 09/03 10:11 PM >>> Hello Perry, You wrote: > "that 'plan' is flawed". I take it you were referring to the Simultaneous Policy. Thank you for visiting our website and I will respond to your points beneath each one in capital letters for clarity: > > 1) it requires the voluntary compliance of millions against whose own best > interest it is to comply I DON'T BELIEVE THIS ASSERTION IS GENERALLY CORRECT. PLEASE SPECIFY PRECISELY WHICH OF THE PROPOSED POLICIES WOULD BE AGAINST THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE MILLIONS EXPECTED TO ADOPT SP. > > 2) there is insufficient time for mega-solutions to be executed before the > crash effects begin YOU MAY BE RIGHT, BUT HAVE YOU ANY BETTER IDEA OR SHOULD WE JUST WAIT FOR THE CRASH? > > 3) the only 'solutions' are local : personal, individual, family, small > community; not mega-state or global; I THINK THERE ARE SOLUTIONS AT EVERY LEVEL. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT A SOLUTION AT ONE LEVEL DOES NOT NECESSARILY PRECLUDE SOLUTIONS AT OTHER LEVELS. I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND. > > 4) the only effective 'plans' are those not published to the world via the > WWW NOT QUITE SURE WHERE YOU'RE GOING HERE PERRY... > > 5) Joan writes: > > > ...Any plan is better than no plan, or is it? > > it isn't . > > sorry; won't work... I REALLY THINK WE ARE HARDLY GOING TO GET VERY FAR WITH SUCH GLIB DISMISSALS. AS, REQUESTED ABOVE, PLEASE SPECIFY WHICH OF THE PROPOSED POLICIES WOULD BE AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THOSE WHO ARE EXPECTED TO ADOPT SP. THEN LET'S HAVE A SENSIBLE DISCUSSION. LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU. BEST WISHES JOHN. _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist From hofferaaron at hotmail.com Sun Sep 3 21:26:24 2000 From: hofferaaron at hotmail.com (aaron hoffer) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Fwd: Chomsky replies re being reformist, etc.... Message-ID: Hello crash list members, I thought I would post a snippet of a quote from Noam Chomsky from the ZNet sustainer forums. >If a "reformist" is someone who chooses to act to >improve the lives of people, maybe people >suffering severely, then any sane person is a >"reformist." If it means someone who insists that >we must go no further than that, while the current >system of domination and authority must remain >intact, then no one within this domain of >discourse is a "reformist." Does it mean something >else? Then what? > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From cbcox at ilstu.edu Mon Sep 4 10:25:54 2000 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Fwd: Chomsky replies re being reformist, etc.... References: Message-ID: <39B3CD12.E9D811BB@ilstu.edu> aaron hoffer wrote: > >"... If it means someone who insists that > >we must go no further than that, while the current > >system of domination and authority must remain > >intact, then no one within this domain of > >discourse is a "reformist." Does it mean something > >else? Then what? Yes there is a third meaning -- that of classical social democracy when it still claimed to be socialist: the claim that capitalist could be changed into socialism through an accumulation of reforms. "The Parliamentary Road to Socialism." I think it is easier to work with those who are reformist in the sense of wanting only to eliminate specific evils than it is to work with those who believe those reforms can add up to socialism. The former are honest both with themselves and with allies. Those who believe reforms can add up to socialism are dishonest with themselves. Carrol From pjarnett at pdqnet.net Mon Sep 4 10:41:50 2000 From: pjarnett at pdqnet.net (perry arnett) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] the Plan References: <18.1c100e4.26e09ddc@aol.com> <006601c015be$92b244e0$f65a87d4@oemcomputer> <001f01c015c9$a6a64c20$1748adcf@perryarn> <000b01c015e3$6c3a6660$065a87d4@oemcomputer> <002f01c015ea$0a143180$1948adcf@perryarn> <061c01c015f4$ef7ca220$065a87d4@oemcomputer> <007801c015f5$7e344720$1948adcf@perryarn> <008101c0162e$0a6a01c0$3d5a87d4@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <007b01c0168f$06a3b3e0$1748adcf@perryarn> ----- Original Message ----- From: John Bunzl To: Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 23:02 Subject: Re: [CrashList] the Plan > Perry wrote: > > because at 60, I am still 'actively' learning ( i.e. I have not yet > stopped > > thinking critically...); and if I listen well, say little, and have some > > luck, I will learn something; - and maybe meet someone of like mind... > (Hi, > > Joan!) > > My reply: > Fair enough, but then is it really worth commenting on proposals you have'nt > taken the trouble to read/consider properly? oh, contrare'; I did read it - "properly"; enough to realize it is flawed; because I read it but don't arrive at the same value as you do, suggests to you that I have not read it? c'mon, John... how silly since this is the 'crashlist', and you asked for a 'plan' - let me suggest this for a rudimentary beginning : 1) do your own homework - learn the truth - forget the psychobabble 2) 'steel' yourself mentally and emotionally for the probable events of the near future; admittedly, not easy to do 3) research suitable sites for relocation - those that increase your odds for survival 4) get the hell out of the city - better a year too early than 10 minutes too late 5) acquire those survival skills you may not already have - i.e. horticulture and animal husbandry, plumbing, sanitation, etc. 6) prepare to hunker down and ride out the storm - as well as you can, for as long as you can 7) realize that the primary motivator for your own individual existence is to pass on your own genes, and that anything that will promote that (if you are awake) you will do, and anything that will hinder that, you will not allow 8) realize, thus, that 'society' means little to your genes, but that being well-fed and alive tommorrow means everything... 9) create the most 'luck' (good fortune) for yourself and your loved ones as you can 10) plan for the worst, hope for the best 11) with any excess time you have left over, try to recruit others to your 'mega-utopian-social-ideals' Good luck (we'll all need it) , Perry That doesn't sound like > listening well, critical thinking or active learning to me. > best wishes > John > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist From jbunzl at simpol.org Mon Sep 4 10:54:21 2000 From: jbunzl at simpol.org (John Bunzl) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] the Plan References: Message-ID: <003f01c01691$e2e98e40$e25a87d4@oemcomputer> Ok will do - sorry! John ----- Original Message ----- From: "TAHIR WOOD" To: Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [CrashList] the Plan > John > > Thanks for engaging with us further. I intend to go back to > your website for another look as soon as I can clear my desk > a little. In the meantime could I make one small request: > please would you not reply in capitals like this? It is hell > to read, at least on my eyes, and it is not hard at all to > tell whose voice is coming through. If you need to signal > who is speaking you can just put your name or initials in > front of a colon, followed by your text, like this: > > JB: ............. > > Thanks > > Tahir > > > > >>> "John Bunzl" 09/03 10:11 PM >>> > Hello Perry, > You wrote: > > "that 'plan' is flawed". > > I take it you were referring to the Simultaneous Policy. > Thank you for > visiting our website and I will respond to your points > beneath each one in > capital letters for clarity: > > > > 1) it requires the voluntary compliance of millions > against whose own best > > interest it is to comply > I DON'T BELIEVE THIS ASSERTION IS GENERALLY CORRECT. PLEASE > SPECIFY > PRECISELY WHICH OF THE PROPOSED POLICIES WOULD BE AGAINST > THE BEST INTERESTS > OF THE MILLIONS EXPECTED TO ADOPT SP. > > > > 2) there is insufficient time for mega-solutions to be > executed before the > > crash effects begin > YOU MAY BE RIGHT, BUT HAVE YOU ANY BETTER IDEA OR SHOULD WE > JUST WAIT FOR > THE CRASH? > > > > 3) the only 'solutions' are local : personal, individual, > family, small > > community; not mega-state or global; > I THINK THERE ARE SOLUTIONS AT EVERY LEVEL. I ALSO BELIEVE > THAT A SOLUTION > AT ONE LEVEL DOES NOT NECESSARILY PRECLUDE SOLUTIONS AT > OTHER LEVELS. I > THINK WE NEED TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND. > > > > 4) the only effective 'plans' are those not published to > the world via the > > WWW > NOT QUITE SURE WHERE YOU'RE GOING HERE PERRY... > > > > 5) Joan writes: > > > > ...Any plan is better than no plan, or is it? > > > > it isn't . > > > > sorry; won't work... > I REALLY THINK WE ARE HARDLY GOING TO GET VERY FAR WITH SUCH > GLIB > DISMISSALS. AS, REQUESTED ABOVE, PLEASE SPECIFY WHICH OF THE > PROPOSED > POLICIES WOULD BE AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THOSE WHO ARE > EXPECTED TO ADOPT > SP. THEN LET'S HAVE A SENSIBLE DISCUSSION. > LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU. > BEST WISHES > JOHN. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crashlist resources: > http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > From INMOEMBRO at aol.com Mon Sep 4 11:16:22 2000 From: INMOEMBRO at aol.com (INMOEMBRO@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Reforms and falling short Message-ID: <42.a479551.26e532e6@aol.com> In a message dated 9/2/00 7:56:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, hofferaaron@hotmail.com writes: << I just assumed we would be living in a world with more or less the same infrastructure and same energy capabilities as we have today. I still do not know if the crash changes any thing that much, because for me, any society that I would envision, deals with the values that the society would promote, and those values would apply crash or no crash.>> I wish I could believe in that. That is what I would hope for. But what I fear will likely happen will be more along the lines of the Rodney King riots in LA, except the race line would be instead: that of 'who has what who wants'. <> People will take those 'seven deadlies', with them where ever they go, they seem to creep out of the shadows of even the best without much warning. We won't be outdistancing our physic goblins if the sky falls: we will be facing them down everywhere we look. Can you imagine Lenin at some early point trying to figure out how to ensure that his followers actually followed his higher aspirations, and not their own lower inclinations? Must have driven him nuts knowing what they could do, but realizing that they would not. Morality and ethics will not be legislated; 'good behaviour' is much tougher to encourage without paying for it. Especially in a population raised in a constant barrage of media promises of instant gratification. How do you get people to behave better simply because it's better for them? I've read the suggestions that behavioural conditioning is appropriate, but I am not a B F Skinner fan, and I think we put that one to bed decades ago. There is simply too much appetite for control over others in the human psyche. << As to exactly what that would look like I don't know. There are some things I think are important, such as, people having as much say in an issue as to which they are affected by it, Splitting up work in such a way that everyone does as much rewarding work and drudge work as another. >> Well, when you say this to a woman who has raised sons in a family in which only the women do housework, just how do you think they will receive this good news? I'll tell you. They snort: Yeah, right. Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others and they are the men, not the women. Some of my employees are women of southeastern asian cultures in which the women earn all the income and the men stay at home (as holy men...). I like your intentions, but I don't trust the execution of them by everyone else, left to their own inclinations... There are exceptions, but I don't know very many. <> Oh boy. I just don't know where to go with this one. This country was originally inhabited by peoples firmly convinced that land cannot be owned by individuals. And just look at it now. Another telling clue is that although the native peoples seemed to inhabit a literal paradise, most of them were continuously involved in inter-tribal strife, not over land ownership, but territory nonetheless. The only contemporary societies I can think of that have the sort of structure you are thinking about are the ones deep in the rain forest that are being eradicated as I write this. They have no natural defenses against us except the rain forest: going, going.... way too quickly. Sorry, I can't be more positive and upbeat around the future, but I'm not seeing (and I use that word in more than one sense) a whole lot of good stuff once the dominoes begin to topple. Not until the population is significantly reduced (VERY significantly), will there be the sort and amount of mutual cooperation for which you hope. Most of the die-off will be natural causes, but how 'natural' considering the mess we've been making in the biosphere is anybody's good guess. Then there will be the natural human impulses to genocide as a somewhat lesser factor. If there is any wildlife other than humans when the population reaches bottleneck, it will be some kind of major miracle. I see this within the next generation. I am not particularly sanguine about the outlook, but realistically, we have created 'Interesting Times' for ourselves. We need to be prepared to deal with the unfolding circumstances with flexibility and resourcefulness. Joan From jbunzl at simpol.org Mon Sep 4 12:34:09 2000 From: jbunzl at simpol.org (John Bunzl) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] the Plan References: <18.1c100e4.26e09ddc@aol.com> <006601c015be$92b244e0$f65a87d4@oemcomputer> <001f01c015c9$a6a64c20$1748adcf@perryarn> <000b01c015e3$6c3a6660$065a87d4@oemcomputer> <002f01c015ea$0a143180$1948adcf@perryarn> <061c01c015f4$ef7ca220$065a87d4@oemcomputer> <007801c015f5$7e344720$1948adcf@perryarn> <008101c0162e$0a6a01c0$3d5a87d4@oemcomputer> <007b01c0168f$06a3b3e0$1748adcf@perryarn> Message-ID: <005c01c0169e$f67ced00$e25a87d4@oemcomputer> > > > Perry wrote: > > > because at 60, I am still 'actively' learning ( i.e. I have not yet > > stopped > > > thinking critically...); and if I listen well, say little, and have > some > > > luck, I will learn something; - and maybe meet someone of like mind... > > (Hi, > > > Joan!) > > > > My reply: > > Fair enough, but then is it really worth commenting on proposals you > have'nt > > taken the trouble to read/consider properly? > Perry wrote: > oh, contrare'; > > I did read it - "properly"; enough to realize it is flawed; > > because I read it but don't arrive at the same value as you do, suggests to > you that I have not read it? c'mon, John... how silly. My reply: Perry, you made a criticism of the SP proposal which is fine. I asked you to substantiate it but instead of doing so, you duck the issue you yourself raised and divert to something else. It is your continued refusal to substantiate that criticism which leads me - and I think most reasonable people - to suspect that you did not read it properly. You will understand that under the above circumstances, it would be unreasonable for you to expect me to read or respond to any proposals you might make. If, on the other hand, you care to substantiate your criticism, I'll be glad to continue the discussion. John From aabdo at webtv.net Mon Sep 4 12:30:55 2000 From: aabdo at webtv.net (Tony Abdo) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Reforms and falling short In-Reply-To: INMOEMBRO@aol.com's message of Mon, 4 Sep 2000 13:16:22 EDT Message-ID: <2614-39B3EA5F-3496@storefull-236.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Joan, Surprise! I agree with your sentiments 100%. Human nature in capitalist society is a hard barrier to move aside, or do away with. This question of how to move humankind forward to being what was called by some, 'socialist man', is a question of how to create a society with better people. People are products of their environment, even if a revolution has just occurred. People raised in an abusive environment are widely known to be rather abusive themselves, not the other way around. Conversely, people raised in a cooperative, supportive environment, themselves tend to behave that way when they become adults. Capitalism is a society that makes abusive, non- social behavior into a virtue..... 'the virtue of selfishness'. The job of humanity, Crash or no Crash, is to turn desired societal human characteristics into the opposite of what we have now. Socio-biology wants to convince us that it can't be done. If societal behavior is not changed, then .....All Power to the Cockroaches! Tony From gdrouet at brutele.be Mon Sep 4 12:49:04 2000 From: gdrouet at brutele.be (Georges Drouet) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] the Plan In-Reply-To: <007b01c0168f$06a3b3e0$1748adcf@perryarn> References: <18.1c100e4.26e09ddc@aol.com> <006601c015be$92b244e0$f65a87d4@oemcomputer> <001f01c015c9$a6a64c20$1748adcf@perryarn> <000b01c015e3$6c3a6660$065a87d4@oemcomputer> <002f01c015ea$0a143180$1948adcf@perryarn> <061c01c015f4$ef7ca220$065a87d4@oemcomputer> <007801c015f5$7e344720$1948adcf@perryarn> <008101c0162e$0a6a01c0$3d5a87d4@oemcomputer> Message-ID: Thank you Perry of being so positive, I will answer to this funny post on a funny way, take it cool, thank you. >1) do your own homework - learn the truth - forget the psychobabble Do you believe in one lonely truth? Which one? Hippie one, let's go back to the farms and broke tv, or may be the white occidental way of life with a anti-atomic shield in the garden, or is it the huitcholes shamanic one with great-eagle incantations, or what is it? A nihilistic truth? >2) 'steel' yourself mentally and emotionally for the probable events of the >near future; admittedly, not easy to do I don't think it's necessary to suffer physically from any pain to understand world suffering and despair. That's something coming from deep inside, don't you feel it? >3) research suitable sites for relocation - those that increase your odds >for survival Odds for survival? Do you mean to became a Arnold Schwartscamembert or a Rambo or may be a James Blond? No, no, let me guess! Robinson Crusoe! >4) get the hell out of the city - better a year too early than 10 minutes >too late Sorry, but to make things move on a right scale, we must live in the heart of the main big entities, London, New-York, Paris, Brussels, because the changes to be done must hit the right person in the governments, EC, UNO, WB, IMF... >5) acquire those survival skills you may not already have - i.e. >horticulture and animal husbandry, plumbing, sanitation, etc. John is a pretty good gardener and I'm a wooden boat builder -we might need one to sail away if our sustainable revolution fails ; -) >6) prepare to hunker down and ride out the storm - as well as you can, for >as long as you can World Crash will sadly start in the south countries, it's started yet some years ago and just increase its path to global South war (Colombia is the last South American Vietnam...) What I don't understand is how you can be that blind... Don't you remember swimming in rivers, runing in the beach, walking through mountains... Try to find peaceful places like that in the South countries, it's almost impossible yet: pollution, hunger, war, over-exploitation, guerrilla, overpopulation, Aids and so on have destroyed huge parts of the world. Well, it's easier to found sane trees in the so-called "natural" parks in the West of the US, pay your fee and walk in free... >7) realize that the primary motivator for your own individual existence is >to pass on your own genes, and that anything that will promote that (if you >are awake) you will do, and anything that will hinder that, you will not >allow This is the most "primitive" argument I ever heard. One question: do you have kids? I mean by your own? That answer might help me to understand this "basic instinct" of yours... I have four kids, one of them is living in Mexico with my first wife, I have been living in Mexico myself during seven years, in that time (81-92 with breaks) the life was pretty hard, but since the structural adjustment implemented by the IMF and the WB, each one of my friends there is obliged to work on two jobs to survive, pay the rent and breathe smog... >8) realize, thus, that 'society' means little to your genes, but that being >well-fed and alive tommorrow means everything... At least 75 percent of the world popultaion lives in cities, the concept of tribe exists since the prehistoric times, our evolution drives us to apreciate other basic things as freedom, compassion, love, arts, friendship, not only food and sex... >9) create the most 'luck' (good fortune) for yourself and your loved ones as >you can Our loved ones are the population of the world, our heart is big enough to keep humanity at large. Is it innate? For me it is, my father is French and helped jewish people to cross the German free line in France during the Second World War (Joseph Kessel in between many others), my mother is Spanish and suffer from Franco dictatorship. My first wife is Mexican and fighting with the Zapatistas. My three first kids are both French Spanish and Mexican. My second wife is Indian, from Madras, and our girl is a real mix. My son's girl friend is African... So, when you have the world at home, humanity is full of friends and keep care of them is just an evidence... >10) plan for the worst, hope for the best We plan the worst: the Crash We hope the best: avoid it That the reason of the existence of SP >11) with any excess time you have left over, try to recruit others to your >'mega-utopian-social-ideals' It's easier for us to take care of the world with millions of friends working as thousands of ants against the current neo-liberal machine, something called Marabounta!!, than for you to make your familly fit into your atomic shield in the backyard somewhere in the mountains... >Good luck (we'll all need it) , That's right and that's all > >Perry > >That doesn't sound like >> listening well, critical thinking or active learning to me. >> best wishes >> John >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base >> To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >> http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > > >_______________________________________________ >Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist ---------------------------------------------- Georges Drouet ---------------------------------------------- Visit our site: http://www.simpol.org _____________ ISPO United Kingdom John Bunzl P.O. Box 26547, London SE3 7YT info@simpol.org _____________ ISPO Belgique Georges Drouet 28, place Morichar 1060 Bruxelles ispo.belgique@simpol.org From INMOEMBRO at aol.com Mon Sep 4 12:40:29 2000 From: INMOEMBRO at aol.com (INMOEMBRO@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Reforms and falling short Message-ID: <94.915cf69.26e5469d@aol.com> In a message dated 9/4/00 11:36:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, aabdo@webtv.net writes: << If societal behavior is not changed, then .....All Power to the Cockroaches! >> Well, I would vastly enjoy being a fly on the wall, watching the roaches construct a value system, that did not discriminate between the brown, green and yellow families. No problem, all species will have a go at it, if we leave them anything to eat. Joan From LROBERTS46 at aol.com Mon Sep 4 18:25:27 2000 From: LROBERTS46 at aol.com (LROBERTS46@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re:Public schools Message-ID: I was at a Labor Day picnic in one of our suburbs yesterday. Two different professional women (one a school board member) said that the education system in California went to hell when proposition 13 passed. This law was passed because people wanted old people to keep their homes and not be pushed out by high taxes. The lie was that it also cut property tax burdens for big businesses like the phone company and P G and E. The main, proponent, Howard Jarvis, was connected to the apartment owners association. Property taxes were how we were funding our schools. So, the public school crisis is economic and caused by capitalism. From Borba100 at aol.com Mon Sep 4 17:21:05 2000 From: Borba100 at aol.com (Borba100@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Is it not slander because it is said by Chomsky? Message-ID: Quoting Noam Chomsky, zapata@sezampro.yu writes: << First, the facts are not accurate. The Milosevic regime has committed many crimes, but one cannot attribute the terrible conditions completely to its crimes. >> Not completely? Generous but - what crimes? Chomsky does not say. In the past, he asserted without evidence that mass atrocities had occurred. Now even the ICTY has retreated on the mass atrocities, so - what crimes? By what license does Prof. Chomsky make statements, identical to those found in the mass media, without offering even a shred of supporting evidence while simultaneously presenting himself as the critic of media lies and even of the demonization of Milosevich, as he has done in past correspondence with me. Best regards, Jared Israel From hofferaaron at hotmail.com Mon Sep 4 19:03:56 2000 From: hofferaaron at hotmail.com (aaron hoffer) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Reforms and falling short Message-ID: Joan wrote: ><< I just assumed we would be living in a world with more or less the >same >infrastructure and same energy capabilities as we have today. I still do >not >know if the crash changes any thing that much, because for me, any society >that I would >envision, deals with the values that the society would promote, and those >values would apply crash or no crash.>> > >I wish I could believe in that. That is what I would hope for. But what I >fear will likely happen will be more along the lines of the Rodney King >riots >in LA, except the race line would be instead: that of 'who has what who >wants'. I'm afraid your probably right, and that is why I hope we are able to make significant changes before the crash occurs. Here in Canada, there seems to be the genesis of a debate as to what will happen as the worlds resources become ever more scarce. Since Canada is a huge country with plentiful resources and a relatively small population, it seems likely that we will still have a surplus of resources when most of the rest of the world has run dry. Some fear the U.S coming in and taking what they want, others see it as an opportunity for massive profit, and still others think we should willingly share our resources with the most needy. If the crash were to happen tomorrow I'm pretty certain the result would be a combination of the first two. > > < characteristics, the 7 deadly sins comes to mind, and striving to make > society work in such a way that peoples better qualities are rewarded is > what I support.>> > >People will take those 'seven deadlies', with them where ever they go, they >seem to creep out of the shadows of even the best without much warning. We >won't be outdistancing our physic goblins if the sky falls: we will be >facing >them down everywhere we look. >Can you imagine Lenin at some early point trying to figure out how to >ensure >that his followers actually followed his higher aspirations, and not their >own lower inclinations? Must have driven him nuts knowing what they could >do, >but realizing that they would not. >Morality and ethics will not be legislated; 'good behaviour' is much >tougher >to encourage without paying for it. Especially in a population raised in a >constant barrage of media promises of instant gratification. >How do you get people to behave better simply because it's better for them? >I've read the suggestions that behavioural conditioning is appropriate, but >I >am not a B F Skinner fan, and I think we put that one to bed decades ago. >There is simply too much appetite for control over others in the human >psyche. There is a strain of thinking in psychology that says, everyone makes the best decision they possibly can in any given situation. This decision is based on complex factors, including life history, organic traits of that individual, and also societal cues, among others. If we could create a society that, at least, does not reward behaviors such as greed, vanity, etc, then we might find other human characteristics become more dominant. Of course we will always have a vast range of human behavior and there will always be conflict between those with differing views and interests. Personally I think this is a good thing, because otherwise life would be pretty boring. > > << As to exactly what that would look like I don't know. There are some > things I think are important, such as, people having as much say in an >issue > as to which they are affected by it, Splitting up work in such a way that > everyone does as much rewarding work and drudge work as another. >> > >Well, when you say this to a woman who has raised sons in a family in which >only the women do housework, just how do you think they will receive this >good news? >I'll tell you. They snort: Yeah, right. Everyone is equal, but some are >more >equal than others and they are the men, not the women. >Some of my employees are women of southeastern asian cultures in which the >women earn all the income and the men stay at home (as holy men...). >I like your intentions, but I don't trust the execution of them by everyone >else, left to their own inclinations... There are exceptions, but I don't >know very many. This type of thing seems like it would be dealt with outside of the economic structure. I am probably the least qualified person to discuss gender and kinship issues so I won't try. >We need to be prepared to deal with the unfolding circumstances with >flexibility and resourcefulness. This is the only certainty. Sincerely, Aaron. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From LROBERTS46 at aol.com Mon Sep 4 23:03:05 2000 From: LROBERTS46 at aol.com (LROBERTS46@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Reply to Sam Pawlett Message-ID: <3f.9ddd330.26e5d889@aol.com> The disillusioned Marxists really get me. I finally cornered one with these questions: Who should make decisions as to: what gets produced? What wars happen? Who gets the surplus value? Who gets what is produced? Under what conditions are things produced and at what cost to the environment? Who in their right mind would answer "I want a small group of white rich men (less than one per cent of the population) to make all of the important decisions for all of the world. This group will include those who inherited and/or stole their money. I want all of the rest of us to have NO input whatsoever to the decisions." From LROBERTS46 at aol.com Mon Sep 4 23:48:56 2000 From: LROBERTS46 at aol.com (LROBERTS46@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re:Self Determination- Support It! Message-ID: <21.858bd4.26e5e348@aol.com> Now we are seeing the results of US interference in Afghanistan. How many more women will die or commit suicide because of the group in power there now? From LROBERTS46 at aol.com Mon Sep 4 23:44:33 2000 From: LROBERTS46 at aol.com (LROBERTS46@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] On mediation and contradiction (was self determination etc) Message-ID: <18.1e14439.26e5e241@aol.com> I want to correct a couple of things that were said. Imperialism and Pot Pol. If Kissinger and Nixon had not dragged neutral Cambodia into the war between Vietnamese resisting imperialism and the US, then there would have been no killings in Cambodia. The blood of Cambodian's on all sides is on Kissinger's and Nixon's hands. I agree with Monsour Farhang, who refused to shake hands with Henry saying "I don't shake hands with those who commit genocide." William Shawcross has an excellent book out on this "Sideshow". Imperialism and Iran. Iran had a leader that the US didn't like. So the US put in the Shah of Iran. Through his secret police, Savak, he killed and tortured people in Iran and in the US. Any revolutions and/or counter revolutions that happened afterward are the result of that interference. The blood is on the hands of US imperialism. From LROBERTS46 at aol.com Tue Sep 5 00:11:03 2000 From: LROBERTS46 at aol.com (LROBERTS46@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re:Public schools Message-ID: <6e.2bee4b9.26e5e877@aol.com> Joan, you are so right. I know that superintendents are vastly over paid. Class room teachers are short changed as a result. Plus, school districts have huge bureaucracies. My school district spent a million dollars in a court suit to keep one disabled child out of main stream classes. Another time, they hired a superintendent who asked for more money after he had already agreed to come. There is so much corruption on the retirement amounts for superintendents that a government unit had to be formed just to lost for that kind of fraud. From LROBERTS46 at aol.com Tue Sep 5 00:31:08 2000 From: LROBERTS46 at aol.com (LROBERTS46@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re:Public schools vs. home schools Message-ID: <54.8f249b9.26e5ed2c@aol.com> Even though my spouse and I have post graduate college, we could not seem to teach it to our kids. In fact, one counselor suggested that our educational level was so high that some of the kids were giving up as they felt that they couldn't compete. This seemed amazing to us because we never insisted on college but usable skills. However, we know many many folks who are not educated enough to teach the needed skills to their kids. We ran into this when we took in abused and neglected kids from the neighborhood. One of my son's girlfriend's had never seen a napkin, and regularly had 2 colas for breakfast. She could not remember what towns they had lived in so she could do a resume. Many kids have no experience with using checking accounts instead of check cashing services. They didn't know how to dress for job interviews or to fill out applications. I had long arguments with foster sons that it was not "normal" to be evicted every month because the money was spent on drugs. If everyone home schools, the elite will have an even greater advantage. My mom is very well read and very intelligent. But, she didn't finish high school till I was almost grown. How could she have prepared me for a science degree in college? My spouse and I got college educations because we worked our way through and in the 1960s and 1970 there used to programs for public education for the poor as part of the "war on poverty". From aabdo at webtv.net Tue Sep 5 00:35:03 2000 From: aabdo at webtv.net (Tony Abdo) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Is It Not Slander Because It Is Said By Chomsky? Message-ID: <6442-39B49417-11962@storefull-232.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Jared, while I agree with many of your criticisms of Chomsky, I cannot understand why you are responding to zapata-sezampro.yu at the CrashList, or marxism-list, since he is subbed at neither of these 2 lists. Further, Milosevic has committed many crimes. ? ? To mention this in a sentence, saying that Milosevic is not solely to blame for the misery in the Balkans, is hardly a great crime. ? ? If there was more said, how can we know, since we only have this snippet from a conversation on another list, entirely different from where your message has been read? This is hardly a great way to start a thread, discussing the merits or defects of Chomsky on opposing US imperialist interventions. ? ? Plus, nothing is really new here. ? ? So what brought about this snap? Comradely, Tony From INMOEMBRO at aol.com Tue Sep 5 00:54:25 2000 From: INMOEMBRO at aol.com (INMOEMBRO@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re:Public schools vs. home schools Message-ID: Linda - I completely agree with you on this. What we need for our kids--ALL our kids--is some pathway to education no matter where they have to start from. First, a way to identify the ones who really have the drive to learn, and Second, a way to get them onto that path. What we need is the means to find them. What they need is the access. Then we hope that some of the others, seeing that they are being left behind, run alongside to catch up, because they are seeing the possibilities. This is the way we can use carrots. I hope. Joan From Borba100 at aol.com Tue Sep 5 01:45:38 2000 From: Borba100 at aol.com (Borba100@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Tony Aabdo's defense of Chomsky Message-ID: <11.8c148a5.26e5fea2@aol.com> Dear people, In a message dated 09/05/2000 2:36:31 aabdo@webtv.net writes: << Jared, while I agree with many of your criticisms of Chomsky, I cannot understand why you are responding to zapata-sezampro.yu at the CrashList, or marxism-list, since he is subbed at neither of these 2 lists >> Apparently this is an attempt to make me look unfair or something. Fact is, I simply responded to Zapata's email, whose subject line read: "[CrashList] Vrlo Interesantno/Chomsky" by hitting Reply to All. Then I added a letter to Chomsky, and that I sent to several lists. I think it's about time these attacks were discussed publicly. Chomsky's statement - that Milosevich is a criminal - was not made in private email, after all. He's made similar charges in influential publications. They are serious accusations. Isn't it reasonable to demand Chomsky substantiate them or apologize for the harm he's done? Further on, Tony says: << Further, Milosevic has committed many crimes. ? To mention this in a sentence, saying that Milosevic is not solely to blame for the misery in the Balkans, is hardly a great crime. >> Chomsky says Milosevich has committed many crimes, but provides no evidence. Chomsky's been saying that since last spring even though in a private email to me he agreed that the demonization of Milosevich in the press was beyond belief. This email to me makes me wonder whether he in fact knows what he's saying publicly is untrue. Anyway, he offers no evidence. For Chomsky, Serbian crimes are self-evident. Chomsky has gotten away with these unsupported attacks because the mass media has pounded us all with anti-Yugoslav propaganda till we're gaga. So now I call Chomsky on making attacks without evidence, and Tony supports Chomsky, without evidence. When people like Chomsky (who says he is antiwar) and Aabdo (who says he supports Yugoslavia against NATO) agree that Milosevich is a criminal (the heart of NATO's attack on Yugoslavia) then this tells the left: "See? Even peaceniks and self-proclaimed Marxists have to admit that the charges are in large measure true." This strengthens NATO. How can anyone build a mass movement to defend criminals? That will never happen. Doesn't this constitute providing a left cover for NATO? As for whether it is "criminal" - in my letter to Chomsky I said it was "a tragedy." "Criminal" is Tony's word. Best regards, Jared Israel From JoeMosley at aol.com Tue Sep 5 02:34:12 2000 From: JoeMosley at aol.com (JoeMosley@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re:Self Determination- Support It! Message-ID: <80.467793.26e60a04@aol.com> In a message dated 9/5/00 1:56:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LROBERTS46@aol.com writes: << Subj: Re: [CrashList] Re:Self Determination- Support It! Date: 9/5/00 1:56:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: LROBERTS46@aol.com Sender: crashlist-admin@lists.wwpublish.com Reply-to: crashlist@lists.wwpublish.com To: crashlist@lists.wwpublish.com Now we are seeing the results of US interference in Afghanistan. How many more women will die or commit suicide because of the group in power there now? _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yc04.mx.aol.com (rly-yc04.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.36]) by air-yc02.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Sep 2000 01:56:37 -0400 Received: from lists.wwpublish.com (wwpublish.com [166.84.145.153]) by rly-yc04.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Sep 2000 01:56:20 -0400 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.wwpublish.com) by lists.wwpublish.com with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 13WBiE-0006Jg-00; Tue, 05 Sep 2000 01:56:02 -0400 Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.42]) by lists.wwpublish.com with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 13WBhL-0006J9-00 for ; Tue, 05 Sep 2000 01:55:07 -0400 Received: from LROBERTS46@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id g.21.858bd4 (4562) for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 01:48:57 -0400 (EDT) From: LROBERTS46@aol.com Message-ID: <21.858bd4.26e5e348@aol.com> Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 01:48:56 EDT Subject: Re: [CrashList] Re:Self Determination- Support It! To: crashlist@lists.wwpublish.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 7 Sender: crashlist-admin@lists.wwpublish.com Errors-To: crashlist-admin@lists.wwpublish.com X-BeenThere: crashlist@lists.wwpublish.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta5 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: crashlist@lists.wwpublish.com List-Id: CrashList >> From JoeMosley at aol.com Tue Sep 5 03:05:21 2000 From: JoeMosley at aol.com (JoeMosley@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re:Self Determination- Support It! Message-ID: <10.1e08fbc.26e61151@aol.com> Please add to the list US interference in the Congo, I recently read an article that accuse Eisenhower of ordering the elimination of Lumumba. Mobutu was "our boy," look at the predicament of the Congo. In Panama, Torrijos died when his helicopter, flown by a substitute for his regular pilot, crashed and "our boy," Noriega, took over. Link this to Oliver North, the Nicaraguan Contras and the present so-called "drug-war" in Colombia. Yes, I know! The list could go on and on... Just mentioned these two because of their effect on me. JoeMosley In a message dated 9/5/00 1:56:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LROBERTS46@aol.com writes: Now we are seeing the results of US interference in Afghanistan. How many more women will die or commit suicide because of the group in power there now? _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist From mstainsby at tao.ca Tue Sep 5 04:16:12 2000 From: mstainsby at tao.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Fw: WELCOME TO PRAGUE! STOP THE IMF! Message-ID: <004b01c01722$521e0580$395a7318@rct1.bc.wave.home.com> ----- Original Message ----- forwarded From: "heikki sipil? " To: >From: New Worker Online I have had quite a few requests for the packet of info from our Czech comrades. It seems that lots of New Worker readers will be there! :-) Below is a copy of a special edition of Postmark Prague edited by our comrade Ken Biggs who lives in Prague. It will be distributed to overseas visitors by KCSM members. Richard. WELCOME TO PRAGUE! STOP THE IMF! POSTMARK PRAGUE No.316 Founded in Prague, Czechoslovakia, June 1991 Vol.10 No.7 * SEPTEMBER 2000 CAN THE IMF BE REFORMED? The question of the day is: Can the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) be reformed? Can they be transformed into democratically controlled institutions serving the interests of the majority of the world's people? Young radicals like the Czech student Alice Dvorska, press spokesperson of the Initiative against Economic Globalisation, are clear: "They are unreformable institutions representing the interests of transnational capital." But some more established theoreticians on the Left (and also even on the Right) are calling for reform of the world's financial institutions. They're right to a certain extent: there's nothing in the world that can't be changed. But the reformability of any kind of institution is limited by the nature of its role. If the role of the IMF and WB is to enforce global capital's domination, then the only reforms possible are those which allow them to enforce its dominance more effectively. * Can a tiger be made into a vegetarian? The most drastic forms of pauperisation can be modified on the principle that you don't milk a milch cow dry. But that's all. Any attempt to fundamentally change the character of these institutions - by transforming them into democratically controlled institutions serving the interests of the majority of humanity - is like trying to turn a tiger into a vegeterian. It's just not on. The tiger's stomach simply can't cope with a vegetable diet. Its organism is structured for hunting and meat-eating, and if a tiger's a tiger, he has to have his meat. For example, the IMF and the World Bank talk about "cancelling" the debts of the poorest countries. But when we get down to the nitty-gritty, we find that they will only agree to this if the usual IMF conditions are accepted: more privatisation, including privatisation of public services, and more cuts in public spending - i.e. further closures (in the poorest countries!) of cash-strapped institutions providing health care and education etc. * Private ownership The IMF's organism is geared to maximising the profits of transnational corporations which want the rest of the world completely privatised at knock-down prices. For the IMF to be capable of behaving otherwise, it would have to become a totally different organisation. The deeper meaning of the struggle against the IMF, the World Bank and globalisation is that it is a struggle against private ownership which inevitably leads to concentration of capital in the hands of transnational corporations, on the one hand, and to mass poverty, on the other. The leaders of the IMF won't agree to this, no matter how often they say they want to help the poor. *This is an abridged translation of an article by Norbert Stary which appeared in the Czech left-wing daily Halo Noviny on August 23. THE RICH GET RICHER, AND THE POOR.? The Prague-based World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), which represents more than 400 million members, characterised the results of IMF/World Bank policies like this at its 14th Congress in New Delhi in March of this year: As we enter a new century and a new millenium, the working people and their trade unions all over the world are confronting a worsening world economic and social situation. Economic disparities between the rich and poor countries as well as between rich and poor people within countries have vastly increased. The social consequences of the worsening economic crisis and financial turmoil undermine economic security, social standards and basic human rights. ? Millions have lost jobs and millions more are threatened with total deprivation of their means of livelihood. One-third of the world labour force is either unemployed of under-employed. ? Mass poverty is increasing everywhere and has become all the more widespread as the financial crisis in East Asia and its worldwide repercussions resulted in the cutting of global output by an estimated 2,000 billion dollars in 1998-2000. Sixty countries have been getting steadily poorer since 1980. ? More than one billion people are unable to meet even their most basic human needs. Over 800 million are under-nourished and hungry. Nearly 60 per cent of the population of developing countries - more than 2.5 billion people - have no access to basic sanitation and 30 per cent cannot get safe, drinkable water. As the Human Development Report 1999 issued by the UN Development Programme points out, inequality within and between nations has been rising drastically since the early 1980s. ? The income gap between the fifth of the world's people living in the richest countries and the fifth in the poorest was 74 to 1 in 1997 - up from 60 to 1 in 1990 and 30 to 1 in 1960. ? By the late 1990s, the fifth of the world's people living in the highest income countries had 86 per cent of world GDP, 82 per cent of world export markets and 68 per cent of foreign direct investment, while the bottom fifth had just one per cent in each case. The OECD countries, with 19 per cent of global population, have 71 per cent of global trade in goods and services, 58 per cent of foreign direct investment and 91 per cent of all internet users. ? The world's 200 richest people more than doubled their net worth in the four years to 1998 - to more than one trillion dollars. The policies imposed through the IMF and the World Trade Organisation in favour of the transnational corporations and financial groups have destabilised national economies, worsening the problems of unequal trade and economic relations and adding to the outflow of resources from developing countries, besides affecting the sovereignty of nations, causing job losses, problems of health and educational services, adversely affecting the rights of women, etc. The IMF and WTO totally ignore Commitment 8 of the 1995 Copenhagen World Summit for Social Development "that when structural adjustment programmes are agreed to they include social development goals, in particular eradicating poverty, promoting full and productive employment, and enhancing social integration." "Have a globalised nice day!" The Czech Republic's Social Democratic government has mobilised 11,000 police and 1,600 soldiers to help keep "law and order" during the IMF/World Bank conference. In addition to army-supplied armoured vehicles, helicopters and cranes (!), 6,000 Prague police - two-thirds of its total strength - will be on conference-related duties, reinforced by 5,000 police brought into Prague from all over the Czech Republic. Since right-wing controlled borough councils in Prague are urging pensioners, schoolchildren (who've been given a week's holiday) and anybody else who can to leave town during the conference, Prague's thriving criminal community are looking forward to a bumper weekend. There will also be gangs of pickpockets anxious to relieve demonstrators of their wallets and purses on crowded public transport and during protest events. Prague's theatres are being closed for the week, presumably as part of the attempt to clear the streets and give the forces of "law and order" a clear run at "foreign extremists". * Media extremism With more than a touch of irony (given its support for IMF/World Bank extremism), it's the mostly foreign-owned media which has been busiest in stirring up xenophobic hostility to the "tens of thousands of foreign radicals" who will be in Prague for the IMF conference. Stories of an advance guard of "foreign extremists" training local opponents of capitalist globalisation in the use of Molotov cocktails and other weapons have appeared in the press. The government too has played its part in whipping up tension in the run-up to the conference, with interior minister Stanislav Gross (a former "velvet revolutionary") well to the fore. He has already publicly endorsed the action of his police in brutally breaking up several peaceful anti-IMF street protests this year, most notoriously on May Day. And on August 31 there was a well-publicised "mock battle" involving riot police, British-trained mounted police, police dogs and water cannon to demonstrate their crowd control "skills". A group of senior Czech police officers was sent on a course to the USA earlier this year "to learn the lessons of Seattle" and other protests against capitalist globalisation. The globalised FBI has recently opened an office in Prague, and they and 600 other foreign "specialists" have been involved in preparing the police for their "law and order" duties during the IMF conference. * Violence There are those who would welcome violence in the streets of Prague during the conference. They plan to use it against the Left in important regional and Senate elections which take place shortly after the IMF conference (in November) and to support the idea of a ban on left-wing and militant trade union organisations. So beware of provocateurs! This is a special IMF conference edition of Postmark Prague, a 16 page monthly English-language review of political developments in the Czech and Slovak Republics, which aims to promote international solidarity with Left, working class and other social movements in these countries. For a free sample copy, write to Postmark Prague, PO Box 42, 182 21 Prague 8, Czech Republic. (e-mail: postmarkprague@cmail.cz) . New Communist Party of Britain Homepage http://www.newcommunistparty.org.uk A news service for the Working Class! Workers of all countries Unite! ================ Macdonald Stainsby. Rad-Green List: Radical anti-capitalist environmental discussion. http://www.egroups.com/group/rad-green rad-green-subscribe@egroups.com ---------- http://www.geocities.com/leninist_international/ http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international From zapata at sezampro.yu Tue Sep 5 06:55:36 2000 From: zapata at sezampro.yu (Andrej Grubacic) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: [exyualista] Tony Aabdo's defense of Chomsky References: <11.8c148a5.26e5fea2@aol.com> Message-ID: <01a001c01738$b51789c0$b5bd6ac2@k382> Dear Jared, I respect your work very much, as I have told you this several times. We, from "Resistance web site",are publishing , with your kind permission many of your articles, or articles coming from your site. So, please read this as a friendly suggestion: Milosevic is a criminal. Big time. I am living under his yoke, witnessing his crimes everyday. He is a little ruthless dictator, with a mad wife, with two idiotic kids. He is privatizing everything, he has organized a perfect cleptocracy for his family and his oligarchy, he had killed almost all of the opposition press ( it's low quality notwithstanding, we are talking about freedom of thought and expression); he have stolen the elections in 1996; his thugs are beating up kids in the middle of the day, his assassins are killing or kidnapping people ( Ivan Stambolic is the most recent example) - the list of his crimes in internal politics is endless. And, with regards to his external politics, people form all over the world, good people , are deceived with his leftist-anti imperialist mask: he is not a leftist. He is haunting leftist, authentic radicals, in his own country. His party is the richest party on this side of Colorado river. He is using every opportunity, and every emotion, to preserve power and to stay on power. Yugoslavia is a wonderful country. Yugoslav people deserve help and protection from "antiserb racism" which we are all witnesses of. We should fight back this idea of collective crime which is casted upon us. But Yugoslavia is not Milosevic. Fighting against imperialism, injustices made to Yugoslavs, new wars which Imperial States of AmeriKKKa are instigating on this soil, slowly but very skillfully, is possible without attachment to Milosevic. He doesn't deserve it. I guess that my word isn't enough, but please just acknowledge that I am an insider, radical leftist and a person who suffered a lot under foreign imperialism and under Milosevic. I think that this opportunity gives me a chance to be as objective as one could be , in complex situation like this. With regards to Chomsky, contrary to what you may believe, his books helped radical leftist here to make a clearer picture about the nature of state violence, nature of AmeriKKKan foreign politics, European Imperialism, shaping of the mental images and representations, and to offer this picture to the people here, with much success. Chomsky helped us a lot. His mistakes notwithstanding. He made good deal of mistakes, yes. But who of us, involved in a fight for social change, for a better and healthier society, didn't? With respect, in solidarity, Andrej Grubacic From johnwood at umich.edu Tue Sep 5 07:30:38 2000 From: johnwood at umich.edu (John Woodford) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] What is really worth talking about References: Message-ID: <39B4F57E.B4BF20FC@umich.edu> The thing is, this organizing by the U of Chi liberals and their runining dogs was and is a downhill organizing run---with the wind of the corporations etc. at their back., providing the fuel for the well-lubricated run. It takes neither effort nor genius to do what they did. They merely stepped forward to give some new spins to bourgeois ideology. Cleverness, I'll grant them. But who can stand in awe of the vehicle they set to running on the academic/media courses? They were tune-up men.. From Susan George: "As I've argued in detail in the US quarterly journal Dissent, one explanation for this triumph of neo-liberalism and the economic, political, social and ecological disasters that go with it is that neo-liberals have bought and paid for their own vicious and regressive "Great Transformation". They have understood, as progressives have not, that ideas have consequences. Starting from a tiny embryo at the University of Chicago with the philosopher-economist Friedrich von Hayek and his students like Milton Friedman at its nucleus, the neo-liberals and their funders have created a huge international network of foundations, institutes, research centers, publications, scholars, writers and public relations hacks to develop, package and push their ideas and doctrine relentlessly. They have built this highly efficient ideological cadre because they understand what the Italian Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci was talking about when he developed the concept of cultural hegemony...." Georges Drouet wrote: > As you like historical references, let me use one quoted by Susan George: > > "As I've argued in detail in the US quarterly journal Dissent, one explanation for this triumph of neo-liberalism and the economic, political, social and ecological disasters that go with it is that neo-liberals have bought and paid for their own vicious and regressive "Great Transformation". They have understood, as progressives have not, that ideas have consequences. Starting from a tiny embryo at the University of Chicago with the philosopher-economist Friedrich von Hayek and his students like Milton Friedman at its nucleus, the neo-liberals and their funders have created a huge international network of foundations, institutes, research centers, publications, scholars, writers and public relations hacks to develop, package and push their ideas and doctrine relentlessly. > > They have built this highly efficient ideological cadre because they understand what the Italian Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci was talking about when he developed the concept of cultural hegemony. If you can occupy peoples' heads, their hearts and their hands will follow. I do not have time to give you details here, but believe me, the ideological and promotional work of the right has been absolutely brilliant. They have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, but the result has been worth every penny to them because they have made neo-liberalism seem as if it were the natural and normal condition of humankind. No matter how many disasters of all kinds the neo-liberal system has visibly created, no matter what financial crises it may engender, no matter how many losers and outcasts it may create, it is still made to seem inevitable, like an act of God, the only possible economic and social order available to us. > > Let me stress how important it is to understand that this vast neo-liberal experiment we are all being forced to live under has been created by people with a purpose. Once you grasp this, once you understand that neo-liberalism is not a force like gravity but a totally artificial construct, you can also understand that what some people have created, other people can change. But they cannot change it without recognising the importance of ideas. I'm all for grassroots projects, but I also warn that these will collapse if the overall ideological climate is hostile to their goals. > > So, from a small, unpopular sect with virtually no influence, neo-liberalism has become the major world religion with its dogmatic doctrine, its priesthood, its law-giving institutions and perhaps most important of all, its hell for heathen and sinners who dare to contest the revealed truth." > > So, if neo-liberals were able to decide something to be applied in the future and succeeded, why can't we? > > Because we love spending time in remembering past thoughts? Are we walking to the future looking back to the past? Is that the way you imagine progress? Are we too old to shape our own world? Or is the nihilistic point of view of some dialectic professionals be enough conservative to consider the crash as an ineluctable event and admire it as the final bouquet of capitalistic history? > > Will you love seeing more exploitation, people starving and runing through bombs? Do you tolerate current situation of third world people or may be you consider that point as a theorical matter? > No proposals, no risks! Is that your world? > > I'm affraid that I'm loosing my time here meanwhile millions of people are dying in the real world.. > > So let say bye-bye to virtual games and reach tens of millions of people to change the world. > > Don't worry we will keep you informed, by e-mail from the street to your computer in a tiny house somewhere in a quiet first world country... > > ------------------------------------------ > Georges Drouet > 28, place Morichar 1060 Bruxelles > tel: 32-486 751 668 > fax: 32-2 538 10 82 > > gdrouet@brutele.be > > _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist From juneo4 at juno.com Tue Sep 5 07:23:18 2000 From: juneo4 at juno.com (juneo4@juno.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Abusive exploitive systems Message-ID: <20000905.103233.-155035.3.juneo4@juno.com> Joan & Tony, I agree with you, and those who saw "Survivor" on TV must surely be in no doubt about that after seeing our capitalist/corporate destructive games played out in the form of 'entertainment'. So, since what you have said (about abusive environments begetting more abuse) points up root causes, it would behoove us to take a long deep hard look at how to reverse the trend/revert to collaborative cooperative sustainable behaviours and systems, and I belive this is where it begins. The solution that is. jo* From juneo4 at juno.com Tue Sep 5 08:43:56 2000 From: juneo4 at juno.com (juneo4@juno.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: [exyualista] Tony Aabdo's defense of Chomsky Message-ID: <20000905.105341.-155035.5.juneo4@juno.com> Andrej and in support of his response to Jared. I am so glad you and relieved that you , an insider was able to take this up, to clarify SM's role in the suffering (I am not excluding NATO's role ). I do not have time to cite the many reports received from women we know suffering under his regime. jo* On Tue, 5 Sep 2000 14:55:36 +0200 "Andrej Grubacic" writes: >Dear Jared, >I respect your work very much, as I have told you this several times. >We, >from "Resistance web site",are publishing , with your kind permission >many >of your articles, or articles coming from your site. >So, please read this as a friendly suggestion: >Milosevic is a criminal. Big time. I am living under his yoke, >witnessing >his crimes everyday. He is a little ruthless dictator, with a mad >wife, with >two idiotic kids. He is privatizing everything, he has organized a >perfect >cleptocracy for his family and his oligarchy, he had killed almost all >of >the opposition press ( it's low quality notwithstanding, we are >talking >about freedom of thought and expression); he have stolen the elections >in >1996; his thugs are beating up kids in the middle of the day, his >assassins >are killing or kidnapping people ( Ivan Stambolic is the most recent >example) - the list of his crimes in internal politics is endless. >And, with >regards to his external politics, people form all over the world, >good >people , are deceived with his leftist-anti imperialist mask: he is >not a >leftist. He is haunting leftist, authentic radicals, in his own >country. His >party is the richest party on this side of Colorado river. He is using >every >opportunity, and every emotion, to preserve power and to stay on >power. >Yugoslavia is a wonderful country. Yugoslav people deserve help and >protection from "antiserb racism" which we are all witnesses of. We >should >fight back this idea of collective crime which is casted upon us. > But Yugoslavia is not Milosevic. Fighting against imperialism, >injustices >made to Yugoslavs, new wars which Imperial States of AmeriKKKa are >instigating on this soil, slowly but very skillfully, is possible >without >attachment to Milosevic. He doesn't deserve it. I guess that my word >isn't >enough, but please just acknowledge that I am an insider, radical >leftist >and a person who suffered a lot under foreign imperialism and under >Milosevic. I think that this opportunity gives me a chance to be as >objective as one could be , in complex situation like this. > With regards to Chomsky, contrary to what you may believe, his books >helped >radical leftist here to make a clearer picture about the nature of >state >violence, nature of AmeriKKKan foreign politics, European >Imperialism, >shaping of the mental images and representations, and to offer this >picture >to the people here, with much success. Chomsky helped us a lot. His >mistakes >notwithstanding. He made good deal of mistakes, yes. But who of us, >involved >in a fight for social change, for a better and healthier society, >didn't? >With respect, in solidarity, > Andrej Grubacic > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist From twood at uwc.ac.za Tue Sep 5 08:58:57 2000 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (TAHIR WOOD) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Tony Abdo's defense of Chomsky Message-ID: I think that what this debate reflects with wonderful clarity is what Fanon called the "pitfalls of the national consciousness". This is linked to the debate that some of us had just a little earlier. A purely national consciousnes rallies to defend the leadership of the "oppressed nation" as its bulwark against imperialism. But an anti-imperialism that is not thoroughly guided by anti-capitalist and anti-bourgeois radicalism simply becomes a defence of scoundrels, opportunists and tin-pot dictators. These latter are demagogues who know the political and rhetorical value of "anti-imperialism" only too well. But what is so deceiving is that their rhetoric always contains a grain of truth. My point is that we need so much more than this little nationalist grain of truth. Tahir >>> "Andrej Grubacic" 09/05 2:55 PM >>> Dear Jared, I respect your work very much, as I have told you this several times. We, from "Resistance web site",are publishing , with your kind permission many of your articles, or articles coming from your site. So, please read this as a friendly suggestion: Milosevic is a criminal. Big time. I am living under his yoke, witnessing his crimes everyday. He is a little ruthless dictator, with a mad wife, with two idiotic kids. He is privatizing everything, he has organized a perfect cleptocracy for his family and his oligarchy, he had killed almost all of the opposition press ( it's low quality notwithstanding, we are talking about freedom of thought and expression); he have stolen the elections in 1996; his thugs are beating up kids in the middle of the day, his assassins are killing or kidnapping people ( Ivan Stambolic is the most recent example) - the list of his crimes in internal politics is endless. And, with regards to his external politics, people form all over the world, good people , are deceived with his leftist-anti imperialist mask: he is not a leftist. He is haunting leftist, authentic radicals, in his own country. His party is the richest party on this side of Colorado river. He is using every opportunity, and every emotion, to preserve power and to stay on power. Yugoslavia is a wonderful country. Yugoslav people deserve help and protection from "antiserb racism" which we are all witnesses of. We should fight back this idea of collective crime which is casted upon us. But Yugoslavia is not Milosevic. Fighting against imperialism, injustices made to Yugoslavs, new wars which Imperial States of AmeriKKKa are instigating on this soil, slowly but very skillfully, is possible without attachment to Milosevic. He doesn't deserve it. I guess that my word isn't enough, but please just acknowledge that I am an insider, radical leftist and a person who suffered a lot under foreign imperialism and under Milosevic. I think that this opportunity gives me a chance to be as objective as one could be , in complex situation like this. With regards to Chomsky, contrary to what you may believe, his books helped radical leftist here to make a clearer picture about the nature of state violence, nature of AmeriKKKan foreign politics, European Imperialism, shaping of the mental images and representations, and to offer this picture to the people here, with much success. Chomsky helped us a lot. His mistakes notwithstanding. He made good deal of mistakes, yes. But who of us, involved in a fight for social change, for a better and healthier society, didn't? With respect, in solidarity, Andrej Grubacic _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist From zapata at sezampro.yu Tue Sep 5 09:27:58 2000 From: zapata at sezampro.yu (Andrej Grubacic) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Tony Aabdo's defense of Chomsky References: <11.8c148a5.26e5fea2@aol.com> Message-ID: <002301c0174d$fce28c40$d9be6ac2@k382> In addition to my suggestion to Jared that he should reconsider his position on Milosevic and Chomsky, without a danger to forget the moment of US-Euro imperialism and their crimes in the region- crimes which Yugoslavs are not likely to forget- I am sending another Chomsky epistle- answer to some nerd advocating new NATO intervention on ZNet forum. Chomsky is fighting this line of argumentation masterly. And he is reminding us, again, that things are never simple when it comes to this sort of situation, and that we shouldn't choose "lesser evil" in political realm but fight every evil instead. Difficult task? It is. "Between two evils don't make me choose the lesser one!" Karl Kraus said. Please don't make me choose between NATO and Milosevic, as my friend, young anarchist, like to say! In struggle, Andrej --------------------------------------- Reply from NC, Since you've changed the issue, and misread the last response, I'll add it below, for clarification, and to save time instead of repeating. Your first point is that you: 'don't think the question "Which way to democracy?" is an academic one in this context.' Nor do I. It's a highly relevant question. The question that was "academic," however, was a totally different one: whether we should "call for NATO to bomb, invade, destroy what's left of the society, and impose foreign rule," in response to the popular will in Serbia, as you seemed to be suggesting. Putting the misstatement aside, you then proceed to withdraw what seemed to be your suggestion. You now say that what you meant to propose was: "something that already exists: second-class status of Yugoslavia in Europe, and a trade system that doesn't exactly favor it" -- right or wrong, but hardly "NATO colonialism." Two questions then arise: (1) why do you propose this as a furious challenge, since no one in the forum, to my recollection, has raised the matter or taken a position on it?: (2) now that you have raised the question, in a manner that hardly facilitated discussion of it, what position should we take on it? On (1), I'd suggest you might want to think about it, but we can put that aside too. Question (2) requires answers to a variety of others. Some of them have to do with imposition of sanctions. Among them are these. Should the US impose sanctions on all countries that have regimes as hostile to functioning democracy as Milosevic's Serbia, or that have records as bad as his? Or just in this case? And if only in this case, then why is that singled out? And if there is an answer to that, then what attitude should we take towards yet another act of unilateralism on the part of a great power with an ample record of brutality and violence of its own, not only in the past but right now? Should we support that power when it adds yet another country to its unilateral sanctions list? And more generally, under what conditions, and in what form, are sanctions a legitimate and appropriate measure, whether imposed unilaterally (the overwhelming majority, the US being the agent), or by NATO (which means essentially the same thing, given US dominance of NATO), the UN, or in some other way? There are all fair questions, and there are many considerations. Of course, the burden of proof is always on those who call for some form of intervention, sanctions in this case. That's universally taken for granted. Assuming that, the first task of the advocate of sanctions is to seek to determine the attitude of the people against whom they are directed. Often that's very difficult; in this case it happens to be easier than most, since by comparative standards there is a fair amount of public expression. So the first task faced by the advocate of sanctions is to show that the population of Serbia favor that move: they are pleading with the US (or NATO) to impose sanctions. If so, that's certainly an argument for doing so. If not, then the advocate of sanctions has the task of showing that the move should be taken over the objections of the population we are seeking to help. When you've dealt with these two questions, we can move on to the next ones. It could be that this procedure would lead to the conclusion that things should be left as they are, as you suggest. As I mentioned, I don't recall the question being raised here before. But more is needed than your insistence that it is right, without even facing the most elementary questions. Other questions arise as well. Is maintaining sanctions the best way to facilitate moves towards internal democracy in Serbia? Or would it be more effective to draw Serbia into the general structure of Europe? Or something else? And what do the people of the country feel about that? Again, these are the questions to be faced by someone who is serious about imposition of sanctions. Miranda Vickers is perhaps the leading historian of Kosovo, and very strongly anti-Milosevic. I quoted her conclusion on elections. Your refutation of it is that you say she is wrong. I'm afraid that is not very convincing. As for the "original issue," it's a good one, and I hope that you will be willing to face it, particularly since you (rightly) feel strongly about it. So far in this discussion you have refused to face it -- which is OK, answers aren't easy. As to how we should proceed to fact it seriously, I've already commented. If you have something new to add, I'll be more than pleased to consider it, as I'm sure others will be as well. Noam Chomsky At 09:32 AM 9/3/00 +0100, you wrote: > >From: "Jerry Netuddki" > >Dear Professor, > >We have a regime that makes every effort to retain power, >including murder (Curuvija, the Draskovic entourage, etc.) >or sudden disappearance (Stambolic, etc) of opposition >members. A regime that counters the will of the population >with applied violence. > >I am not calling for NATO to repeat its last year's failure; >they killed a bunch of people and left Milosevic in power. >However, if (as we seek possible solutions to the question >above) NATO does have a solution which can be targeted >exclusively against Milosevic, the popular "Slobo, save >Serbia, kill yourself!" slogan does seem to ring along this >line. > >By NATO colonialism I meant something that already exists: >second-class status of Yugoslavia in Europe, and a trade >system that doesn't exactly favor it. Milosevic boasts he >"protects the country from NATO colonialism", while he's >actually exploiting it far worse, as his clique's private >colony. > >On what grounds do I refute Vickers' observation that >Milosevic would have been voted out if the Kosovar Albanians >had not boycotted earlier elections? On the grounds that >Milosevic would have stolen the elections just the same, it >would meant just more ballot boxes to "work on". > >But, let's not digress. The original issue still remains: >how to counter armed violence that thwarts attempts of >democracy? > > Reply from NC, Let's accept your factual claims for the sake of argument, though it would be helpful if you would document them. On these grounds, you advocate NATO colonization of Yugoslavia: that is, an invasion to conquer Serbia (or what's left of it after an invasion) and institute a colonial regime. Are you suggesting that that would be welcomed by the population? By the various factions of the opposition, for example? Can you refer us to the popular demonstrations calling for NATO to bomb and invade (there have been plenty of anti-Milosevic demonstrations over the years, and the Albanian Kosovar Parliament -- illegal, but not barred by force -- had openly declared independence under Milosevic's rule)? Or the calls for bombing, invasion, and occupation by dissidents in the West? As for the factions of the opposition, they are far from united, and that has been one of their problems for years, something they themselves have bewailed for a long time. Suppose Milosevic steals the election. That's surely not unlikely. In fact, that he will try to do so is an almost inevitable consequence of the war crimes indictment, hence an expected consequence (assuming rationality). That he will necessarily succeed, whatever the oppoisition does, is obvious to you, but again it would be interesting to know your grounds. For example, on what grounds do you refute the observation of historian Miranda Vickers, hardly pro-Milosevic, that he would have been voted out if the Kosovar Albanians had not boycotted earlier elections? "Which way to democracy then?" The way to democracy should respect the will of the population. If they are calling for NATO to bomb, invade, destroy what's left of the society, and impose foreign rule, as you seem to be suggesting, then one would at least have to consider that option. But the question is academic, unless the claim can be shown to be plausible. Outsiders therefore have to seek different ways to enhance the prospects for democracy by encouraging and supporting internal forces that are committed to constructive socioeconomic and political development. One would hardly expect much from governments; their policies are shaped by different interests. People can act, however. Acting to support constructive developments somewhere else is never easy. There are better and worse ways. The worst that I can think of is the one you suggest -- unless of course you provide firm evidence that the population is pleading to be invaded, in which case your proposal would at least have to be considered; and recall that always, the proposal to bomb, invade, and impose foreign military occupation must bear quite a substantial burden of proof. Perhaps that burden can be met, but not simply by assertion. Noam Chomsky From Borba100 at aol.com Tue Sep 5 09:43:42 2000 From: Borba100 at aol.com (Borba100@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Response to Andrej in Belgrade on Chomsky Message-ID: <32.9b97000.26e66eae@aol.com> Dear Andrej, Thanks for your kind words about my work and for re-posting texts from Emperor's Clothes. Replying to my criticisms of Chomsky: you wax poetic about your 'terrible' government, etc., etc., but this avoids my criticism of Chomsky, which have nothing to do with Yugoslavia's internal affairs which would undoubtedly improve in many ways if the United States were not trying, with all its power, to crush Yugoslavia. Being crushed is of course a distorting experience. I will address Chomsky first and after that I will comment on your remarks about Milosevich's allegedly dictatorial rule. The Western media has continuously slandered Milosevich - and the Yugoslav Army - for alleged war crimes, particularly but not only in Kosovo. These include the phony massacre in Racak and the concocted stories about mass murder which were broadcast incessantly during the bombing. These charges, now admitted to have been lies, have been supported by Chomsky, time and again. While Chomsky has adjusted his position, his adjustments sometimes lag behind even what some elements of the media in NATO countries are saying at a given time. And Chomsky always lags way behind facts widely known within the antiwar movement. For example, during the bombing the antiwar movement publicized certain German court documents. These documents, based on studies of claims made by Albanian refugees from Feb. 1998 to Feb. 1999, concluded that Yugoslav forces did not target Albanian civilians. Chomsky knew about these court documents as soon as the rest of us. But Chomsky is still, over a year later, writing that "By summer [1998], the KLA had taken over about 40 per cent of the province, eliciting a vicious reaction by Serb security forces and paramilitaries, TARGETING THE CIVILIAN POPULATION." (el Ahram, June 2000, my emphasis) Why does the man repeat these known lies? (It is especially vicious that he repeats them in an Arab intellectual journal - especially vicious since one of the tactics the West uses is to paint "the Serbs" as anti-Muslim.) During the bombing Chomsky's key criticism of NATO was that by bombing "the Serbs" NATO guaranteed "the Serbs" would go on an anti-Albanian rampage. In fact during that period the Yugoslav army was desperately trying to organize anti-KLA resistance among Albanians. The KLA countered this by a) assassinating loyalist Albanians and b) calling in air strikes against anti-KLA Albanians, against refugees attempting to return home or who refused to leave Kosovo, as the KLA demanded they do, and so on. Similarly, Chomsky knew, from email sent to him during the bombing, that the Rambouillet ultimatum included Appendix B which permitted the takeover of Yugoslavia by NATO. But Chomsky ignored this information in material he published during that period. He compared the Yugoslavs to muggers and NATO to a trigger happy cop who shoots the muggers (Serbs) but also shoots the victims (ethnic Albanians). Even today he continues to suggest a moral equivalence between Milosevich and NATO. In the mid-90s, during the fighting in Bosnia he publicly argued that the Serbs were guilty as charged. Precisely because many people idolize Chomsky I ask: how has Chomsky used his influence to affect the antiwar struggle in the US and other Western countries? How has he, who wrote to me on May 12 1999 that he knows Milosevich is being demonized because, and I quote, '"demonization' of Milosevic was necessary in order to maintain public support for the bombing." How has he used his influence? The answer is that he has supported NATO lies while criticizing NATO enough to maintain his credibility on the left. His broad influence has helped prevent the formation of a mass antiwar movement in the US and Europe because nobody is going to get passionate about supporting criminals. Even when he "adjusts" his positions, he does so without (to my knowledge) criticizing past positions - so the sludge of his past lies about Yugoslavia stays in his readers' minds, with new sludge, adjusted to the current stance of the NATO media, added. Now, regarding your picture of Yugoslavia as the most repressive of states with the most corrupt government "this side of the Colorado" - hogwash. I am in close contact with a score of activist Serbs, some of whom disagree strongly with Milosevich about many things. One of their criticisms is that the Yugoslav government tolerates outrageous destabilization by US-financed "opposition" elements. You ignore the most important fact about Yugoslavia internally: that the US and Western Europe are doing everything possible to distort its political life. That includes openly distributing $100,000,000 to opposition elements in Yugoslavia. As the website editor of B292, whom I interviewed, told me (this is on tape) B292 is not the ONLY place that gets this US-Soros money. "There's a list." he said. "Everyone gets it." One hundred million dollars in Yugoslavia, an impoverished country with 4% of the US population and where $150 is a good MONTHLY salary, has the influence of a trillion dolalrs in the US. US officials openly discussed in the July 29, 1999 Senate hearings on destablizing Yugoslavia (see http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/hearin.htm ) the details of their use of the "democratic" opposition arguing that their manipulation of the "independent" opposition is just another part of the attack on Yugoslavia, similar to the bombing of Serbian TV. Check it out. I am not exagerating.. Opposition elements funded by the US government and the Soros people, whether these elements call themselves leftists or rightists, are walking around free. It is unbelievable that Yugoslavia has not arrested these people who are paid as part of a vicious campaign that combines military attack, economic strangulation and bribery, bribery on a scale unprecedented in history. Even today, the so-called 'democratic' opposition, funded by the US, is allowed to function. Nowhere else would this be tolerated. I am sure, Andrej, that with a little effort you could get some of this cash, distributed like play money through NGOs all over Belgrade. New computers, nice office space, whatever you wanted. All you would have to do is attack Milosevich. Only your integrity stands in the way of the best career in Serbia - working for US intelligence or for Soros, its private arm. Regards, Jared From zapata at sezampro.yu Tue Sep 5 09:34:12 2000 From: zapata at sezampro.yu (Andrej Grubacic) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Tony Abdo's defense of Chomsky References: Message-ID: <007401c01750$abaae4a0$d9be6ac2@k382> Excellent point. Friendly, Andrej Grubacic co-founder of www.resistancenet.org I am a patriot. What is a patriot? Man who fights his own nationalism. Man who demystifies, who deconstructs, the image of Hero.That is what patriotism is". Gazi Kaplan, Albanian poet ----- Original Message ----- From: TAHIR WOOD To: Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 4:58 PM Subject: [CrashList] Re: Tony Abdo's defense of Chomsky > I think that what this debate reflects with wonderful > clarity is what Fanon called the "pitfalls of the national > consciousness". This is linked to the debate that some of us > had just a little earlier. A purely national consciousnes > rallies to defend the leadership of the "oppressed nation" > as its bulwark against imperialism. But an anti-imperialism > that is not thoroughly guided by anti-capitalist and > anti-bourgeois radicalism simply becomes a defence of > scoundrels, opportunists and tin-pot dictators. These latter > are demagogues who know the political and rhetorical value > of "anti-imperialism" only too well. But what is so > deceiving is that their rhetoric always contains a grain of > truth. My point is that we need so much more than this > little nationalist grain of truth. > Tahir From zapata at sezampro.yu Tue Sep 5 10:23:11 2000 From: zapata at sezampro.yu (Andrej Grubacic) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Response to Andrej in Belgrade on Chomsky References: <32.9b97000.26e66eae@aol.com> Message-ID: <009601c01755$bbbc1b20$d9be6ac2@k382> My dear Jared, It is strange that you cannot recall our idea- my proposal - to write a book about NATO war against Serbia. It was made in the middle of the war. We had a long phone call, talking over 20 minutes, and I have told you that the only condition for writing for this book was that facts, facts, facts and facts are respected and that Milosevic shouldn't be presented as benefactor and great antiimperialistic factor. You have rejected the proposal , with the words that you have to write in favour of Milosevic because "the whole campaign is being made on his demonization"; you have stayed on this same line and I respect that- I admire your consistency. What buffles me is the thing that you don't remember our rich correspondence , and good deal of it was about Sorosh, Yugoslav "Americanisms", pseudo-NGO's, US militarism and interests in region and so forth. I made clear to you that I am against all of these, that I have even a reputation in Belgrade as someone who is in silent war with Sorosh and his community, because of their anti leftist, anti libertarian , capitalist, pseudopfilantropist and , yes, spy-organization role here. Ask around, I am sure that this "score of activist Serb" do no my name and positions rather well. So, telling me this, is rather a waste of time: You ignore the most important fact about Yugoslavia internally: that the US > and Western Europe are doing everything possible to distort its political > life. That includes openly distributing $100,000,000 to opposition elements > in Yugoslavia. As the website editor of B292, whom I interviewed, told me > (this is on tape) B292 is not the ONLY place that gets this US-Soros money. > "There's a list." he said. "Everyone gets it." One hundred million dollars in > Yugoslavia, an impoverished country with 4% of the US population and where > $150 is a good MONTHLY salary, has the influence of a trillion dollars in the > US. > > US officials openly discussed in the July 29, 1999 Senate hearings on > destabilizing Yugoslavia (see > http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/hearin.htm ) the details of their > use of the "democratic" opposition arguing that their manipulation of the > "independent" opposition is just another part of the attack on Yugoslavia, > similar to the bombing of Serbia TV. Check it out. I am not exaggerating.. > > Opposition elements funded by the US government and the Sores people, whether > these elements call themselves leftists or rightists, are walking around > free. It is unbelievable that Yugoslavia has not arrested these people who > are paid as part of a vicious campaign that combines military attack, > economic strangulation and bribery, on a scale unprecedented in > history. Even today, the so-called 'democratic' opposition, funded by the > US, is allowed to function. Nowhere else would this be tolerated. > > I am sure, Andrej, that with a little effort you could get some of this cash, > distributed like play money through Egos all over Belgrade. New computers, > nice office space, whatever you wanted. All you would have to do is attack > Milosevich. Only your integrity stands in the way of the best career in > Serbia - working for US intelligence or for Soros, its private arm. I am not ignoring anything, I am very well aware of this, and I try to fight it, best I can. But, just like you, I am also on the same line: I am an ethical anarchist, left libertarian, radical leftis who cannot feel support towards the State, Government, nationalism...I know only too well how nationalism is being used in class manipulation. And I am witnessing Milosevic crimes- I am not saying that he is the most brutal dictator?- every day. He is not more brutal than Salvadorian death squads or Turkish government, but where are those comparisons taking us exactly? People are suffering under Milosevic booth. This is enough for me. And I think that you should admit that Chomsky was also very consistent; he made many mistakes, but he never did abandon his crucial principal: "Not supporting the government but opposing foreign intervention". He never did supported Vietnamese leaders. He opposed criminal war against Vietnam people and their right to chose. Same for Nicaragua, Salvador , Columbia ( he is very much against FARC as you know, of course).... So, in brief, I don't see that Chomsky did something harmful. Once again, he was very useful to us, leftist community here, as someone who had brilliantly demasked AmeriKKKan imperialism , media deceptions, State violence per se...... I cannot judge his usefulness to American anti war movement because I am not in America. So, i would like to ask you, in the name of courtesy, to stop explaining me Milosevic and his government. Fighting NATO and Milosevic is much more admirable task, and strongly advice you to re-think your position. I find this words, made by Mr. Wood, illuminating in this sense: "... I think that what this debate reflects with wonderful clarity is what Fanon called the "pitfalls of the national consciousness". This is linked to the debate that some of us had just a little earlier. A purely national consciousnes rallies to defend the leadership of the "oppressed nation" as its bulwark against imperialism. But an anti-imperialism that is not thoroughly guided by anti-capitalist and anti-bourgeois radicalism simply becomes a defence of scoundrels, opportunists and tin-pot dictators. These latter are demagogues who know the political and rhetorical value of "anti-imperialism" only too well. But what is so deceiving is that their rhetoric always contains a grain of truth. My point is that we need so much more than this little nationalist grain of truth........." We must tolerate a great level of complexity here, but giving support to Milosevic certainly isn't a best choice to fight US imperialism, i.e. to help people in Yugoslavia. Yours, Andrej Grubacic co-founder of www.resistancenet.org I am a patriot. What is a patriot? Man who fights his own nationalism. Man who demystifies, who deconstructs, the image of Hero.That is what patriotism is". Gazi Kaplan, Albanian poet From jbunzl at simpol.org Tue Sep 5 07:20:43 2000 From: jbunzl at simpol.org (John Bunzl) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Reforms and falling short References: <2614-39B3EA5F-3496@storefull-236.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Message-ID: <000701c01770$0a043dc0$e55a87d4@oemcomputer> Tony, You wrote: Human nature > in capitalist society is a hard barrier to move aside, or do away with. > This question of how to move humankind forward to being what was called > by some, 'socialist man', is a question of how to create a society with > better people. > > People are products of their environment, even if a revolution has just > occurred. People raised in an abusive environment are widely known > to be rather abusive themselves, not the other way around. > > Conversely, people raised in a cooperative, supportive environment, > themselves tend to behave that way when they become adults. > > Capitalism is a society that makes abusive, non- social behavior into a > virtue..... 'the virtue of selfishness'. The job of humanity, Crash > or no Crash, is to turn desired societal human characteristics into the > opposite of what we have now. > My response: I agree fully with this. Our situation is, however, rather worse that just selfishness because selfishness implies unilateral, self-centred action independent of anyone else. What we actually have in today's global market capitalism is competition. This is worse than pure selfishness because competition provides a justification for that selfish behaviour. It also means that anyone choosing to act unselfishly or uncompetitively, loses out. So not only does it justify selfishness, it actually enforces it. That makes getting from competition to cooperation doubly difficult. This, I suggest, more or less sums up the world's current predicament as the Crash approaches. In such situations, the key problem is not so much what to do, but how to do it. In other words, an appropriate basis for cooperation needs to be found before the participants carry out the necessary action to solve the problem. For example, take a group of 4 or 5 boys fighting over a packet of sandwiches. None is strong enough on their own to win outright but, at the same time, none can give up the fight for fear of losing the chance of a bite because, if they did, they'd go hungry. Furthermore, if they carry on fighting for too long, the sandwiches are going to get squashed and become inedible. The 'what' part of the solution is clear: they need to stop fighting and share the sandwiches. The 'how' part (i.e. finding the appropriate basis for cooperation which will allow that to happen) is more difficult. Any ideas?? best wishes John From Borba100 at aol.com Tue Sep 5 12:33:11 2000 From: Borba100 at aol.com (Borba100@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Apparently, there's no plausible defense of Chomsky's attacks on Yugolsavia. Message-ID: Andrej writes: << It is strange that you cannot recall our idea - my proposal - to write a book about NATO war against Serbia. It was made in the middle of the war. We had a long phone call, talking over 20 minutes, and I have told you that the only condition for writing for this book was that facts, facts, facts and facts are respected and that Milosevic shouldn't be presented as benefactor and great antiimperialistic factor. You have rejected the proposa >> Huh? Who said anything about books? Are you writing (inaccurately) about our book discussion cause you can't think of anything to say in defense of Chomsky? . 1) During the bombing you asked me to write a chapter of a book - I have the emails that passed between us and I said I would write about media lies. I had a suspicion from your writing that certain things would be expected of me - so before I got started I inquired: will I be required to attack Milosevich? You wrote back: You will. Ahh, what price publication! I replied that I wouldn't do that - that the demonization of Milosevich was part of US strategy. You then simply replied: that you were sorry we couldn't work together. Your statements that "the whole campaign is being made on his [Milosevich's] demonization" is a paraphrase from a note from Chomsky, written to me on May 12. I have the printout in front of me as I write. It amazes me, how right Chomsky was - even more so today when the West' (through the ICG) has suggested a strategy of charging Milosevich with some atrocity concerning the current elections and then intervening. As Chomsky's point suggests, Imperial American attacks people by demonizing leaders, in Yugoslavia and elsehwhere. Why then does Chomsky play a leading role, on the left, in that demonization? Why does he repeat fact lies and make attacks on "the Serbs" disguised as criticisms of NATO. ("NATO should have known that if they attacked the Serbs the Serbs would commit more atrocities" - or words to that effect.) You offer no defense of Chomsky except that we all make mistakes. What Chomsky has done is indefensible. Jared From Borba100 at aol.com Tue Sep 5 12:33:37 2000 From: Borba100 at aol.com (Borba100@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Response to Andrej in Belgrade on Chomsky Message-ID: <48.a855090.26e69681@aol.com> In a message dated 09/05/2000 12:40:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, zapata@sezampro.yu writes: << It is strange that you cannot recall our idea- my proposal - to write a book about NATO war against Serbia. It was made in the middle of the war. We had a long phone call, talking over 20 minutes, and I have told you that the only condition for writing for this book was that facts, facts, facts and facts are respected and that Milosevic shouldn't be presented as benefactor and great antiimperialistic factor. You have rejected the proposa >> Andrej writes: << It is strange that you cannot recall our idea - my proposal - to write a book about NATO war against Serbia. It was made in the middle of the war. We had a long phone call, talking over 20 minutes, and I have told you that the only condition for writing for this book was that facts, facts, facts and facts are respected and that Milosevic shouldn't be presented as benefactor and great antiimperialistic factor. You have rejected the proposa >> Huh? Who said anything about books? Are you writing (inaccurately) about our book discussion cause you can't think of anything to say in defense of Chomsky? . 1) During the bombing you asked me to write a chapter of a book - I have the emails that passed between us and I said I would write about media lies. I had a suspicion from your writing that certain things would be expected of me - so before I got started I inquired: will I be required to attack Milosevich? You wrote back: You will. Ahh, what price publication! I replied that I wouldn't do that - that the demonization of Milosevich was part of US strategy. You then simply replied: that you were sorry we couldn't work together. Your statements that "the whole campaign is being made on his [Milosevich's] demonization" is a paraphrase from a note from Chomsky, written to me on May 12. I have the printout in front of me as I write. It amazes me, how right Chomsky was - even more so today when the West' (through the ICG) has suggested a strategy of charging Milosevich with some atrocity concerning the current elections and then intervening. As Chomsky's point suggests, Imperial American attacks people by demonizing leaders, in Yugoslavia and elsehwhere. Why then does Chomsky play a leading role, on the left, in that demonization? Why does he repeat fact lies and make attacks on "the Serbs" disguised as criticisms of NATO. ("NATO should have known that if they attacked the Serbs the Serbs would commit more atrocities" - or words to that effect.) You offer no defense of Chomsky except that we all make mistakes. What Chomsky has done is indefensible. Jared From aabdo at webtv.net Tue Sep 5 14:46:06 2000 From: aabdo at webtv.net (Tony Abdo) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Tony Abdo's defense of Chomsky In-Reply-To: "TAHIR WOOD" 's message of 5 Sep 2000 16:58:57 +0200 Message-ID: <6451-39B55B8E-8936@storefull-232.iap.bryant.webtv.net> I was strolling along minding my own business, when all of a sudden a conversation from a list I was not subscribed to, came rolling in as a personal email copy. In an effort to clarify why posts were flying between 3 different lists, all receiving only part of the dialog between Andrej and Jared, I in turn was accused of coming to the defense of Chomsky. This is rather bizarre, because I happen to agree in large part with what Jared is saying. I am very critical of the role Chomsky has played in demobilizing his supporters from ACTUALLY protesting against NATO. On the other hand, I am not in line to confer some sort of sainthood on Milosevic, neither. Apparently, Jared, this is not enough? I must admit to total admiration of Milosevic. Let's look again at some of Jared's criticisms of Chomsky..... Jared, I believe that there is a big element of truth here. However, he DOES say that NATO is the principle criminal element. Then he does little to actually mobilize protest in the imperialist countries to protest agaiinst NATO. Guilty of what as charged? The Serbs have been charged as having done so many evil things, that it is not necessary to never see any evil doings at any place or time by Serb forces, to disagree with this demonization campaign. Russians under Stalin's command were pretty ruthless at times too. Saying this, does not mean I am pro-Nazi. Very poorly, Jared. Very poorly. He has written a lot, but not used his influence to build an antiwar movement in the streets. An intellectual, amongst a group of intellectuals, that have refused to try to mobilize their followers to go to the streets and protest against US military use elsewhere in the world. True enough. It is harder to mobilize people unless they see the side they are defending as being saints. So lets get the Pope on the ball. No! Let's just criticize the Pope for urging inaction because he doesn't like the victim that much, and start trying to build an active antiwar movement in the US, without deifying Milosevic at the same time. True enough, again. Chomsky has a long history of that, dating way back from Khmer Rouge times. Just like Milosevic, the Pope falls somewhat less than being a saint, Jared. He doesn't always admit his previous errors, he just keeps moving on. Several other comrades seem to have the position of moving Milosevic towards sainthood, depending on what exact percentage of nationalized state property they feel still exists in Yugoslavia. This is the Trotskyist theory of the sliding scale of sainthood and deification. This approach, too, should be rejected. Solidarity should not only be given to Yugoslav self-determination, if a cheering squad of comrades from the imperialist countries can be gathered. We should support Yugoslav self-determination because it is under attack from the imperialist countries. Period. Jared, I want you to understand that Andrej and I have each our own point of view in this matter. We do not speak with one voice. I do not know exactly how Andrej views Chomsky. His viewpoint is from Belgrade, while mine is from San Antonio, Tx. So we are going to see Chomsky from 2 very different perspectives. Best wishes, Jared. Tony From zapata at sezampro.yu Tue Sep 5 15:43:33 2000 From: zapata at sezampro.yu (Andrej Grubacic) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Response to Andrej in Belgrade on Chomsky References: <48.a855090.26e69681@aol.com> Message-ID: <007f01c01782$835be940$e174fac3@k382> Dear Jared, I have to notice that there has been some confusion here: probably my imperfect English is to be blame. Namely, I have never made this request: > 1) During the bombing you asked me to write a chapter of a book - I have the > emails that passed between us and I said I would write about media lies. I > had a suspicion from your writing that certain things would be expected of me > - so before I got started I inquired: will I be required to attack > Milosevich? You wrote back: You will. I have never set this condition, and I am sure that other people from the book team would confirm that. I am an anarchist. I don't like to impose rules to people. Being a scientist as well, there was one principle I have insisted upon: that your chapter must be built on facts. So, it is either 1. My bad English or, and I hope it isn't, 2. Activist disease of fighting for his opinion by every means possible. You are bringing me, constantly, in position to "defend" Chomsky; Chomsky can defend himself if he wants. I am saying that his books and interviews did help leftist in Yugoslavia to convince people that capitalist democracies are not paradises on earth. It is simple as that. > > You offer no defense of Chomsky except that we all make mistakes. > > What Chomsky has done is indefensible. > Again, I am not defending anyone. I admire Chomsky very much. And I think that Chomsky made a mistake because he never was in Yugoslavia , a country he has written a book about. This book, New Military Humanism, is full of material mistakes. I am reproaching Noam because of his non scientific attitude in this particular situation. I don't think that his behavior was indefensible. Take Remsy Clark , for instance. I respect IAC very much. But this gentleman was taking a lot of money- and I know this for certain- from YU government. Chomsky wanted to escape this. As I have said, Chomsky should be judged only on the basis of consistency. I repeat: ...... And I think that you should admit that Chomsky was also very consistent; he made many mistakes, but he never did abandon his crucial principal: "Not supporting the government but opposing foreign intervention". He never did supported Vietnamese leaders. He opposed criminal war against Vietnam people and their right to chose. Same for Nicaragua, Salvador , Columbia ( he is very much against FARC as you know, of course).... So, in brief, I don't see that Chomsky did something harmful. Once again, he was very useful to us, leftist community here, as someone who had brilliantly demasked AmeriKKKan imperialism , media deceptions, State violence per se...... I cannot judge his usefulness to American anti war movement because I am not in America............. With regards to Milosevic, I will write only this: today my friend was hospitalized in Belgrade Clinical Center. He is, and I am not, a member of Otpor. I am confronting Otpor organization whenever I can. But I do not choose my friends on the basis of their political beliefs. Police had beaten him up because he had Otpor! T-shirt. Milosevic government is not oppressive? Ask him. He is without conciseness, hospitalized in Pancevo hospital. Please, don't tell me that in AmeriKKKA things are the same. I know that they are. And not only in AmeriKKKa. Everywhere. Why are you insiston sanctifying politicians than? I cannot follow you. Is that "a pitfall of national consciousness" ? ".....A purely national consciousness rallies to defend the leadership of the "oppressed nation" as its bulwark against imperialism......" Is that it? I cannot understand your positions, regardless how much I admire your effortless fight against US militarism. Best regards, Andrej www.resistancenet.org From AlAdisa at aol.com Tue Sep 5 14:15:46 2000 From: AlAdisa at aol.com (AlAdisa@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re:Public schools Message-ID: <9a.94a24a8.26e6ae72@aol.com> This is a national concern. The same issues are affecting us in Detroit. From Borba100 at aol.com Tue Sep 5 16:27:49 2000 From: Borba100 at aol.com (Borba100@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] First of two interviews with Radio B292 (Belgrade) Message-ID: <9a.94966bd.26e6cd65@aol.com> Dear friends, A couple of months ago the Yugoslav government closed Studio B in Belgrade. This resulted in "collateral damage" - namely, the closing of radio B292 which had been given space in Studio B. At the time I tracked down B292's temporary office in Belgrade and interviewed two people, the Website editor and the news editor. The interview with B292 website editor Gordon Paunovic is below. Jared: Why did the government shut down Studio B? Gordan Paunovic: The main accusation was that they called for an armed response to overthrow the government Jared: Is that true? Paunovic: No, of course not. On the 13th of May you had a rally on a mountain over there and you had these people who shouted "Uprising! Uprising!" And they had coverage of both rallies. So if you think that's a call for uprising - [Note: Subsequently I learned from a Montengran student whose family has been involved in "upriings" for 200 years, that while the term "uprising" might be taken as radical chic in English, in Serbia it it associated with a bloody history of anti-Turkish rebellions, a history with which every Serbian child is familiar. It is not a term used casually in Serbia.] Jared: Well the news report I read in the West said that guns were fired in the air and Vuk Draskovic said, "Save your bullets, we're going to need them." Doesn't that sound like a call for civil war and - Paunovic: These are folklore events without any political weight which are happening every year. It is the anniversary of the Chetniks' uprising against the Nazi's in the Second World War, on this mountain. It's a completely folklore gathering. They always have guns. Jared: But his comment? "Save your bullets we'll need them later?" Paunovic: Well then let them arrest Draskovic. Jared: Well, they closed his Studio B...Tell me, is radio B292 funded by George Soros? Paunovic: Funded or founded? Jared: Funded. Given money - Paunovic: I think it happens quite often since 1992 but it's not the only source of money. But I'm not the right person to talk about this. Jared: Do you know anything about - Paunovic: There is a list of international foundations, not only Soros who - Jared: Like what else? Paunovic: Press Now, from Holland, Royal Swedish Foundation or something, Royal Netherlands Foundation. Jared: Any in the US? Paunovic: I guess so. I don't know the details. Those things I know by chance. But Soros Foundation, yes, definitely, but much, these days in last year or two years much less than before. Jared: Any money coming from foundations in the US? Paunovic: Probably, but I don't know which Foundations. I am pretty much pissed off in putting this kind of argumentation, like Soros equals B92. That really comes from people who are not in a position to see what we are doing. We will take money from anyone. To make a good production on many levels, from radio, to TV and video productions to Internet, Books, music. You need money. Jared: I'll read you a statement from Gelbard. You know who Gelbard is? Paunovic: US Special Envoy to the Balkans. Jared: Exactly. [Jared's note: actually as of the end of 1999 Gelbard was moved to a new position, Ambassador to Indoensia...] Do you know who Biden is? Sen. Biden? This an exchange from the July 29th hearings on supporting the so-called independent forces in Serbia. The hearings took place the day after the Senate voted to give $100,000,000 to dollars to the independent opposition. This is Sen. Biden talking: "What can we do about inside Serbia? For example Draskovic continues to deny access to Studio B, which is supposedly, as I understand it -- he's not? MR. GELBARD: No, he's actually given access to Studio B -- excuse me; given access of Studio B to Radio B-92. And my understanding is that Radio B-92, one of the independent voices, has just reopened as Radio B-292. We want Draskovic to open up Studio B to the rest of the opposition, and that's a message that he'll be getting from us in the next few days." {Jared resumes] That's how they talked about you. Any comment? Paunovic: Can you read it to me again? Jared: I'll read it slowly. (Reads again} Paunovic: Hmmm. I think it's, I mean I'm not getting clear what do you want to point? What do you want to ask me? If you want to think B92 is the voice of Gelbard or the American administration, that has nothing to do with reality. Jared: Well let me ask you, does it sound like an extraordinary situation for the government of a hostile country to be discussing in detail the use of studio facilities in the target country. And discussing it in detail - Paunovic: Well, to make such a conclusion that would mean that you have a perfectly normal situation here. What you have here is the most abnormal situation in the world which has nothing to do with the US government. Jared: You think the situation has nothing to do with the US - Paunovic: And another thing I don't like the way we are - Like Robin Cook and Jamie Shea they made a huge damage to our image when Robin Cooke said in a Press Conference which was directly broadcast on CNN "You know we helped B92 to get satellite access" and things like that. But you know I think they will obviously help anyone who is spreading serious criticism of the government. So what are we going to do about it? IF they want to do it they will. Jared: Do you feel uncomfortable with that statement [by Gelbard and Biden]? Paunovic: I absolutely feel uncomfortable with anyone patronizing - Jared: You said before that the United States had nothing do with the situation in Yugoslavia. You don't think the United States is any part of the problem that you face in Yugoslavia? Paunovic: Well I don't say they are not part of the problem They are a very big part of the problem because for nine years they saw Milosevich as a guarantor of peace and then completely changed their policy declaring him a war criminal. If they needed the year 1999 to realize he is a war criminal I think they are very wrong. He is a war criminal and a person who is seriously violating for many years. He came to power in a completely illegal way. He had a coup in the [former communist] party congress. Jared: You said the US has been responsible for problems because of its policy of backing Milosevich. So that's the only thing the United States has done? Paunovic: Are you referring to the bombing? I mean we can talk about these things for 24 hours. Jared: Well, it did happen. But anyway, you take money from the US government Paunovic: (Laughs) I don't know about it. I didn't say that. Did I say it? Jared: They say it. Paunovic: Who? Jared: In these hearings they say it explicitly , they say we've been giving large sums of money to the 'independent' media. Now the main, the only name of 'independent' media they mention is yours. They say we had to stop when the bombing started. Since the bombing ended we've been able to start again and we're immediately going to get $10 million dollars in there. And we have voted 100 million. That's what they say. Paunovic: You know, I don't know. That help was not only for B92. I mean you have a list, practically everyone, all media that exists in Serbia that is not controlled by the Serbian government is on that list. Jared: Getting money from the US? Paunovic: Exactly,. Jared: So they're all getting it, not just B92? Paunovic: You know it's not a question of morality or something like that because we're in an open war with the government. We realized much before Washington realized we had to overthrow Milosevich Jared: Let me ask you, I understand you're broadcasting on satellite. What satellite is that? Paunovic: I don't know. Jared: Is that Eurosat? Paunovic: I am not a technical expert on the satellite. I can tell you about the Internet Jared: Is there somebody who handles the radio I can talk to? Paunovic: You can talk to me about it. Jared; So do you know what satellite it is? Paunovic: Yes but I don't know. I don't have anybody here who can help you about this. Jared: IS there anybody I can call to find that out? Paunovic: Before, the way satellite operation was done I think in cooperation with BBC. Jared: Ahh, so you do know. And so now? Paunovic: Probably the same. Jared: Have you protested the Serbian government's exclusion from Eurosat [the European Satellite TV link] Paunovic: We protest all those things. Everything. [At this point Paunovic instructed me to check on their website to see about the protest against Yugoslav exclusion from Eursat. I checked while I was on the phone with him but I found no such protest against Yugoslav exclusion. He promised to send me the URL to that protest, and did in fact send an email in which he states his regrets that the URL for the protest against Yugoslav esclusion from the Eurosat is "unavailable") End of interview Jared Israel From ab11 at erols.com Tue Sep 5 16:53:05 2000 From: ab11 at erols.com (Amiri Baraka) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: [CrashList-talk] Coming soon to a "theater" near you: The next NATO aggression -- Montenegro References: <200007310219.TAA07136@mail4.bigmailbox.com> Message-ID: <00af01c0178b$f3aa6f60$8aa5accf@amiribar> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 10:19 PM Subject: RE: RE: [CrashList] Re: [CrashList-talk] Coming soon to a "theater" near you: The next NATO aggression -- Montenegro > > Yes, sad but true. Point well taken > > Peace, > Ken > >From: "Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky" > >To: crashlist@lists.wwpublish.com > >Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:28:11 -0300 > >Subject: RE: [CrashList] Re: [CrashList-talk] Coming soon to a "theater" near you: The next NATO aggression -- Montenegro > >Reply-To: crashlist@lists.wwpublish.com > > > >En relaci?n a RE: [CrashList] Re: [CrashList-talk] Coming soon , > >el 29 Jul 00, a las 19:46, kenfree@nettaxi.com dijo: > > > >> This is a very valid criticism, however, both China and Russia have > >> demonstrated a willingness to sell their silence in the past, and in > >> the Russian case, with respect to Yugoslavia, and letting the "allies" > >> have their way with her. It is probably the urgency of the crisis of > >> capital that will determine how unilaterally (eg NATO) vs. > >> multilaterally this military effort might be perpetrated. Certainly > >> Russia and China have the power to stop it in either case, but they > >> have not done so for Iraq, nor for Yugoslavia, and the beat goes on. > >> Somehow, their threat to Western hegemony always seems to end up on > >> the auction block well before it gets actually implemented. > >> > >> Peace, > >> Ken > > > >Sad first precedent: Spain, 1936. > > > > > >N?stor Miguel Gorojovsky > >gorojovsky@inea.com.ar > >NUEVA DIRECCI?N ELECTR?NICA DESDE EL 10 DE JULIO DE 2000 > >NEW E-ADDRESS AS OF JULY 10, 2000 > >gorojovsky@arnet.com.ar > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Crashlist mailing list > >Crashlist@lists.wwpublish.com > >Crashlist webpage: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > > > >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > >http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Nettaxi.com in the News ((( Video by ON24 ))) > http://vuwin.on24.com/vuwindow/scripts/vuwin.asp?id=30279&type=av&ref=NTX&cb =NTX > > > > ???X???????z?m?Y????S??Sw???????????m?(?^m?Y?-+-? )??b?(>?sSYsY?b???~????!-+- From ab11 at erols.com Tue Sep 5 16:54:24 2000 From: ab11 at erols.com (Amiri Baraka) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:01 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: [BRC-DISC] FWD: sign petition for Nader vs. "Lap Dogs" References: Message-ID: <00b601c0178c$1ffe6580$8aa5accf@amiribar> Imperialism vs The People is The Principal Contradiction in the world today. The National Bourgeoisie in all countries is an article of unwilling history. To scream insults at the CP is shallow and impotent. Would that the BRC, the WE, wd try to Unite With The Many, including the CP, to defeat the Few. And quit pontificating and profiling like constipated marionettes Wish to Malcolm, We were engaged in as much anti-imperialist work as CPUSA. AND NO! I AINT IN IT!! Amiri B ----- Original Message ----- From: Art McGee To: Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 6:50 PM Subject: RE: [BRC-DISC] FWD: sign petition for Nader vs. "Lap Dogs" > *************************************************************************** > This Message Is From: Art McGee > *************************************************************************** > > >If you recognize the capitalist class as the enemy, and > >the Democratic Party its agent, then you must recognize > >the CPUSA as its "lap dog." > > I don't really care about your explanations or > justifications, or what Mao said, that's not > the way we refer to comrades within the BRC. > > Keep it up, and you'll soon be out of here. > > The same applies to any other POU violations. > You can explain what you meant all you want, > but if you continue to violate the POU, you > won't be participating on this list. > > Art McGee > BRC-DISCUSS List Administrator > > > [Cross-posting or publishing messages that appear on BRC-DISCUSS to a > non-BRC medium is prohibited (except for articles, announcements, and > press releases), without EXPLICIT permission from the message author] > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > BRC-DISCUSS: Black Radical Congress - General Discussion/Debate > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Unsubscribe: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Subscribe: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Digest: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Help: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Archive1: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Archive2: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Post: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > | BRC | > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From ab11 at erols.com Tue Sep 5 16:56:07 2000 From: ab11 at erols.com (Amiri Baraka) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: [BRC-DISC] Re:NAder isn't arousing anything References: <390022436.966977188948.JavaMail.root@web649-wra> <39A2F122.529CA3DA@umich.edu> Message-ID: <00c701c0178c$5c2a24e0$8aa5accf@amiribar> THE NADIR OF SOCIAL- DEMOCRATIC LIBERAL POSTURING Weimar is recycling it's eerie presence , tightening around us today! Ralph Nader's feverish personal "campaign for president" is useful in the sense that in a general way, he raises some issues that , hopefully, like Bradley's gesture, moves the Gore wagon slightly to the Left. But for Nader to insist that his individualistic petty bourgeois for a moral remaking of the Imperialist state is politically advanced as the practical politics of our time place and condition, is sad and dangerous. Because, only the slowest among us can not see that if Nader takes his , in essence, politically solipsistic show all the way to the hoop, then he will quite simply help Bush get elected! The politics of individual moral cant is the "protest" politics of the petty bourgeois "loyal opposition" crying out because they think Imperialism can be cleaned up enough (consumer advocacy) for them & some of we, to be INCLUDED. First, Nader is not that much Left of Gore. His recent speeches, while trying to tighten up his "gap" vis a vis Blacks and oppressed nationalities, is still saccharin covered generality, in the main. Nader is a consumer advocate, at worst, quality control for imperialism's commodities. NADER CAN ONLY BE ULTIMATELY USEFUL TO THE PEOPLE, IN A PRACTICAL POLITICAL SENSE, IF HE AGREES TO AGGRESSIVELY HELP CREATE A LEFT BLOC.. OF THE MAIN ANTI IMPERIALST ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS AND DEMAND CONCRETE CONCESSIONS FROM GORE!!---- Some of the main groups that should be in such a bloc would be Marxist-Leninist Organizations, including the CPUSA, Freedom Socialists, Committee of Correspondence, Social Democratic organizations like the DSA, SDA, , Puerto Rican Socialist Party (The Trots and Anarchists abhor the dirty bourgeois electoral arena, that's one characteristic of their objective Opposition to Revolutionary Democratic Struggle, the only real precursor and path to Socialism!) Anti Imperialist Organizations ...both multi national and national in form; e.g., Black Latino, Asian, Native Peoples groups, Trade Unions, Black Radical Congress, Black United Front, RNA, NAACP, Pan Africanist, Professional and Academic Organizations, Cultural and Arts Groups, Media Groups, Nation of Islam and American Muslim Mission, Independent Publications and Presses. Consumer Coops, Agricultural Coops, Advocacy Groups, particularly around Welfare, Immigration, Police Brutality. Police Control Boards, The Congressional and State Legislative Black and Latino Caucuses, ABC LEO, Individual Politcal and Activist figures,and their organizations, e.g., Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, RAndall Robinson, Marable, Gates, West, Afro American, Latino Publishers Groups, Minority and Small Business Organizations, Church related groups, The Black Radical Congress could put out a call for such a meeting. This letter is a CALL FROM UNITY AND STRUGGLE NEWSPAPER 808 S.10THST NEWARK NEW JERSEY 973 242-1346 / 1509 FAX The CPUSA with other influential groups could put out such a call. The Greens SHOULD join with this effort IMMEDIATELY. The Nation of Islam , because of its call for a Million Family March in October, and Sharpton because of his Aug 26 National Action Group led march on DC , have the public visibility to cooperate importantly in such a call. Such a meeting must produce A PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM, a multi-national mass document that could forcefully project the key elements of an actual Anti Impeialist stance and demands on the Democratic party. More importantly, such unity would provide the material basis for a broad People's Democratic United Front as the basis for the Revolutionary Democratic Workers Party that could begin to do the concrete practical work of creating an mass revolutioanry democratic alternative political structure , that could actually win local elections and create the intense propaganda and agitation network to educate, mobilize and organize the many, to defeat the few. Either Nader and the Greens abandon the isolated glamour of moral pontification as a Loyal Opposition to Imperialism or they risk the Weimar replay of helping elect the far Right, BUSH 2. I know the choice is between a Murderer (B-2) and a Prostitute (Gore rimes with W....) but folks, that is literally where we are. Being serenaded by the dismally ignorant chorus of Trot-Anarchists, one of who said, "I bet you voted for Clinton". To which we say, I bet you voted (by non-voting) for Bush. (Note to All , read The Casebook on Weimar, Univ of Calif, to see how close we are to Weimar 2! Hitler came to power because of a split between Communists and Social Democrats!} Amiri Baraka From: John Woodford To: brc-discuss@lists.tao.ca Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 5:31 PM Subject: [BRC-DISC] Re:NAder isn't arousing anything Michael Albert . promoting Nader, says " What seems missing on both sides, therefore, is recognition that the most important impact of the Nader campaign will be changing the political climate in the country by energizing the left, and that our arguments need to take account of this impact. Take the cases most often bandied about: .. BUT big problem NAder has so far proved himself unable or unwilling to arouse or energize anyone or anything. He acts more like a Trojan Horse--a sham gift to the erstwhile "left," one sparking no surge, no oomph, little of nothing. A bigger point--one that shold have been the first of the three the author cited--is, if one votes for Gore under current circumstances, is one then accepting a peculiar American institution in which, under arguments 1 and 2 of the author, one will never see an end to this choice. Under our current model of politics, the perpetual motion machine of mediocrity serving symbolically as a democratic institution while serving in fact as fronts for the Moneybags and Fat Cats, can run on and on. There will always be a Democrat somewhat like Gore--although it is hoped one cannot be found that is more like a Republican than he and his running mate and their policies (not stuff Gore has espoused but really policies he's supported and enacted--hardly "left"). And there will always be, a few shades more rightist or even further Fuehrer, depending on the era, there will be the Bu-shite. And we would forever here that commandment: Thou must vote for Gore-tech, lest thou be ruled by Bu-shite. Yet sometimes the Bu-shites win, and lo and behold , as we've seen, things are not much different than they have been or would be under the Gore-tech. As uninspiring as Nader is, as weak and perhaps phony, if the Democrats conclude that the Gore-Lieberman Southern strategy fails, new folks will have to be installed to give the party access to the pork four years from now. That leaves the left immobilized in an electoral politics swamp, forever mired, forever crying, Oh, Give Us the Lesser, Give Us the Lesser.. As for Cheney. He may be more likely to convert than Lieberman is. ***** -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 9083 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20000905/bbaf6d21/attachment.txt From ab11 at erols.com Tue Sep 5 16:56:14 2000 From: ab11 at erols.com (Amiri Baraka) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: [BRC-DISC] Re:NAder isn't arousing anything References: <390022436.966977188948.JavaMail.root@web649-wra> <39A2F122.529CA3DA@umich.edu> Message-ID: <00c801c0178c$611b1900$8aa5accf@amiribar> THE NADIR OF SOCIAL- DEMOCRATIC LIBERAL POSTURING Weimar is recycling it's eerie presence , tightening around us today! Ralph Nader's feverish personal "campaign for president" is useful in the sense that in a general way, he raises some issues that , hopefully, like Bradley's gesture, moves the Gore wagon slightly to the Left. But for Nader to insist that his individualistic petty bourgeois for a moral remaking of the Imperialist state is politically advanced as the practical politics of our time place and condition, is sad and dangerous. Because, only the slowest among us can not see that if Nader takes his , in essence, politically solipsistic show all the way to the hoop, then he will quite simply help Bush get elected! The politics of individual moral cant is the "protest" politics of the petty bourgeois "loyal opposition" crying out because they think Imperialism can be cleaned up enough (consumer advocacy) for them & some of we, to be INCLUDED. First, Nader is not that much Left of Gore. His recent speeches, while trying to tighten up his "gap" vis a vis Blacks and oppressed nationalities, is still saccharin covered generality, in the main. Nader is a consumer advocate, at worst, quality control for imperialism's commodities. NADER CAN ONLY BE ULTIMATELY USEFUL TO THE PEOPLE, IN A PRACTICAL POLITICAL SENSE, IF HE AGREES TO AGGRESSIVELY HELP CREATE A LEFT BLOC.. OF THE MAIN ANTI IMPERIALST ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS AND DEMAND CONCRETE CONCESSIONS FROM GORE!!---- Some of the main groups that should be in such a bloc would be Marxist-Leninist Organizations, including the CPUSA, Freedom Socialists, Committee of Correspondence, Social Democratic organizations like the DSA, SDA, , Puerto Rican Socialist Party (The Trots and Anarchists abhor the dirty bourgeois electoral arena, that's one characteristic of their objective Opposition to Revolutionary Democratic Struggle, the only real precursor and path to Socialism!) Anti Imperialist Organizations ...both multi national and national in form; e.g., Black Latino, Asian, Native Peoples groups, Trade Unions, Black Radical Congress, Black United Front, RNA, NAACP, Pan Africanist, Professional and Academic Organizations, Cultural and Arts Groups, Media Groups, Nation of Islam and American Muslim Mission, Independent Publications and Presses. Consumer Coops, Agricultural Coops, Advocacy Groups, particularly around Welfare, Immigration, Police Brutality. Police Control Boards, The Congressional and State Legislative Black and Latino Caucuses, ABC LEO, Individual Politcal and Activist figures,and their organizations, e.g., Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, RAndall Robinson, Marable, Gates, West, Afro American, Latino Publishers Groups, Minority and Small Business Organizations, Church related groups, The Black Radical Congress could put out a call for such a meeting. This letter is a CALL FROM UNITY AND STRUGGLE NEWSPAPER 808 S.10THST NEWARK NEW JERSEY 973 242-1346 / 1509 FAX The CPUSA with other influential groups could put out such a call. The Greens SHOULD join with this effort IMMEDIATELY. The Nation of Islam , because of its call for a Million Family March in October, and Sharpton because of his Aug 26 National Action Group led march on DC , have the public visibility to cooperate importantly in such a call. Such a meeting must produce A PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM, a multi-national mass document that could forcefully project the key elements of an actual Anti Impeialist stance and demands on the Democratic party. More importantly, such unity would provide the material basis for a broad People's Democratic United Front as the basis for the Revolutionary Democratic Workers Party that could begin to do the concrete practical work of creating an mass revolutioanry democratic alternative political structure , that could actually win local elections and create the intense propaganda and agitation network to educate, mobilize and organize the many, to defeat the few. Either Nader and the Greens abandon the isolated glamour of moral pontification as a Loyal Opposition to Imperialism or they risk the Weimar replay of helping elect the far Right, BUSH 2. I know the choice is between a Murderer (B-2) and a Prostitute (Gore rimes with W....) but folks, that is literally where we are. Being serenaded by the dismally ignorant chorus of Trot-Anarchists, one of who said, "I bet you voted for Clinton". To which we say, I bet you voted (by non-voting) for Bush. (Note to All , read The Casebook on Weimar, Univ of Calif, to see how close we are to Weimar 2! Hitler came to power because of a split between Communists and Social Democrats!} Amiri Baraka From: John Woodford To: brc-discuss@lists.tao.ca Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 5:31 PM Subject: [BRC-DISC] Re:NAder isn't arousing anything Michael Albert . promoting Nader, says " What seems missing on both sides, therefore, is recognition that the most important impact of the Nader campaign will be changing the political climate in the country by energizing the left, and that our arguments need to take account of this impact. Take the cases most often bandied about: .. BUT big problem NAder has so far proved himself unable or unwilling to arouse or energize anyone or anything. He acts more like a Trojan Horse--a sham gift to the erstwhile "left," one sparking no surge, no oomph, little of nothing. A bigger point--one that shold have been the first of the three the author cited--is, if one votes for Gore under current circumstances, is one then accepting a peculiar American institution in which, under arguments 1 and 2 of the author, one will never see an end to this choice. Under our current model of politics, the perpetual motion machine of mediocrity serving symbolically as a democratic institution while serving in fact as fronts for the Moneybags and Fat Cats, can run on and on. There will always be a Democrat somewhat like Gore--although it is hoped one cannot be found that is more like a Republican than he and his running mate and their policies (not stuff Gore has espoused but really policies he's supported and enacted--hardly "left"). And there will always be, a few shades more rightist or even further Fuehrer, depending on the era, there will be the Bu-shite. And we would forever here that commandment: Thou must vote for Gore-tech, lest thou be ruled by Bu-shite. Yet sometimes the Bu-shites win, and lo and behold , as we've seen, things are not much different than they have been or would be under the Gore-tech. As uninspiring as Nader is, as weak and perhaps phony, if the Democrats conclude that the Gore-Lieberman Southern strategy fails, new folks will have to be installed to give the party access to the pork four years from now. That leaves the left immobilized in an electoral politics swamp, forever mired, forever crying, Oh, Give Us the Lesser, Give Us the Lesser.. As for Cheney. He may be more likely to convert than Lieberman is. ***** -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 9083 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20000905/eee8d7f2/attachment.txt From ab11 at erols.com Tue Sep 5 16:56:58 2000 From: ab11 at erols.com (Amiri Baraka) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: [CrashList-talk] Coming soon to a "theater" near you: The next NATO aggression -- Montenegro References: <200007310219.TAA07136@mail4.bigmailbox.com> Message-ID: <00cd01c0178c$7e0cc400$8aa5accf@amiribar> We need to be "Up to Speed" about the principal contradiction in the world today, viz. Imperialism vs The People! The New World Order is explicitly moving imperialism Past its Reliance on Governments, except as policepersons, explainers and accountants. The New Era in which we have entered is the stage where not even Single Nation Monopoly can survive. (This is the lesson of the Bill Gates/ Microsoft charade....Microsoft "gives away" its Browser, so that is Monopoly...meanwhile, EXXON-MOBILE: BMW=-CHRYSLER; AOL-TIME WARNER, &c and these are Not monopolies! Imperialism is now able to run things through NON GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, e.g., WTO, IMF, NAFTA, WORLD BANK. The US has just about lost its national sovereignty, that's why the good old boys are enraged! "SINGLE SUPERPOWER" is Hype, for US role as principal Hitman for International Monopoly Capitalism. Witness, they attack Iraq as UN attack Kosovo as NATO, both cat's paws on IMC.. Russian tragedy was overthrow of USSR (which had degenerated through Revisionism (e.g., even before Stalin's anti-Marxist statement in 16th Congress that there were no more hostile classes in USSR) to Social Imperialism. Rightist Coup in China icing the so called Gang of Four and installing Deng (pronounced DUNG) Tsiao Peng to power was tragic victory for the Right and has opened the doors to much more Bourgeois Imperialist penetration. But Imperialism's address of national chauvinism, national oppression, racism to Third World Countries is blunt enough (the bombing of Chinese Embassy!...Please!) to make the sugar coated bullet tactic of undermining the Chinese more difficult. There are still millions of actual Marxist-Leninists in the C:PSU ....rendered more politically and ideologically prepared by Mao's Cultural Revolution.. Which is what Lenin was so emphatic about in Better Fewer and the last works Stalin ignored. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 10:19 PM Subject: RE: RE: [CrashList] Re: [CrashList-talk] Coming soon to a "theater" near you: The next NATO aggression -- Montenegro > > Yes, sad but true. Point well taken > > Peace, > Ken > >From: "Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky" > >To: crashlist@lists.wwpublish.com > >Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:28:11 -0300 > >Subject: RE: [CrashList] Re: [CrashList-talk] Coming soon to a "theater" near you: The next NATO aggression -- Montenegro > >Reply-To: crashlist@lists.wwpublish.com > > > >En relaci?n a RE: [CrashList] Re: [CrashList-talk] Coming soon , > >el 29 Jul 00, a las 19:46, kenfree@nettaxi.com dijo: > > > >> This is a very valid criticism, however, both China and Russia have > >> demonstrated a willingness to sell their silence in the past, and in > >> the Russian case, with respect to Yugoslavia, and letting the "allies" > >> have their way with her. It is probably the urgency of the crisis of > >> capital that will determine how unilaterally (eg NATO) vs. > >> multilaterally this military effort might be perpetrated. Certainly > >> Russia and China have the power to stop it in either case, but they > >> have not done so for Iraq, nor for Yugoslavia, and the beat goes on. > >> Somehow, their threat to Western hegemony always seems to end up on > >> the auction block well before it gets actually implemented. > >> > >> Peace, > >> Ken > > > >Sad first precedent: Spain, 1936. > > > > > >N?stor Miguel Gorojovsky > >gorojovsky@inea.com.ar > >NUEVA DIRECCI?N ELECTR?NICA DESDE EL 10 DE JULIO DE 2000 > >NEW E-ADDRESS AS OF JULY 10, 2000 > >gorojovsky@arnet.com.ar > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Crashlist mailing list > >Crashlist@lists.wwpublish.com > >Crashlist webpage: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > > > >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > >http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Nettaxi.com in the News ((( Video by ON24 ))) > http://vuwin.on24.com/vuwindow/scripts/vuwin.asp?id=30279&type=av&ref=NTX&cb =NTX > > > > ???X???????z?m?Y????S??Sw???????????m?(?^m?Y?-+-? )??b?(>?sSYsY?b???~????!-+- From ab11 at erols.com Tue Sep 5 16:57:16 2000 From: ab11 at erols.com (Amiri Baraka) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Self Determination- Support It! References: Message-ID: <00d001c0178c$86fc0ee0$8aa5accf@amiribar> No inevestigation , no right to speak!(Mao) Do us a favor ...read "Dialectical & Historical Materialism" Lenin also "Four Essays In Philosophy" by Mao "The Weapon of Theory" Cabral ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Warren To: Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 5:23 PM Subject: Re: [CrashList] Self Determination- Support It! > Julien writes: > > >Marxists of course subscribe to a > >kind of crude economic determinism which makes them often see economic > >things as more important than they are (I'm going to be flamed for this > >gross > >oversimplification :-). > > Ahh,... just remind your detractors that you were talking "baby talk" to me, > in order to get me to understand what seems so obvious to them. Thanks for > your patience in translating the concepts into gross oversimplifications so > that you could share them with me. > > It was also written and responded to: > > >U.S. activists must keep the > > >government out of the political affairs of other people. The U. S. > > >government clearly means no good. > > Of course from everyone's standpoint except the US, it seems fairly clear > that our "government clearly means no good." I would not dispute a large > amount of our policy being catagorized that way. <--- please note I said > that, ... please. > > However, those who demand the US out and back to our 200 years of isolation > must provide SOME intellectual honesty by presenting a more constructive > pathway that plugs the "vacuum" left by keeping US out of "the political > affairs of other people." At the moment there is no realistic proposal on > the table, beyond the vague hope that some socialist, altruistic force will > magically appear to solve the problems left over from the legacy of the 20th > Century,(regardless of who created those problems: US idiots, Global > Capitalists, butchering second & third-world thugs, somnambulent > governments, or fanatic fundamentalist zealots) . > > I am going to risk a bit of "honesty" here, to see if we can move the list > forward. I fully expect ONLY flames, namecalling, and some clever ways of > turning "baby talk", and "naive" back against me, as well as some acerbic > observations about my non-marxist parentage. Go ahead if you must, I am > prepared. > > From my personal perspective(<--- please note I said "personal" there.) here > are some factors that stand in the way of keeping US out of "the political > affairs of other people.": > > 1) It is true enough that I am selfish enough to want to be in control > rather than trusting someone else to be. I see no more trustworthy persons > on the horizon, although I am willing to examine the cause of anyone who is > willing to step forward and ask for that control. I do NOT see that > willingness to examine other causes than their own from many other Crashlist > members at the moment. > > The idea of there being NO ONE in control is too mature for any of us as > yet. Later ... maybe, after the Crash has demonstrated the folly of my > position as well as those of others in opposition. (Let us try to remember > that a certain amount of our attention should be given to the "Crash" in > crashlist.) > > 2)Not ALL US policy is based upon capitalism, or even imperialism. Unless > this is understood, there is little hope of a realistic understanding of > alternatives. As bad as many of you hate it, we still tend to act > occasionally from a sense of morality, as skewed and misapprehended as it > seems. The most common mistake when looking at US foriegn policy from > outside is to overlook that factor and attribute darker, capitalistic > motives everywhere, even where they do not exist, although > capitalists/imperialists may benefit from those policies. > > 3)In the US we no longer trust this "Go away and leave us alone" > prescription for Europeans dealing with global issues that begin in Europe > or are so provoked in asia. Simply ... we have been burned too many times by > doing so. The lessons we have drawn from the 20th century make us think > presently that to withdraw from that particular world stage leads to mass > graves, and it saddens us to keep sending forensic teams in to verify that > the unmarked graves contain young innocents murdered simply for their > genetic heritage. (It is allowable to say "Poor naive Americans, what do we > care for their sadness?" as long as you realize that our retaliation to that > cosmopolitain viewpoint is measured in smart-bombs, regardless of > justification.) It only reinforces our resolve to hear others deny the > existence of the graves or attempt to justify them. It does absolutely no > good to point out either the irrationality or the cognitive dissonance of > our viewpoint. > > Detractors may say this is me simply falling into line with the Zionist > "Never Again" philosophy, but mine is a more fundamental objection. It is > simply true on the strategic/tactical levels that SOMEONE will fill the > vacuum, at at the moment our experience of the last century leads us to > believe in the haphazard collective security agreements of NATO and the UN > -- rather than any other alternative or any other SOMEONE. Staying out of > the "political affairs of other people" means that EVERYONE must do so, and > this will never happen. It is our hubris that we think we can do it better. > It is YOURS that you ignore that reality must creep into the conduct of > nations from time to time. ALL OF US ARE AT FAULT THAT WE FIND LITTLE COMMON > GROUND TO COOPERATE. > > If we wish to examine the crash, understand it, and perhaps move together to > mitigate its effects, we must find that commonality here on the list, don't > you think? > > If any of you simply wish to bash me for being an uneducated > swallower-of-imperialist-propaganda, that moves the list's discussion not > one cm in any direction except toward hostility. Better to deal with the > argument, not the name-calling, please. Return the respect I give others. > > However, feel free to flame away. ;-) > > Tom > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > From Borba100 at aol.com Tue Sep 5 16:06:43 2000 From: Borba100 at aol.com (Borba100@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Neither "Saint" Nor "Criminal" - Just target of Imperial US Message-ID: n a message dated 09/05/2000 4:50:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, aabdo@webtv.net writes: << Several other comrades seem to have the position of moving Milosevic towards sainthood, depending on what exact percentage of nationalized state property they feel still exists in Yugoslavia. >> I'm sorry but this is simply another straw man. The issue isn't whether Milosevich is a saint. Who cares? The point is you cannot build an antiwar movement to support people you're attacking as criminals. It's a pretty basic point. Were the Vietnamese saints? They were targets of an unjust attack, that's all. Same here. One focuses on opposing the Imperial power. And one uses common sense, taking with a grain of salt the various Western media attacks, realizing that there's a lot of money available to finance these slanders. Common sense. And a little humility, please. The point about privatization is that obviously the Yugoslav government has resisted because the Western media has ATTACKED them for resisting. And just recently, the US Commerce Department advertised for a coordinator to direct privatization of several hundred firms in Montenegro, run by Milosevich's deadly enemies. The Commerce people promise privatization will be immensely profitable, so there must be SOMETHING left to steal... There is a reason that the Yugoslav government is much better than, say, the Islamist government in Sarajevo - the reason it, it was not organized by US intelligence using Diaspora fascists from around the world and recycling vicious race hate straight out of World War II combined with the new Western creation, Islamist fascism. It was based on preserving the Yugoslav ideal. That is why there are hundreds of thousands of NON-Serbian refuges in Serbia. Ethnic unity is the passion of Milosevich and his wife, whom, by the way, Andrej rather disgustingly attacks. It is NOT the stance of the Izetbegovic or the Croatian government. (BTW - why is it OK to pour out such venom towards certain women, always women who are attacked in the Western media as being dragon ladies?) Yugoslavia is a tiny country. It has stood up to the biggest tyrannosaurus and not capitulated. This had a wonderful affect on the world. The Yugo government is not racists. They have superb relations with Libya. They have a military alliance with China and Iraq. They have welcomed tens of thousands of Chinese immigrants. They remain pretty damned cool in the face of constant provocation. Not bad for a a little country that used to be a virtual US colony run by a guy who used to be a banker in NY. The Sainthood thing is just another of the straw men which Tony seems intent on raising. Jared From ab11 at erols.com Tue Sep 5 17:20:45 2000 From: ab11 at erols.com (Amiri Baraka) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] The Simultaneous Policy References: Message-ID: <00dd01c0178f$d0af85a0$8aa5accf@amiribar> See Mao's The Economic Policys of the New Democracy (Sel Works_ Lenin on The "NEP", Du Bois on "TheNation within a Nation". (Du Bois Reader). Politics is always principal. The correct political and ideological line determines everything. And finally it is the relations of production, the relations between people, that is what we seek fundamentally to transform. If we think merely or Primarily about the Productive Forces, ie, economic work, production, we will become economists (emphaizing trade unionpolitics and leaving politics to the bougeoisie) and utltimately opportunists. Mao's line was "Grasp Revolution -Push Production" ----- Original Message ----- From: TAHIR WOOD To: Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 11:21 AM Subject: RE: [CrashList] The Simultaneous Policy > I think that people who wish to regulate the capitalist > system in the way that is proposed on this website need > to > answer the standard critique that is offered to this sort of > proposal by leftists. > The proposal assumes against the logic of the capitalist > system itself that economics can be effectively subordinated > to the essentially non-revolutionary politics of the ballot > box. In those rare cases in history where politicians are > elected to power who genuinely wish to curb some of the > worst practices of large corporations (e.g. Allende in > Chile; the Spanish 2nd Republic) the economic interests > organise themselves into an alternative form of politics, > namely the rightwing coup. > > The naivety seems to lie in the belief that those who > control the economy are susceptible to purely rational and > humane argumentation and that they can be swayed to bow to > the will of the majority. But history has shown that if the > will of the majority threatens their interests then > 'politics as usual' comes to a swift end. The ruling class > rules through consent as far as possible, but if that is not > possible it is still determined to rule. Or does history > provide us with counter-examples? > > So, while the Simultaneous Policy inititative is clearly > benevolent in its aims and in its approach, it looks to me > like the creation of sweet illusions. > > Tahir > > > _______________________________________________ > Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > From ab11 at erols.com Tue Sep 5 17:20:46 2000 From: ab11 at erols.com (Amiri Baraka) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Communist Internationalist PositiononImmigration and Travel References: Message-ID: <00de01c0178f$d1f60f60$8aa5accf@amiribar> You think the US and intl imperialism is civilized? What a sado-masochistic delusion! ----- Original Message ----- From: TAHIR WOOD To: Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 6:33 AM Subject: Re: [CrashList] Re: Communist Internationalist PositiononImmigration and Travel > >>> "Julien Pierrehumbert" 08/07 12:14 > PM >>> > As to my definition of capitalism, it's obviously not > "something like exploitation > of thrid world workers" but it's not only "markets or buying > and selling". Then > nearly every civilized economic system would be capitalist. > > But this is precisely the point. Bravo! Every civilised > economic system IS capitalist. And now that I see you have > grasped this fundamental point you might just understand the > enormity of what an "overthrow" of capitalism would entail. > But what else is worth struggling for? Be explicit please > (and see my other posts). > > Tahir > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist From zapata at sezampro.yu Tue Sep 5 18:30:21 2000 From: zapata at sezampro.yu (Andrej Grubacic) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Not "Saint" but certainly "Criminal" - and I am not even sure in this: target of Imperial US- I am target of Imperial US References: Message-ID: <00d501c01799$e10af240$4574fac3@k382> Dear fellow, what is exactly the problem here? Why are you constantly attacking Tony about the things he isn't saying? Why are you in constant need for opponents? Hey, we agree with you! What seems to be the problem? Who had denied this: > > Yugoslavia is a tiny country. It has stood up to the biggest tyrannosaurus > and not capitulated. This had a wonderful affect on the world. The Yugo > government is not racists. They have superb relations with Libya. They > have a military alliance with China and Iraq. They have welcomed tens of > thousands of Chinese immigrants. They remain pretty damned cool in the face > of constant provocation. Not bad for a a little country that used to be a > virtual US colony run by a guy who used to be a banker in NY. > I didn't? Tony did not. Tony was very astute in his defense of my countryman in his discourse on this and many other lists. What are we reproaching to you? You are abolishing YU Government from crimes it committed and continue to commits. To make myself perfectly clear: I am not saying that YU government is the worst thing in universe, quite far from it, but it is a criminal organization with one thief and dictator , along with his idiotic wife ( to put it mildly not "rather disgustingly") and who needs serious medical attention ( I mean wife, her husband needs other kind of attention)....Don't let me repeat all the crimes they've committed. And please don't make from me, or Tony, an apologists for NATO lobby in Yugoslavia! My dear friend, I went trough bombing and I'll never forget that experience! I am target of Imperial US and not Milosevic! But it doesn't mean that i should fall in love with one petty dictator because of it. Quite the contrary, I'll fight USA - European militarism and imperialism, as well as Milosevic misdoing. On the more practical level, I am sure that US is helping Milosevic to stay on power; that there is a secret, tacit agreement between these two political Mafiosi, your and mine government, to destroy Yugoslavia: Milosevic for the sake of preserving power and US for the sake of ideological, economical, geostrategical etc, etc, interests. Milosevic is useful to them, like Saddam. As a negative of group portret. As an excuse for Kynzian, Pentagon economy, ideological justifications, finishing Yugoslavia by Montenegrian seccesion. Chomskyian balance again: Don't defend governments, defend people! Oppose wars don't establish erotic relationship with the oppressed governments! Comradely, Red and Black Regards, Andrej www.resistancenet.org ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc:; ; ; ; ; Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 12:06 AM Subject: [CrashList] Neither "Saint" Nor "Criminal" - Just target of Imperial US From Borba100 at aol.com Tue Sep 5 21:15:16 2000 From: Borba100 at aol.com (Borba100@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] We need Jewish signers for an ad against Lieberman Message-ID: <22.ada3f6b.26e710c4@aol.com> In a message dated 09/05/2000 8:57:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, zapata@sezampro.yu writes: << Hey, we agree with you! What seems to be the problem? >> I am saying the spreading of lies (without a shred of evidence) that Milosevich is a war criminal has prevented the left from organizing an antiwar movment. I am saying Chomsky has led this process. If you agree, that's great, glad that's clarified, let's get on with the work! For me, that means writing an ad attacking Vice Presidential candidate Lieberman's pro-KLA policy. We would like to get Jewish signers for this. The ad would be limited to his stand on Kosovo. Anyone interested - please write me. (You will of course get to comment on (etc) the draft.) Best regards, jared From tomzbox at hotmail.com Tue Sep 5 13:59:46 2000 From: tomzbox at hotmail.com (Tom Warren) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Apparently, there's no plausible defense of Chomsky's attacks on Yugolsavia. Message-ID: >Huh? Who said anything about books? Are you writing (inaccurately) about >our >book discussion cause you can't think of anything to say in defense of >Chomsky? etc. etc. Okay folks, When the acrimony descends to this level, that's enough about Chomsky and this thread -- which was started by an accidental keystroke via a post meant for another list, remember???? Take it off list or back where it came from. No more. Tom (finger poised on the "block messages" button) _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From durable at earthlink.net Tue Sep 5 22:11:36 2000 From: durable at earthlink.net (Barry Brooks) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Go ahead regardless? Message-ID: <39B5C3F8.B81C4B94@earthlink.net> We need to find what kind of economy can provide people's needs without making too much pollution and without running out of resources rapidly. Our present consumer economy has many nice features, yet it is basically at odds with resource stewardship. Labor has been surplus relative to local natural resources for a long time. In today's crowded world migration can no longer provide an escape from depleted local resources, and imported resources are no longer abundant and cheap. Even though we face a growing shortage of resources we still pretend that labor shortage is limiting production. Our fear of labor shortage is obsolete. Since the dawn of the industrial age it has been necessary to constantly find ways to increase consumption in order maintain full employment. The left and the right agree that jobs are the only acceptable way to dole out money to the masses. Yet, when we create nearly full employment our powerful technology and out large supply of workers will always consume far too many resources for such hyper-activity to be sustainable. Only in our dreams is there no conflict between expanding the economy to make jobs and contracting the economy to conserve resources. Our present views rarely include any awareness that wealth comes from nature and inheritance more than from any work we do. To make our system work under present conditions we must admit that human labor is no longer scarce because machines with computer control can replace most paid labor, even in services. We should expect to shift our dependence from wages toward unearned income as automation replaces more human labor. Our system already has unearned income, but for now it is only for a few. Changing that is the key to becoming sustainable. Unearned income can end our dependence on jobs and growth. Whether our goal is to preserve the present pecking order or to help improve the lives of the poor, we must have a sustainable system for anything to really matter to anyone. Excess growth is the cause of our high consumption, and high consumption is the reason our economic system is not sustainable. Growth is the common problem of all classes! True conservation cuts consumption and that cuts production and that cuts real paying jobs and profits. No one supports a sustainable economy. Without true conservation we can continue to squander scarce resources to exercise all our surplus labor. Without conservation we can have our giant SUVs. That is our plan, left or right. There are four basic ways, I can think of, to conserve resources: increased efficiency, increased durability, recycling and by doing less. Durability allows doing less without having less. Efficiency allows using less in what we are doing. We can make deep cuts in consumption without sacrifice by designing new products to maximize their life time, efficiency and reparability. Durability will make it possible to stop the waste and pollution that are making our economy unsustainable. Because durability has been neglected we have a lot to gain when we starting using durability to conserve. Conservation of perishables using recycling and efficiency are already our goals, but the use of durability to conserve has had little notice. Yet, a stable population could use a general increase in durability to cut its resource consumption to very low levels while maintaining high living standards. If we could somehow accept unearned income for all classes then we could adjust the dole to stabilize wages. (No more tight money.) This will provide a mechanism allowing us to match the labor force to the real need for labor, instead of making jobs to match the labor force, regardless of the consequences. Barry Brooks durable@earthlink.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 4113 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20000905/e5017c93/attachment.txt From tomzbox at hotmail.com Tue Sep 5 21:40:48 2000 From: tomzbox at hotmail.com (Tom Warren) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Self Determination- Support It! Message-ID: > >No inevestigation , no right to speak!(Mao) Do us a favor ...read >"Dialectical & Historical Materialism" Lenin also "Four Essays In >Philosophy" by Mao "The Weapon of Theory" Cabral Thanks for the recommendations Amiri. If I'm given any expectation that you would read something EYE would recommend, I'll return the favor. However as far as right to speak goes, I retain that honor and priviledge, inalienable and subject to hardly anyone's approval, thank you very much. (unless of course Mao somehow manages to obtain a comoderator position on Crashlist.) Tom >----- Original Message ----- >From: Tom Warren >To: >Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 5:23 PM >Subject: Re: [CrashList] Self Determination- Support It! > > > > Julien writes: > > > > >Marxists of course subscribe to a > > >kind of crude economic determinism which makes them often see economic > > >things as more important than they are (I'm going to be flamed for this > > >gross > > >oversimplification :-). > > > > Ahh,... just remind your detractors that you were talking "baby talk" to >me, > > in order to get me to understand what seems so obvious to them. Thanks >for > > your patience in translating the concepts into gross oversimplifications >so > > that you could share them with me. > > > > It was also written and responded to: > > > > >U.S. activists must keep the > > > >government out of the political affairs of other people. The U. S. > > > >government clearly means no good. > > > > Of course from everyone's standpoint except the US, it seems fairly >clear > > that our "government clearly means no good." I would not dispute a large > > amount of our policy being catagorized that way. <--- please note I said > > that, ... please. > > > > However, those who demand the US out and back to our 200 years of >isolation > > must provide SOME intellectual honesty by presenting a more constructive > > pathway that plugs the "vacuum" left by keeping US out of "the political > > affairs of other people." At the moment there is no realistic proposal >on > > the table, beyond the vague hope that some socialist, altruistic force >will > > magically appear to solve the problems left over from the legacy of the >20th > > Century,(regardless of who created those problems: US idiots, Global > > Capitalists, butchering second & third-world thugs, somnambulent > > governments, or fanatic fundamentalist zealots) . > > > > I am going to risk a bit of "honesty" here, to see if we can move the >list > > forward. I fully expect ONLY flames, namecalling, and some clever ways >of > > turning "baby talk", and "naive" back against me, as well as some >acerbic > > observations about my non-marxist parentage. Go ahead if you must, I am > > prepared. > > > > From my personal perspective(<--- please note I said "personal" there.) >here > > are some factors that stand in the way of keeping US out of "the >political > > affairs of other people.": > > > > 1) It is true enough that I am selfish enough to want to be in control > > rather than trusting someone else to be. I see no more trustworthy >persons > > on the horizon, although I am willing to examine the cause of anyone who >is > > willing to step forward and ask for that control. I do NOT see that > > willingness to examine other causes than their own from many other >Crashlist > > members at the moment. > > > > The idea of there being NO ONE in control is too mature for any of us as > > yet. Later ... maybe, after the Crash has demonstrated the folly of my > > position as well as those of others in opposition. (Let us try to >remember > > that a certain amount of our attention should be given to the "Crash" in > > crashlist.) > > > > 2)Not ALL US policy is based upon capitalism, or even imperialism. >Unless > > this is understood, there is little hope of a realistic understanding of > > alternatives. As bad as many of you hate it, we still tend to act > > occasionally from a sense of morality, as skewed and misapprehended as >it > > seems. The most common mistake when looking at US foriegn policy from > > outside is to overlook that factor and attribute darker, capitalistic > > motives everywhere, even where they do not exist, although > > capitalists/imperialists may benefit from those policies. > > > > 3)In the US we no longer trust this "Go away and leave us alone" > > prescription for Europeans dealing with global issues that begin in >Europe > > or are so provoked in asia. Simply ... we have been burned too many >times >by > > doing so. The lessons we have drawn from the 20th century make us think > > presently that to withdraw from that particular world stage leads to >mass > > graves, and it saddens us to keep sending forensic teams in to verify >that > > the unmarked graves contain young innocents murdered simply for their > > genetic heritage. (It is allowable to say "Poor naive Americans, what do >we > > care for their sadness?" as long as you realize that our retaliation to >that > > cosmopolitain viewpoint is measured in smart-bombs, regardless of > > justification.) It only reinforces our resolve to hear others deny the > > existence of the graves or attempt to justify them. It does absolutely >no > > good to point out either the irrationality or the cognitive dissonance >of > > our viewpoint. > > > > Detractors may say this is me simply falling into line with the Zionist > > "Never Again" philosophy, but mine is a more fundamental objection. It >is > > simply true on the strategic/tactical levels that SOMEONE will fill the > > vacuum, at at the moment our experience of the last century leads us to > > believe in the haphazard collective security agreements of NATO and the >UN > > -- rather than any other alternative or any other SOMEONE. Staying out >of > > the "political affairs of other people" means that EVERYONE must do so, >and > > this will never happen. It is our hubris that we think we can do it >better. > > It is YOURS that you ignore that reality must creep into the conduct of > > nations from time to time. ALL OF US ARE AT FAULT THAT WE FIND LITTLE >COMMON > > GROUND TO COOPERATE. > > > > If we wish to examine the crash, understand it, and perhaps move >together >to > > mitigate its effects, we must find that commonality here on the list, >don't > > you think? > > > > If any of you simply wish to bash me for being an uneducated > > swallower-of-imperialist-propaganda, that moves the list's discussion >not > > one cm in any direction except toward hostility. Better to deal with the > > argument, not the name-calling, please. Return the respect I give >others. > > > > However, feel free to flame away. ;-) > > > > Tom > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From aabdo at webtv.net Wed Sep 6 00:47:18 2000 From: aabdo at webtv.net (Tony Abdo) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Self Determination- Support It! In-Reply-To: "Tom Warren" 's message of Wed, 06 Sep 2000 03:40:48 GMT Message-ID: <6450-39B5E876-11767@storefull-232.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Chairman Tom writes- Message-ID: <003401c017d6$0abd6b40$192b74d8@pavilion> > Tom, may I suggest that you publish a little green book that all list > members might want to read, quote, and wave. The above passage > should begin the work. Also, you may want to consider a fashion > change while you are at it? > Some of us are already your loyal supporters! > > Comradely behind The New Green Anti-Crash International, Tony Well, thanks for the vote of confidence, Tony, but until I can learn to spell privileDge, I doubt that I can convince a publisher to print anything. Seriously, one of my prize possessions is a Little Red Book given to me by a neat lady who was in China about 90 days after that ping pong team visited. (I can hear several muttering in the background "It's a shame he never read it." ... but it's in Chinese.) Mao said a couple of things about flowers ... perhaps there is already a little green book in hiding somewhere in all that Marxist [stuff]. Tom (slipping a nehru jacket over his Harley t-shirt) PS Note email address, it's a new ISP just to handle all the crashlist admin mail! From Gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar Tue Sep 5 22:30:29 2000 From: Gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar (Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Not "Saint" but certainly "Criminal" - and I am not even sure in this: target of Imperial US- I am target of Im In-Reply-To: <00d501c01799$e10af240$4574fac3@k382> Message-ID: <007e33331040690MAIL2@mail2.arnet.com.ar> En relaci?n a Re: [CrashList] Not "Saint" but certainly "Crimin, el 6 Sep 00, a las 2:30, Andrej Grubacic dijo: > On the more practical level, I am sure that US is helping Milosevic > to stay > on power; that there is a secret, tacit agreement between these two > political Mafiosi, your and mine government, to destroy Yugoslavia: > Milosevic for the sake of preserving power and US for the sake of > ideological, economical, geostrategical etc, etc, interests. Milosevic > is useful to them, like Saddam. Argentina 1950 again. This stuff was proposed by Nahuel Moreno, who explained that Per?n was a British Agent against the USA. Others, like Silvio Frondizi, explained that he was in agreement with the USA. None of these great Leftists was able to understand the local, national meaning of Per?n. The road to hell is paved of good intentions. N?stor Miguel Gorojovsky gorojovsky@arnet.com.ar From Gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar Tue Sep 5 22:30:29 2000 From: Gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar (Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Not "Saint" but certainly "Criminal" - and I am not even sure in this: target of Imperial US- I am target of Im In-Reply-To: <00d501c01799$e10af240$4574fac3@k382> Message-ID: <008fc3431040690MAIL2@mail2.arnet.com.ar> En relaci?n a Re: [CrashList] Not "Saint" but certainly "Crimin, el 6 Sep 00, a las 2:30, Andrej Grubacic dijo: > I am > not saying that YU government is the worst thing in universe, quite > far from it, but it is a criminal organization with one thief and > dictator , along with his idiotic wife ( to put it mildly not "rather > disgustingly") and who needs serious medical attention ( I mean wife, > her husband needs other kind of attention).... Change YU for AR, 2000 for 1950, and there you have the Argentinian petty bourgeois progressives preparing the ground for counter- revolution. Sorry, Andrej, yours is a slippery way to tread on. Be careful. N?stor Miguel Gorojovsky gorojovsky@arnet.com.ar From aieti at lix.intercom.es Wed Sep 6 02:24:19 2000 From: aieti at lix.intercom.es (Aieti) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Not "Saint" but certainly "Criminal" - and I am not even sure in this: target of Imperial US- I am target of Im Message-ID: <002601c017db$dafa7e60$19ad42d4@aietiintercon> Todos los d?as recibimos mensajes como este de crashlist, no bloquea el correo y adem?s no tiene nada que ver con la actividad que realizamos. Por favor no envien m?s correos. Gracias -----Mensaje original----- De: Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky Para: crashlist@lists.wwpublish.com Fecha: mi?rcoles, 06 de septiembre de 2000 9:51 Asunto: Re: [CrashList] Not "Saint" but certainly "Criminal" - and I am not even sure in this: target of Imperial US- I am target of Im >En relaci?n a Re: [CrashList] Not "Saint" but certainly "Crimin, >el 6 Sep 00, a las 2:30, Andrej Grubacic dijo: > >> On the more practical level, I am sure that US is helping Milosevic >> to stay >> on power; that there is a secret, tacit agreement between these two >> political Mafiosi, your and mine government, to destroy Yugoslavia: >> Milosevic for the sake of preserving power and US for the sake of >> ideological, economical, geostrategical etc, etc, interests. Milosevic >> is useful to them, like Saddam. > >Argentina 1950 again. This stuff was proposed by Nahuel Moreno, who >explained that Per?n was a British Agent against the USA. Others, >like Silvio Frondizi, explained that he was in agreement with the >USA. None of these great Leftists was able to understand the local, >national meaning of Per?n. > >The road to hell is paved of good intentions. > >N?stor Miguel Gorojovsky >gorojovsky@arnet.com.ar > >_______________________________________________ >Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > From twood at uwc.ac.za Wed Sep 6 03:58:52 2000 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (TAHIR WOOD) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Apparently, there's no plausible defense of Chomsky's attacks on Yugolsavia. Message-ID: I think that this sort of thread is only legitimate on the list if it stays on points that are of more general relevance to political issues that affect the entire globe. But we certainly cannot descend into who said what to whom on the phone, or who undertook to write what, etc. No way. Tahir >>> "Tom Warren" 09/05 9:59 PM >>> >Huh? Who said anything about books? Are you writing (inaccurately) about >our >book discussion cause you can't think of anything to say in defense of >Chomsky? etc. etc. Okay folks, When the acrimony descends to this level, that's enough about Chomsky and this thread -- which was started by an accidental keystroke via a post meant for another list, remember???? Take it off list or back where it came from. No more. Tom (finger poised on the "block messages" button) _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist From twood at uwc.ac.za Wed Sep 6 05:15:23 2000 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (TAHIR WOOD) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Reforms and falling short Message-ID: >>> "John Bunzl" 09/05 3:20 PM >>> The 'what' part of the solution is clear: they need to stop fighting and share the sandwiches. The 'how' part (i.e. finding the appropriate basis for cooperation which will allow that to happen) is more difficult. Any ideas?? best wishes John The best solution is the one that can base itself most firmly on this principle and on this principle only: Each according to his or her work. When we have developed a better type of human being we can take it further from there. Tahir _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist From zapata at sezampro.yu Wed Sep 6 07:04:29 2000 From: zapata at sezampro.yu (Andrej Grubacic) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Not "Saint" but certainly "Criminal" - and I am not even sure in this: target of Imperial US- I am target of Im References: <008fc3431040690MAIL2@mail2.arnet.com.ar> Message-ID: <00b601c01804$c5d0b8a0$3874fac3@k382> Dear Nestor, Thanx for your warning, but I think that historical analogies of this sort are more dangerous than helpfull. We are both comig from the field of social sciencies; I would be more cautious when treating history in this way. On the other hand, you have a precious point there, on national context: but, as in Argentina, you really had to be inside of argentina and not infront of the computer to be able to smell this national context differnce. Salud y anarquia, Andres "Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbereable pity for the suffering of the mankind" Bertrand Russell ----- Original Message ----- From: Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky To: Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 6:30 AM Subject: Re: [CrashList] Not "Saint" but certainly "Criminal" - and I am not even sure in this: target of Imperial US- I am target of ImEn relaci?n a Re: [CrashList] Not "Saint" but certainly "Crimin, el 6 Sep 00, a las 2:30, Andrej Grubacic dijo: > I am > not saying that YU government is the worst thing in universe, quite > far from it, but it is a criminal organization with one thief and > dictator , along with his idiotic wife ( to put it mildly not "rather > disgustingly") and who needs serious medical attention ( I mean wife, > her husband needs other kind of attention).... Change YU for AR, 2000 for 1950, and there you have the Argentinian petty bourgeois progressives preparing the ground for counter- revolution. Sorry, Andrej, yours is a slippery way to tread on. Be careful. N?stor Miguel Gorojovsky gorojovsky@arnet.com.ar _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist From zapata at sezampro.yu Wed Sep 6 07:16:19 2000 From: zapata at sezampro.yu (Andrej Grubacic) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] We need Jewish signers for an ad against Lieberman References: <22.ada3f6b.26e710c4@aol.com> Message-ID: <00bb01c01804$cb372ae0$3874fac3@k382> Well, I don't, frankly, because I do think that Clinton and Milosevic are war criminals and I that Chomsky was a great comfort to lerftist and progressices here. I dont know about the US. I don't like to talk about the things I am not well acquainted with. Jared, I want to thank you for this interesting exchange. I hope that we have gave people ( and ourselves) some things to think about. You remember the famous sentance that "You dont get harmony when everyone is singing the same note". In that name , respectfuly, Andrej In a message dated 09/05/2000 8:57:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, zapata@sezampro.yu writes: << Hey, we agree with you! What seems to be the problem? >> I am saying the spreading of lies (without a shred of evidence) that Milosevich is a war criminal has prevented the left from organizing an antiwar movment. I am saying Chomsky has led this process. If you agree, that's great, glad that's clarified, let's get on with the work! For me, that means writing an ad attacking Vice Presidential candidate Lieberman's pro-KLA policy. We would like to get Jewish signers for this. The ad would be limited to his stand on Kosovo. Anyone interested - please write me. (You will of course get to comment on (etc) the draft.) Best regards, jared _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist From johnwood at umich.edu Wed Sep 6 08:23:54 2000 From: johnwood at umich.edu (John Woodford) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: [BRC-DISC] Re:NAder isn't arousing anything References: <390022436.966977188948.JavaMail.root@web649-wra> <39A2F122.529CA3DA@umich.edu> <00c701c0178c$5c2a24e0$8aa5accf@amiribar> Message-ID: <39B6537A.8E055E06@umich.edu> As far as Nader v. Gore vote goes, this is a convincing argument to me--complete with on-target prescription for BRC action.. JW Amiri Baraka wrote: > THE NADIR OF SOCIAL- DEMOCRATIC LIBERAL POSTURING Weimar is > recycling it's eerie presence , tightening around us today! Ralph > Nader's feverish personal "campaign for president" is useful in the > sense that in a general way, he raises some issues that , hopefully, > like Bradley's gesture, moves the Gore wagon slightly to the Left. But > for Nader to insist that his individualistic petty bourgeois for a > moral remaking of the Imperialist state is politically advanced as > the practical politics of our time place and condition, is sad and > dangerous. Because, only the slowest among us can not see that if > Nader takes his , in essence, politically solipsistic show all the way > to the hoop, then he will quite simply help Bush get elected! The > politics of individual moral cant is the "protest" politics of the > petty bourgeois "loyal opposition" crying out because they think > Imperialism can be cleaned up enough (consumer advocacy) for them & > some of we, to be INCLUDED. First, Nader is not that much Left of > Gore. His recent speeches, while trying to tighten up his "gap" vis a > vis Blacks and oppressed nationalities, is still saccharin covered > generality, in the main. Nader is a consumer advocate, at worst, > quality control for imperialism's commodities. NADER CAN ONLY BE > ULTIMATELY USEFUL TO THE PEOPLE, IN A PRACTICAL POLITICAL SENSE, IF HE > AGREES TO AGGRESSIVELY HELP CREATE A LEFT BLOC.. OF THE MAIN ANTI > IMPERIALST ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS AND DEMAND CONCRETE > CONCESSIONS FROM GORE!!---- Some of the main groups that should be > in such a bloc would be Marxist-Leninist Organizations, including the > CPUSA, Freedom Socialists, Committee of Correspondence, Social > Democratic organizations like the DSA, SDA, , Puerto Rican Socialist > Party (The Trots and Anarchists abhor the dirty bourgeois electoral > arena, that's one characteristic of their objective Opposition to > Revolutionary Democratic Struggle, the only real precursor and path to > Socialism!) Anti Imperialist Organizations ...both multi national and > national in form; e.g., Black Latino, Asian, Native Peoples groups, > Trade Unions, Black Radical Congress, Black United Front, RNA, NAACP, > Pan Africanist, Professional and Academic Organizations, Cultural and > Arts Groups, Media Groups, Nation of Islam and American Muslim > Mission, Independent Publications and Presses. Consumer Coops, > Agricultural Coops, Advocacy Groups, particularly around Welfare, > Immigration, Police Brutality. Police Control Boards, The > Congressional and State Legislative Black and Latino Caucuses, ABC > LEO, Individual Politcal and Activist figures,and their organizations, > e.g., Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, RAndall Robinson, Marable, Gates, > West, Afro American, Latino Publishers Groups, Minority and Small > Business Organizations, Church related groups, The Black Radical > Congress could put out a call for such a meeting. This letter is a > CALL FROM UNITY AND STRUGGLE NEWSPAPER 808 S.10THST NEWARK NEW > JERSEY 973 242-1346 / 1509 FAX The CPUSA with other influential > groups could put out such a call. The Greens SHOULD join with this > effort IMMEDIATELY. The Nation of Islam , because of its call for a > Million Family March in October, and Sharpton because of his Aug 26 > National Action Group led march on DC , have the public visibility to > cooperate importantly in such a call. Such a meeting must produce > A PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM, a multi-national mass document that > could forcefully project the key elements of an actual Anti > Impeialist stance and demands on the Democratic party. More > importantly, such unity would provide the material basis for a broad > People's Democratic United Front as the basis for the Revolutionary > Democratic Workers Party that could begin to do the concrete practical > work of creating an mass revolutioanry democratic alternative > political structure , that could actually win local elections and > create the intense propaganda and agitation network to educate, > mobilize and organize the many, to defeat the few. Either Nader > and the Greens abandon the isolated glamour of moral pontification as > a Loyal Opposition to Imperialism or they risk the Weimar replay of > helping elect the far Right, BUSH 2. I know the choice is between a > Murderer (B-2) and a Prostitute (Gore rimes with W....) but folks, > that is literally where we are. Being serenaded by the dismally > ignorant chorus of Trot-Anarchists, one of who said, "I bet you voted > for Clinton". To which we say, I bet you voted (by non-voting) for > Bush. (Note to All , read The Casebook on Weimar, Univ of Calif, to > see how close we are to Weimar 2! Hitler came to power because of a > split between Communists and Social Democrats!} Amiri Baraka > > From: John Woodford > To: brc-discuss@lists.tao.ca > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 5:31 PM > Subject: [BRC-DISC] Re:NAder isn't arousing anything > Michael Albert . promoting Nader, says " What seems missing > on both sides, therefore, is recognition > that the most important impact of the Nader campaign will be > > changing the political climate in the country by energizing > the left, and that our arguments need to take account of > this impact. Take the cases most often bandied about: .. > > BUT big problem NAder has so far proved himself unable or > unwilling to arouse or energize anyone or anything. He > acts more like a Trojan Horse--a sham gift to the erstwhile > "left," one sparking no surge, no oomph, little of nothing. > A bigger point--one that shold have been the first of > the three the author cited--is, if one votes for Gore under > current circumstances, is one then accepting a peculiar > American institution in which, under arguments 1 and 2 of > the author, one will never see an end to this choice. Under > our current model of politics, the perpetual motion machine > of mediocrity serving symbolically as a democratic > institution while serving in fact as fronts for the > Moneybags and Fat Cats, can run on and on. > There will always be a Democrat somewhat like > Gore--although it is hoped one cannot be found that is more > like a Republican than he and his running mate and their > policies (not stuff Gore has espoused but really policies > he's supported and enacted--hardly "left"). And there will > always be, a few shades more rightist or even further > Fuehrer, depending on the era, there will be the Bu-shite. > And we would forever here that commandment: Thou must vote > for Gore-tech, lest thou be ruled by Bu-shite. > Yet sometimes the Bu-shites win, and lo and behold , as > we've seen, things are not much different than they have > been or would be under the Gore-tech. > As uninspiring as Nader is, as weak and perhaps phony, if > the Democrats conclude that the Gore-Lieberman Southern > strategy fails, new folks will have to be installed to give > the party access to the pork four years from now. > That leaves the left immobilized in an electoral politics > swamp, forever mired, forever crying, Oh, Give Us the > Lesser, Give Us the Lesser.. > As for Cheney. He may be more likely to convert than > Lieberman is. > > > ***** > -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 8707 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20000906/7daaf0a8/attachment.txt From twood at uwc.ac.za Wed Sep 6 09:37:29 2000 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (TAHIR WOOD) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Go ahead regardless? Message-ID: Barry, I was very interested to read your post below, because it is challenging, but also because it is in a way diametrically opposed to what I have been emphasising (basically "each according to his/her work). I don't have much time to respond right now, but I do hope that you will continue the engagement nevertheless. I think many people on this list would agree that there is a labour surplus, but without necessarily agreeing with the conclusions that you derive from this. For example, I find it hard to regard as a 'solution' your radical separation of production from distribution. The idea of dividing humanity into a group of producers and a large unproductive group while relying on technology to keep up a high level of productivity seems a rather contrived and unbalanced solution to me. Instead of focusing on the productive and creative powers of humanity as part of the solution, it reckons that a small group of productive and creative individuals will design the life support for the majority who will then play no further role in the production process. They will simply be the recipients of a certain distributed product. What will be the politics of this sort of society? In such a radical division of humanity what sorts of consciousness will define the doers and the receivers? Will it be egalitarian in any way? This is hard to imagine. Sentences such as the following seem curiously to take certain historical phenomena as given, whereas there surely is some basis for questioning them: " when we create nearly full employment our powerful technology and out large supply of workers will always consume far too many resources for such hyper-activity to be sustainable." Is technology then some external force which impinges on humanity in a one-way determinism, as your formulation suggests to me, or is it something that we can create and control? Obviously you do not subscribe to the labour theory of value. What sort of economic theory supports statements such as the following: "Our present views rarely include any awareness that wealth comes from nature and inheritance more than from any work we do." But above all for me the stress that you put on unearned income is most bizarre, even while your critique of growth can and should be accepted. Also I think that your approach of starting from the labour surplus and then not adopting a position on population is strange, because if you are assuming a static population, against the current and empirically observable pattern - in other words stasis is something to be achieved - then why would you not try to achieve negative population growth, which would seem to be a more direct and more coherent way of addressing your problem of economic growth and labour surplus, no? If you are putting so much stress on highly productive technology, which is somehow taken as an extra-human given, why don't you look at the technology of reproduction? In both cases they are matters of human choice and agency. Neither the population level nor the level of productivity is an external fact of nature - they are effects of human relations and actions. Tahir >>> "Barry Brooks" 09/06 6:11 AM >>> We need to find what kind of economy can provide people's needs without making too much pollution and without running out of resources rapidly. Our present consumer economy has many nice features, yet it is basically at odds with resource stewardship. Labor has been surplus relative to local natural resources for a long time. In today's crowded world migration can no longer provide an escape from depleted local resources, and imported resources are no longer abundant and cheap. Even though we face a growing shortage of resources we still pretend that labor shortage is limiting production. Our fear of labor shortage is obsolete. Since the dawn of the industrial age it has been necessary to constantly find ways to increase consumption in order maintain full employment. The left and the right agree that jobs are the only acceptable way to dole out money to the masses. Yet, when we create nearly full employment our powerful technology and out large supply of workers will always consume far too many resources for such hyper-activity to be sustainable. Only in our dreams is there no conflict between expanding the economy to make jobs and contracting the economy to conserve resources. Our present views rarely include any awareness that wealth comes from nature and inheritance more than from any work we do. To make our system work under present conditions we must admit that human labor is no longer scarce because machines with computer control can replace most paid labor, even in services. We should expect to shift our dependence from wages toward unearned income as automation replaces more human labor. Our system already has unearned income, but for now it is only for a few. Changing that is the key to becoming sustainable. Unearned income can end our dependence on jobs and growth. Whether our goal is to preserve the present pecking order or to help improve the lives of the poor, we must have a sustainable system for anything to really matter to anyone. Excess growth is the cause of our high consumption, and high consumption is the reason our economic system is not sustainable. Growth is the common problem of all classes! True conservation cuts consumption and that cuts production and that cuts real paying jobs and profits. No one supports a sustainable economy. Without true conservation we can continue to squander scarce resources to exercise all our surplus labor. Without conservation we can have our giant SUVs. That is our plan, left or right. There are four basic ways, I can think of, to conserve resources: increased efficiency, increased durability, recycling and by doing less. Durability allows doing less without having less. Efficiency allows using less in what we are doing. We can make deep cuts in consumption without sacrifice by designing new products to maximize their life time, efficiency and reparability. Durability will make it possible to stop the waste and pollution that are making our economy unsustainable. Because durability has been neglected we have a lot to gain when we starting using durability to conserve. Conservation of perishables using recycling and efficiency are already our goals, but the use of durability to conserve has had little notice. Yet, a stable population could use a general increase in durability to cut its resource consumption to very low levels while maintaining high living standards. If we could somehow accept unearned income for all classes then we could adjust the dole to stabilize wages. (No more tight money.) This will provide a mechanism allowing us to match the labor force to the real need for labor, instead of making jobs to match the labor force, regardless of the consequences. Barry Brooks durable@earthlink.net From aieti at lix.intercom.es Wed Sep 6 09:53:48 2000 From: aieti at lix.intercom.es (Aieti) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] no mas mensajes Message-ID: <004601c0181a$a68dc8a0$6fad42d4@aietiintercon> POR FAVOR NO SIGAN MANDANDO MENSAJES. SE LO RUEGO gRACIAS. aieti-direcci?n -----Mensaje original----- De: TAHIR WOOD Para: crashlist@lists.wwpublish.com Fecha: mi?rcoles, 06 de septiembre de 2000 17:42 Asunto: Re: [CrashList] Go ahead regardless? >Barry, I was very interested to read your post below, >because it is challenging, but also because it is in a way >diametrically opposed to what I have been emphasising >(basically "each according to his/her work). I don't have >much time to respond right now, but I do hope that you will >continue the engagement nevertheless. > >I think many people on this list would agree that there is a >labour surplus, but without necessarily agreeing with the >conclusions that you derive from this. For example, I find >it hard to regard as a 'solution' your radical separation of >production from distribution. The idea of dividing humanity >into a group of producers and a large unproductive group >while relying on technology to keep up a high level of >productivity seems a rather contrived and unbalanced >solution to me. Instead of focusing on the productive and >creative powers of humanity as part of the solution, it >reckons that a small group of productive and creative >individuals will design the life support for the majority >who will then play no further role in the production >process. They will simply be the recipients of a certain >distributed product. What will be the politics of this sort >of society? In such a radical division of humanity what >sorts of consciousness will define the doers and the >receivers? Will it be egalitarian in any way? This is hard >to imagine. > >Sentences such as the following seem curiously to take >certain historical phenomena as given, whereas there surely >is some basis for questioning them: " when we create nearly >full employment our powerful technology and out large supply >of workers will always consume far too many resources for >such hyper-activity to be sustainable." Is technology then >some external force which impinges on humanity in a one-way >determinism, as your formulation suggests to me, or is it >something that we can create and control? > >Obviously you do not subscribe to the labour theory of >value. What sort of economic theory supports statements such >as the following: "Our present views rarely include any >awareness that wealth comes from nature and inheritance more >than from any work we do." > >But above all for me the stress that you put on unearned >income is most bizarre, even while your critique of growth >can and should be accepted. Also I think that your approach >of starting from the labour surplus and then not adopting a >position on population is strange, because if you are >assuming a static population, against the current and >empirically observable pattern - in other words stasis is >something to be achieved - then why would you not try to >achieve negative population growth, which would seem to be a >more direct and more coherent way of addressing your problem >of economic growth and labour surplus, no? If you are >putting so much stress on highly productive technology, >which is somehow taken as an extra-human given, why don't >you look at the technology of reproduction? In both cases >they are matters of human choice and agency. Neither the >population level nor the level of productivity is an >external fact of nature - they are effects of human >relations and actions. > >Tahir > > > >>>> "Barry Brooks" 09/06 6:11 AM >>> > > > > We need to find what kind of economy can provide people's >needs without making too much pollution and without running >out of resources rapidly. Our present consumer economy has >many nice features, yet it is basically at odds with >resource stewardship. > Labor has been surplus relative to local natural >resources for a long time. In today's crowded world >migration can no longer provide an escape from depleted >local resources, and imported resources are no longer >abundant and cheap. Even though we face a growing shortage >of resources we still pretend that labor shortage is >limiting production. Our fear of labor shortage is >obsolete. Since the dawn of the industrial age it has been >necessary to constantly find ways to increase consumption in >order maintain full employment. > The left and the right agree that jobs are the only >acceptable way to dole out money to the masses. Yet, when >we create nearly full employment our powerful technology and >out large supply of workers will always consume far too many >resources for such hyper-activity to be sustainable. Only in >our dreams is there no conflict between expanding the >economy to make jobs and contracting the economy to conserve >resources. > Our present views rarely include any awareness that >wealth comes from nature and inheritance more than from any >work we do. To make our system work under present conditions >we must admit that human labor is no longer scarce because >machines with computer control can replace most paid labor, >even in services. We should expect to shift our dependence >from wages toward unearned income as automation replaces >more human labor. Our system already has unearned income, >but for now it is only for a few. Changing that is the key >to becoming sustainable. Unearned income can end our >dependence on jobs and growth. > Whether our goal is to preserve the present pecking order >or to help improve the lives of the poor, we must have a >sustainable system for anything to really matter to anyone. >Excess growth is the cause of our high consumption, and high >consumption is the reason our economic system is not >sustainable. Growth is the common problem of all classes! > True conservation cuts consumption and that cuts >production and that cuts real paying jobs and profits. No >one supports a sustainable economy. Without true >conservation we can continue to squander scarce resources to >exercise all our surplus labor. Without conservation we can >have our giant SUVs. That is our plan, left or right. > There are four basic ways, I can think of, to conserve >resources: increased efficiency, increased durability, >recycling and by doing less. Durability allows doing less >without having less. Efficiency allows using less in what we >are doing. We can make deep cuts in consumption without >sacrifice by designing new products to maximize their life >time, efficiency and reparability. > Durability will make it possible to stop the waste and >pollution that are making our economy unsustainable. >Because durability has been neglected we have a lot to gain >when we starting using durability to conserve. > Conservation of perishables using recycling and >efficiency are already our goals, but the use of durability >to conserve has had little notice. Yet, a stable population >could use a general increase in durability to cut its >resource consumption to very low levels while maintaining >high living standards. > If we could somehow accept unearned income for all >classes then we could adjust the dole to stabilize wages. >(No more tight money.) This will provide a mechanism >allowing us to match the labor force to the real need for >labor, instead of making jobs to match the labor force, >regardless of the consequences. > >Barry Brooks >durable@earthlink.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > From aabdo at webtv.net Wed Sep 6 10:23:09 2000 From: aabdo at webtv.net (Tony Abdo) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] INS Causes Envronmental Damage And Kills Immigrants by Dehydration Message-ID: <28387-39B66F6D-345@storefull-237.iap.bryant.webtv.net> The area being discussed below is an area that is 50-70 miles north of the Mexican Border. Yet it is a highly militarized area with La Migra's intimidating presence constantly felt. It is a semi-war zone of sorts, and always a depressing experience to drive through as one leaves the Border northward to Corpus Christi, and onwards toward Houston. The constant presence of high tech sensoring equipment mounted high above the highways, and the use of local police all over the highway as auxiliary to immigration agents is part of the scene. But hidden away from view to most people, is the actual environmental damage that INS does in sensitive wildlife zones, and also even in the ranches where the land is already partially degraded. And of course, there is the constant murder of immigrants as they try to make their way north through dangerous terrain. Immigration makes that terrain just enough more inhospitable, that pushes some over the margin of being able to survive. Tony ________________________________ INS still weighing ranch's proposal By Alison Gregor Express-News Rio Grande Bureau A feud that got the Border Patrol banned from the sprawling Kenedy Ranch by owners still seethes with no resolution on the sun-baked horizon. Six weeks ago, the John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation, which owns half of the 400,000-acre ranch, extended terms for an agreement to let the Border Patrol back on its isolated grazing lands to search for undocumented immigrants. The Border Patrol has not officially responded to the demands. "They're apparently trying to put restrictions on us, and that's not something we'll accept," said Ramiro De Anda, a spokesman for the Border Patrol's McAllen Sector. Among others, the restrictions include limiting patrols to established ranch roads and reimbursing the foundation for a grass fire blamed for $30,000 in damage. Tim Counts, an Immigration and Naturalization Service spokesman in Dallas, said negotiations with the Kenedy foundation are ongoing. The Corpus Christi-based foundation banned the Border Patrol from its ranchland in March after, in separate incidents, two men were struck by agency vehicles while crouching in the long grass. Undocumented immigrants heading north from the U.S.-Mexico border use the ranch's empty stretches to skirt an immigration checkpoint just south of Sarita. Undocumented immigrants die every year in Kenedy County because of dehydration, snakebites and other hazards. Border Patrol agents maintain they are saving lives by searching the forbidding terrain, but foundation members complain of human rights violations and property destruction. The federal agency was kicked off the ranch temporarily four years ago because of fires and other damage attributed to its agents. A memorandum of agreement eventually enabled the Border Patrol to start patrolling again. Foundation lawyer Richard Leshin said the same type of agreement was extended to the Border Patrol six weeks ago, but he wouldn't reveal the terms. "Things have not changed, but what we have put on the table is a proposal to the Border Patrol, and if they accept it, they will be allowed back on," he said. In any case, the Border Patrol has the right to go on the ranchland in instances where suspected undocumented immigrants flee onto the property, De Anda said. Whether the Border Patrol ever begins patrolling again, that access will continue, he said. Entry to the ranch was negotiated because under the law the government can patrol open lands within 25 miles of a U.S. boundary. The Border Patrol argues the Gulf Coast is such a boundary, giving it access to the Kenedy Ranch. Several months ago, the federal government warned that the foundation's lands could be seized if agents weren't permitted back on the ranch, said Leshin, who added, "We dispute that." De Anda said there has been no movement to seize the ranch, but the FBI contacted the foundation regarding the matter. He said the Border Patrol has tried to work with the Kenedy foundation and will continue to do so. "The agents try to stay on the established roads," he said. "They don't go cross-country. ... At one time, we were using diesel vehicles to keep the catalytic converters from starting grass fires." For now, the Kenedy County sheriff and ranching tenants are keeping watch over the Kenedy Ranch. Fears of a flood of undocumented immigrants onto the Kenedy Ranch have not been borne out, though apprehensions at the Sarita checkpoint are down 28 percent. That may be due to the Border Patrol's Operation Rio Grande, an all-out effort to throttle undocumented immigration south of the ranch, De Anda said. "Apprehensions in the entire McAllen Sector are down 20 percent, and in Harlingen, they're down 42 percent," he said. One ironic twist may be fewer dehydration deaths on the ranch, Leshin said. "What we have noticed is that the illegal aliens are traveling more along the water troughs and wells," he said. "So they're able to get access to the water, while they were not able to prior to this time, because the Border Patrol was out there." So far this year, seven undocumented immigrants have died crossing Kenedy County. Last year, 12 immigrants were found dead in its brush lands From AlAdisa at aol.com Wed Sep 6 11:57:25 2000 From: AlAdisa at aol.com (AlAdisa@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Publication Message-ID: Freedom Schooling By Grace Lee Boggs Michigan Citizen Newspaper, 8/20/2000 At the June meeting of the Black Radical Congress in Detroit, conferees delegates decided to launch a campaign for ?Education, not Incarceration.? That means we have to redefine what we mean by Education. We can?t possibly mean the present system which is widely recognized as responsible for so many of our young people ending up in prison. For example, at the Back to Basics Community Convention held in Detroit on Saturday, May 6, the Education Task Force passed the following resolution: WHEREAS the current educational system has been organized to fail 50% of our young people, many of whom end up in prison, and WHEREAS the current system does not develop critical thinking or build community. BE IT RESOLVED 1. That we create a community curriculum that will empower our children to recognize the truth from untruth and develop the ability to assess information for the best possible solution for themselves and for the community; and 2. That we develop tutorial programs that will implement a community curriculum that includes remediation but emphasizes critical thinking and empowering children to make a difference. Today?s schools build addicts and prepare our children for prison because they teach passivity whereas what our children need most is a sense of themselves as change agents and decision makers. Our children need not only academics but character building. To appreciate their neighborhoods and understand their environment. To be developed as whole persons with manual, mental, social and environmental skills. To become resourceful and independent thinkers. To see themselves in the context of community and practice what enhances community life. To recognize their worth because their input makes a difference. To work together to change the community. In the 1960s Movement activists had to create Freedom Schools in the South because the existing school system had been organized to produce subjects, not citizens. People in the community, both children and adults, needed to be empowered to exercise their civil and voting rights. To bring about a kind of ?mental revolution,? reading, writing and speaking skills were taught through the discussion of black history, the power structure and building a Movement to struggle against it. Everyone took this basic ?civics? course and then chose from more academic subjects, like algebra and chemistry. All over Mississippi, in church basements and parish halls, on shady lawns and in abandoned buildings, volunteer teachers empowered thousands of children and adults through this community curriculum. This is the kind of Freedom Schooling that we need today. <> From mstainsby at tao.ca Wed Sep 6 14:41:01 2000 From: mstainsby at tao.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Reforms and falling short References: Message-ID: <000701c01842$c5866000$395a7318@rct1.bc.wave.home.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "TAHIR WOOD" > The best solution is the one that can base itself most > firmly on this principle and on this principle only: Each > according to his or her work. > > When we have developed a better type of human being we can > take it further from there. > > Tahir > While I'm not a Trotskyist by any means, I provide this and a link for further speculation: Trotsky, "The Revolution Betrayed": The first section, entitled "Social Structure", concludes with these words: "In the Soviet Union, the principle of socialism is realized: From each according to his abilities to each according to his work." This inwardly contradictory, not to say nonsensical, formula has entered, believe it or not, from speeches and journalistic articles into the carefully deliberated text of the fundamental state law. It bears witness not only to a complete lowering of theoretical level in the lawgivers, but also to the lie with which, as a mirror of the ruling stratum, the new constitution is imbued. It is not difficult to guess the origin of the new "principle." To characterize the Communist society, Marx employed the famous formula: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." The two parts of this formula are inseparable. "From each according to his abilities," in the Communist, not the capitalist, sense, means: Work has now ceased to be an obligation, and has become an individual need; society has no further use for any compulsion. Only sick and abnormal persons will refuse to work. Working "according to their ability" -- that is, in accord with their physical and psychic powers, without any violence to themselves -- the members of the commune will, thanks to a high technique, sufficiently fill up the stores of society so that society can generously endow each and all "according to their needs," without humiliating control. This two-sided but indivisible formula of communism thus assumes abundance, equality, an all-sided development of personality, and a high cultural discipline. [full portion of the article available at:] http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Other/Trotsky/Archive/1936-Rev/ch10.htm#ch1 0-1 ================ Macdonald Stainsby. Rad-Green List: Radical anti-capitalist environmental discussion. http://www.egroups.com/group/rad-green rad-green-subscribe@egroups.com ---------- http://www.geocities.com/leninist_international/ http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international From johnwood at umich.edu Wed Sep 6 14:55:55 2000 From: johnwood at umich.edu (John Woodford) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Reforms and falling short References: <000701c01842$c5866000$395a7318@rct1.bc.wave.home.com> Message-ID: <39B6AF5B.6E31667F@umich.edu> Yeah, fine. . But Lenin was interested in dealing with the question: How do we get therer from here? And put another way, as far as Trotsky's case goes, "Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't going there." Macdonald Stainsby wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "TAHIR WOOD" > > The best solution is the one that can base itself most > > firmly on this principle and on this principle only: Each > > according to his or her work. > > > > When we have developed a better type of human being we can > > take it further from there. > > > > Tahir > > > While I'm not a Trotskyist by any means, I provide this and a link for > further speculation: > > Trotsky, "The Revolution Betrayed": > > The first section, entitled "Social Structure", concludes with these words: > "In the Soviet Union, the principle of socialism is realized: From each > according to his abilities to each according to his work." This inwardly > contradictory, not to say nonsensical, formula has entered, believe it or > not, from speeches and journalistic articles into the carefully deliberated > text of the fundamental state law. It bears witness not only to a complete > lowering of theoretical level in the lawgivers, but also to the lie with > which, as a mirror of the ruling stratum, the new constitution is imbued. It > is not difficult to guess the origin of the new "principle." To characterize > the Communist society, Marx employed the famous formula: "From each > according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." The two parts > of this formula are inseparable. "From each according to his abilities," in > the Communist, not the capitalist, sense, means: Work has now ceased to be > an obligation, and has become an individual need; society has no further use > for any compulsion. Only sick and abnormal persons will refuse to work. > Working "according to their ability" -- that is, in accord with their > physical and psychic powers, without any violence to themselves -- the > members of the commune will, thanks to a high technique, sufficiently fill > up the stores of society so that society can generously endow each and all > "according to their needs," without humiliating control. This two-sided but > indivisible formula of communism thus assumes abundance, equality, an > all-sided development of personality, and a high cultural discipline. > > [full portion of the article available at:] > > http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Other/Trotsky/Archive/1936-Rev/ch10.htm#ch1 > 0-1 > > ================ > Macdonald Stainsby. > > Rad-Green List: Radical anti-capitalist environmental discussion. > http://www.egroups.com/group/rad-green > rad-green-subscribe@egroups.com > ---------- > http://www.geocities.com/leninist_international/ > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international > > _______________________________________________ > Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist -- From mstainsby at tao.ca Wed Sep 6 18:47:23 2000 From: mstainsby at tao.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Reforms and falling short References: <000701c01842$c5866000$395a7318@rct1.bc.wave.home.com> <39B6AF5B.6E31667F@umich.edu> Message-ID: <003301c01865$301dd980$395a7318@rct1.bc.wave.home.com> Well, I stuck that in for a bit of flavour. Honestly, considering the eco-dynamic of the crash, this "how do we get there" will be the main question we must be able to deal with when "we" have *grasped the power* to be able to determine a new course. In the mean time, my vague hypotheses include a non-industrial model for building up the productive forces as needed, but that all these matters can only take place globally, since the "periphery" can no longer industrialise sanely. With that dynamic, power becomes the key. So how do we do that? THE question. Macdonald ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Woodford" To: Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [CrashList] Re: Reforms and falling short > Yeah, fine. . But Lenin was interested in dealing with the question: How do we > get therer from here? > And put another way, as far as Trotsky's case goes, "Everybody talkin' 'bout > Heaven ain't going there." > > Macdonald Stainsby wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "TAHIR WOOD" > > > The best solution is the one that can base itself most > > > firmly on this principle and on this principle only: Each > > > according to his or her work. > > > > > > When we have developed a better type of human being we can > > > take it further from there. > > > > > > Tahir > > > > > While I'm not a Trotskyist by any means, I provide this and a link for > > further speculation: > > > > Trotsky, "The Revolution Betrayed": > > > > The first section, entitled "Social Structure", concludes with these words: > > "In the Soviet Union, the principle of socialism is realized: From each > > according to his abilities to each according to his work." This inwardly > > contradictory, not to say nonsensical, formula has entered, believe it or > > not, from speeches and journalistic articles into the carefully deliberated > > text of the fundamental state law. It bears witness not only to a complete > > lowering of theoretical level in the lawgivers, but also to the lie with > > which, as a mirror of the ruling stratum, the new constitution is imbued. It > > is not difficult to guess the origin of the new "principle." To characterize > > the Communist society, Marx employed the famous formula: "From each > > according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." The two parts > > of this formula are inseparable. "From each according to his abilities," in > > the Communist, not the capitalist, sense, means: Work has now ceased to be > > an obligation, and has become an individual need; society has no further use > > for any compulsion. Only sick and abnormal persons will refuse to work. > > Working "according to their ability" -- that is, in accord with their > > physical and psychic powers, without any violence to themselves -- the > > members of the commune will, thanks to a high technique, sufficiently fill > > up the stores of society so that society can generously endow each and all > > "according to their needs," without humiliating control. This two-sided but > > indivisible formula of communism thus assumes abundance, equality, an > > all-sided development of personality, and a high cultural discipline. > > > > [full portion of the article available at:] > > > > http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Other/Trotsky/Archive/1936-Rev/ch10.htm#ch1 > > 0-1 > > > > ================ > > Macdonald Stainsby. > > > > Rad-Green List: Radical anti-capitalist environmental discussion. > > http://www.egroups.com/group/rad-green > > rad-green-subscribe@egroups.com > > ---------- > > http://www.geocities.com/leninist_international/ > > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > > -- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist From LROBERTS46 at aol.com Wed Sep 6 21:40:34 2000 From: LROBERTS46 at aol.com (LROBERTS46@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Go ahead regardless? Message-ID: <15.8e40f38.26e86832@aol.com> Do we really have a labor surplus? Our roads need fixing, our schools need rebuilding, there is a health care professional shortage, a child care provider shortage, thousands of children need foster care, we need drug alcohol treatment centers, we need to replant the forests, we must clean up pollution, we need to build housing, develop and test vaccines, provide health eduction, we need organically grown food, etc. There is plenty of labor that needs to be done. We must make those that have the gold expend the resources to pay for the work to be done. We must quit spending the money on B1 bombers, "smart bombs", prisons, and the "war on drugs" , etc. From LROBERTS46 at aol.com Wed Sep 6 22:42:09 2000 From: LROBERTS46 at aol.com (LROBERTS46@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:02 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Niche Construction, Biological Evolution and Cultural Change 2of2 Message-ID: <42.a651618.26e876a1@aol.com> It is precisely as a biologist that I use a class analysis. The point is not the survival of the individual but the survival of the species. Capitalism selects the wrong folks. Capitalism allows the weakest, most childish, least cooperative, least diverse, and most useless members to survive, to reproduce (sometimes by extreme measures), and to florish at the expence of the stronger, smarter, more diverse, more social, and most useful members of the species. Ignorant, inbred and stupid feudal lords lived and created heirs while their hard working, skillful servants starved. Whole populations died while the rich struggled over material wealth. The inventor and craftperson struggles along while the person who owns patents and factories accumulates power and money. Useless folks (e.g. Donald Trump, George W Bush) make decisions that effect everyone. From cbcox at ilstu.edu Thu Sep 7 00:28:53 2000 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] [Fwd: [PEN-L:1375] (Fwd) Biotech Has Bamboozled Us All - The ManchesterGuardian] Message-ID: <39B735A5.47C02682@ilstu.edu> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [PEN-L:1375] (Fwd) Biotech Has Bamboozled Us All - The ManchesterGuardian Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 23:22:20 -0500 From: phillp2@Ms.UManitoba.CA Reply-To: pen-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu To: pen-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 12:41:35 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Sid Shniad Subject: Biotech Has Bamboozled Us All - The Manchester Guardian (UK) The Manchester Guardian (UK) August 24, 2000 Biotech Has Bamboozled Us All by George Monbiot The advice could scarcely have come from a more surprising source. "If anyone tells you that GM is going to feed the world," Steve Smith, a director of the world's biggest biotechnology company, Novartis, insisted, "tell them that it is not... To feed the world takes political and financial will - it's not about production and distribution." Mr Smith was voicing a truth which most of his colleagues in biotechnology companies have gone to great lengths to deny. On a planet wallowing in surfeit, people starve because they have neither the land on which to grow food for themselves nor the money with which to buy it. There is no question that, as the population increases, the world will have to grow more, but if this task is left to the rich and powerful - big farmers and big business - then, irrespective of how much is grown, people will become progressively hungrier. Only a redistribution of land and wealth can save the world from mass starvation. But in one respect Mr Smith is wrong. It is, in part, about production. A series of remarkable experiments has shown that the growing techniques which his company and many others have sought to impose upon the world are, in contradiction to everything we have been brought up to believe, actually less productive than some of the methods developed by traditional farmers over the past 10,000 years. Last week, Nature magazine reported the results of one of the biggest agricultural experiments ever conducted. A team of Chinese scientists had tested the key principle of modern rice-growing (planting a single, hi-tech variety across hundreds of hectares) against a much older technique (planting several breeds in one field). They found, to the astonishment of the farmers who had been drilled for years in the benefits of "monoculture", that reverting to the old method resulted in spectacular increases in yield. Rice blast - a devastating fungus which normally requires repeated applications of poison to control - decreased by 94%. The farmers planting a mixture of strains were able to stop applying their poisons altogether, while producing 18% more rice per acre than they were growing before. Another paper, published in Nature two years ago, showed that yields of organic maize are identical to yields of maize grown with fertilisers and pesticides, while soil quality in the organic fields dramatically improves. In trials in Hertfordshire, wheat grown with manure has produced higher yields for the past 150 years than wheat grown with artificial nutrients. Professor Jules Pretty of Essex University has shown how farmers in India, Kenya, Brazil, Guatemala and Honduras have doubled or tripled their yields by switching to organic or semi-organic techniques. A study in the US reveals that small farms growing a wide range of plants can produce 10 times as much money per acre as big farms growing single crops. Cuba, forced into organic farming by the economic blockade, has now adopted this as policy, having discovered that it improves both the productivity and the quality of its crops. Hi-tech farming, by contrast, is sowing ever graver problems. This year, food production in Punjab and Haryana, the Indian states long celebrated as the great success stories of modern, intensive cultivation, has all but collapsed. The new crops the farmers there have been encouraged to grow demand far more water and nutrients than the old ones, with the result that, in many places, both the ground water and the soil have been exhausted. We have, in other words, been deceived. Traditional farming has been stamped out all over the world not because it is less productive than monoculture, but because it is, in some respects, more productive. Organic cultivation has been characterised as an enemy of progress for the simple reason that it cannot be monopolised: it can be adopted by any farmer anywhere, without the help of multinational companies. Though it is more productive to grow several species or several varieties of crops in one field, the biotech companies must reduce diversity in order to make money, leaving farmers with no choice but to purchase their most profitable seeds. This is why they have spent the last 10 years buying up seed breeding institutes and lobbying governments to do what ours has done: banning the sale of any seed which has not been officially - and expensively - registered and approved. All this requires an unrelenting propaganda war against the tried and tested techniques of traditional farming, as the big companies and their scientists dismiss them as unproductive, unsophisticated and unsafe. The truth, so effectively suppressed that it is now almost impossible to believe, is that organic farming is the key to feeding the world. ------- End of forwarded message ------- From tomzbox at hotmail.com Wed Sep 6 12:59:05 2000 From: tomzbox at hotmail.com (Tom Warren) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Economic theories Message-ID: Tahir writes: >What sort of economic theory supports statements such >as the following: "Our present views rarely include any >awareness that wealth comes from nature and inheritance more >than from any work we do." I don't want to tread on Barry's response when it comes, but let me say that I think this is a perfect way to get back to a discussion of the Crash. ( I would not defend "inheritance" in this context, however.) Let me ask a few questions, as open as I can make them. I am hoping these don't seem "argumentative" or pejorative 1. I hope that we can all agree that /some/ wealth comes from nature. If so, shouldn't an economic theory recognize natural wealth or ... value ? If so, is that unacceptable to the "labor theory of value"? ... or should the labor theory of value be adjusted to include nature? Can we assume any flexibility in such an economic theory? If any theory (including capitalism) ignores nature, is the theory relevant to mitigating the Crash? 2. Are economic theories to be seen as being immune from the non-economic rules and forces of the biosphere? (example: I am not sure that global population increase can fit wholly into economic theories in any way that is applicable to reality.) ... or are economic theories in some way larger and more powerful than nature? If so ... how? 3. I don't know how to ask the third set of questions except by a personal statement: As many on the list have observed, I have some trouble (!) reconciling a Marxist viewpoint with my own "neo-malthusian" green Doomer viewpoint, basically because I accept a different set of fundamental assumptions. I'm still searching for common ground, and building bridges. That's why I remain. These questions just echo Tahir's statement: "but I do hope that you will continue the engagement nevertheless." Thanks, Tom "The Earth is not dying - she is being killed. And those who are killing her have names and addresses." -Utah Phillips _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From Nmarsh1 at aol.com Thu Sep 7 06:29:22 2000 From: Nmarsh1 at aol.com (Nmarsh1@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Not "Saint" but certainly "Criminal" - and I am not even sure... Message-ID: <22.ae712ff.26e8e422@aol.com> please unsubscribe me from the list. thank you. nmarsh1@aol.com From carob at dynamite.com.au Thu Sep 7 08:29:02 2000 From: carob at dynamite.com.au (Rob Schaap) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Niche Construction, Biological Evolution and Cultural Change 2of2 Message-ID: <200009071327.AAA01849@m0.dynamite.com.au> >It is precisely as a biologist that I use a class analysis. The point is not >the survival of the individual but the survival of the species. Capitalism >selects the wrong folks. I'm not sure we'd have much evidence for the notion that the spawn of the successful acquisitive capitalist is genetically any the worse for its origins. Mum and Dad were, like the rest of us, primarily the way they were because of the relations in which they developed (rather than their genes). And, even if that were not so, isn't it true that most of the world's better-off have fewer offspring than their poorer countrparts? Individualist acquisitiveness is effectively selected against because the having of children represents a significant opportunity cost to homo economicus, eh? What's more, isn't the difference so profound that even the staggering mortality rates among most 'undeveloped' communities are not enough to wipe out that difference? I mean, you only have to live to see thirty-five to rear a few live 'uns, eh? So I'd need a bit of convincing about this strain of class-based biology. That said, the few who do issue from the loins of the rich live lives which cost disproportionately more in terms of the world-system's matter/energy (I seem to remember a ratio in the hundreds between the environmental cost of one of us compared to, say, a Togoan villager or an Ethiopian peasant). Cheers, Rob. From cbcox at ilstu.edu Thu Sep 7 08:47:29 2000 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Economic theories References: Message-ID: <39B7AA80.105EC4@ilstu.edu> Tom Warren wrote: > > 1. I hope that we can all agree that /some/ wealth comes from nature. One sure route to utter confusion and political futility is creating false debates. *All* wealth comes from nature. There is no other conceivable source of wealth. BUT *all* of that wealth, to become *human* wealth must be transformed by human labor. Any argument over whether wealth comes from nature or labor is as stupid as to argue whether the numerator or the denominator of a fraction is more important. It is such an ignorant argument that it is hard to believe that those who propose it are acting in good faith. If you are ignorant enough to think Marx argued that all wealth comes form labor, I suggest you read the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*> > If so, > shouldn't an economic theory recognize natural wealth or ... value ? Value is a social relation, not a thing. You can analyze an object from here to eternity in all the chemistry and physics laboratories on earth and you will never find a speck of value. There is absolute nothing about the physical features of, say, an automobile and a toothpick to indicate the value of either. Value is a social relationship. It is NOT a feature of things. Another way of putting it, perhaps, for those who want to get their Marx from the air they breathe or from licking lollipops is that in the sense of "economic theory" implied here Marx was not an economist. > If so, > is that unacceptable to the "labor theory of value"? It is has nothing whatever to do, one way or the other, with the labor theory of value. Value is a social relation. The marxist-anarchist Fredy [one 'D] Perlman offers a partial insight with his statement that Political Economy is essentially a study of culture. The question it asks and answer has nothing to do, for example, with the question economists pose of "How are prices set?" Rather, it asks how, under given historical conditions, living human activity is allocated. I won't go further, because it is impossible to discuss anything when the discussion begins with such meaningless questions as these. Marx did not produce an economic theory. He produced a critique of Political Economy. So under the Subject line of this post there is nothing for a marxist to discuss. Carrol Cox From tomzbox at hotmail.com Thu Sep 7 10:28:30 2000 From: tomzbox at hotmail.com (Tom Warren) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: Crashlist digest, Vol 1 #77 - 5 msgs Message-ID: >I won't go further, because it is impossible to discuss anything when the >discussion begins with such meaningless questions as these. Marx did >not produce an economic theory. He produced a critique of Political >Economy. So under the Subject line of this post there is nothing for a >marxist to discuss. > >Carrol Cox Thanks, Carrol, for your reasoned and civil response. I assume from the above statement that marxism therefore is of no practical value in addressing the impeding problems of the crash, other than perhaps producing a nice little watertight critique of the Political Economy that got us to the edge of the abyss? Ahhh yes, well your response DOES confirm my suspicions of the parochial nature of Socialism. Anyone else? Tom _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From twood at uwc.ac.za Thu Sep 7 02:37:12 2000 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (TAHIR WOOD) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] no mas mensajes Message-ID: I would appreciate it if someone could translate this for me, since it appears to be asking something of me, but I don't know enough Spanish to understand what exactly. Thanks Tahir >>> "Aieti" 09/06 5:53 PM >>> POR FAVOR NO SIGAN MANDANDO MENSAJES. SE LO RUEGO gRACIAS. aieti-direcci?n -----Mensaje original----- De: TAHIR WOOD Para: crashlist@lists.wwpublish.com Fecha: mi?rcoles, 06 de septiembre de 2000 17:42 Asunto: Re: [CrashList] Go ahead regardless? >Barry, I was very interested to read your post below, >because it is challenging, but also because it is in a way >diametrically opposed to what I have been emphasising >(basically "each according to his/her work). I don't have >much time to respond right now, but I do hope that you will >continue the engagement nevertheless. > >I think many people on this list would agree that there is a >labour surplus, but without necessarily agreeing with the >conclusions that you derive from this. For example, I find >it hard to regard as a 'solution' your radical separation of >production from distribution. The idea of dividing humanity >into a group of producers and a large unproductive group >while relying on technology to keep up a high level of >productivity seems a rather contrived and unbalanced >solution to me. Instead of focusing on the productive and >creative powers of humanity as part of the solution, it >reckons that a small group of productive and creative >individuals will design the life support for the majority >who will then play no further role in the production >process. They will simply be the recipients of a certain >distributed product. What will be the politics of this sort >of society? In such a radical division of humanity what >sorts of consciousness will define the doers and the >receivers? Will it be egalitarian in any way? This is hard >to imagine. > >Sentences such as the following seem curiously to take >certain historical phenomena as given, whereas there surely >is some basis for questioning them: " when we create nearly >full employment our powerful technology and out large supply >of workers will always consume far too many resources for >such hyper-activity to be sustainable." Is technology then >some external force which impinges on humanity in a one-way >determinism, as your formulation suggests to me, or is it >something that we can create and control? > >Obviously you do not subscribe to the labour theory of >value. What sort of economic theory supports statements such >as the following: "Our present views rarely include any >awareness that wealth comes from nature and inheritance more >than from any work we do." > >But above all for me the stress that you put on unearned >income is most bizarre, even while your critique of growth >can and should be accepted. Also I think that your approach >of starting from the labour surplus and then not adopting a >position on population is strange, because if you are >assuming a static population, against the current and >empirically observable pattern - in other words stasis is >something to be achieved - then why would you not try to >achieve negative population growth, which would seem to be a >more direct and more coherent way of addressing your problem >of economic growth and labour surplus, no? If you are >putting so much stress on highly productive technology, >which is somehow taken as an extra-human given, why don't >you look at the technology of reproduction? In both cases >they are matters of human choice and agency. Neither the >population level nor the level of productivity is an >external fact of nature - they are effects of human >relations and actions. > >Tahir > > > >>>> "Barry Brooks" 09/06 6:11 AM >>> > > > > We need to find what kind of economy can provide people's >needs without making too much pollution and without running >out of resources rapidly. Our present consumer economy has >many nice features, yet it is basically at odds with >resource stewardship. > Labor has been surplus relative to local natural >resources for a long time. In today's crowded world >migration can no longer provide an escape from depleted >local resources, and imported resources are no longer >abundant and cheap. Even though we face a growing shortage >of resources we still pretend that labor shortage is >limiting production. Our fear of labor shortage is >obsolete. Since the dawn of the industrial age it has been >necessary to constantly find ways to increase consumption in >order maintain full employment. > The left and the right agree that jobs are the only >acceptable way to dole out money to the masses. Yet, when >we create nearly full employment our powerful technology and >out large supply of workers will always consume far too many >resources for such hyper-activity to be sustainable. Only in >our dreams is there no conflict between expanding the >economy to make jobs and contracting the economy to conserve >resources. > Our present views rarely include any awareness that >wealth comes from nature and inheritance more than from any >work we do. To make our system work under present conditions >we must admit that human labor is no longer scarce because >machines with computer control can replace most paid labor, >even in services. We should expect to shift our dependence >from wages toward unearned income as automation replaces >more human labor. Our system already has unearned income, >but for now it is only for a few. Changing that is the key >to becoming sustainable. Unearned income can end our >dependence on jobs and growth. > Whether our goal is to preserve the present pecking order >or to help improve the lives of the poor, we must have a >sustainable system for anything to really matter to anyone. >Excess growth is the cause of our high consumption, and high >consumption is the reason our economic system is not >sustainable. Growth is the common problem of all classes! > True conservation cuts consumption and that cuts >production and that cuts real paying jobs and profits. No >one supports a sustainable economy. Without true >conservation we can continue to squander scarce resources to >exercise all our surplus labor. Without conservation we can >have our giant SUVs. That is our plan, left or right. > There are four basic ways, I can think of, to conserve >resources: increased efficiency, increased durability, >recycling and by doing less. Durability allows doing less >without having less. Efficiency allows using less in what we >are doing. We can make deep cuts in consumption without >sacrifice by designing new products to maximize their life >time, efficiency and reparability. > Durability will make it possible to stop the waste and >pollution that are making our economy unsustainable. >Because durability has been neglected we have a lot to gain >when we starting using durability to conserve. > Conservation of perishables using recycling and >efficiency are already our goals, but the use of durability >to conserve has had little notice. Yet, a stable population >could use a general increase in durability to cut its >resource consumption to very low levels while maintaining >high living standards. > If we could somehow accept unearned income for all >classes then we could adjust the dole to stabilize wages. >(No more tight money.) This will provide a mechanism >allowing us to match the labor force to the real need for >labor, instead of making jobs to match the labor force, >regardless of the consequences. > >Barry Brooks >durable@earthlink.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist From twood at uwc.ac.za Thu Sep 7 09:42:06 2000 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (TAHIR WOOD) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Non-industrial model Message-ID: MS: "my vague hypotheses include a non-industrial model for building up the productive forces as needed, but that all these matters can only take place globally, since the "periphery" can no longer industrialise sanely." Now Mac you know we won't just let you say something like this without asking you to come out with the model. I had explained earlier that my notion of work was not about wage labour or commodity production, unlike that of the Soviet Union, and indeed unlike Trotsky's own notion. So let's leave him aside now and concentrate on your own much more interesting utterance, as quoted above. Tahir From jbunzl at simpol.org Thu Sep 7 07:02:34 2000 From: jbunzl at simpol.org (John Bunzl) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] The Simultaneous Policy References: <00dd01c0178f$d0af85a0$8aa5accf@amiribar> Message-ID: <000401c018f0$d5fcb520$8e5a87d4@oemcomputer> Amiri Baraka wrote: > See Mao's The Economic Policys of the New Democracy (Sel Works_ Lenin on The > "NEP", Du Bois on "TheNation within a Nation". (Du Bois Reader). > Politics is always principal. The correct political and ideological > line determines everything. And finally it is the relations of production, > the relations between people, that is what we seek fundamentally to > transform. If we think merely or Primarily about the Productive Forces, ie, > economic work, production, we will become economists (emphaizing trade > unionpolitics and leaving politics to the bougeoisie) and utltimately > opportunists. Mao's line was "Grasp Revolution -Push Production" This was apparently in response to: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: TAHIR WOOD > To: > Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 11:21 AM > Subject: RE: [CrashList] The Simultaneous Policy > > > > I think that people who wish to regulate the capitalist > > system in the way that is proposed on this website need > to > > answer the standard critique that is offered to this sort of > > proposal by leftists......(snipped) I have no idea whether Amiri Baraka's message was made in response to Tahir's above message (to which I have already replied) or to the Simultaneous Policy proposal on www.simpol.org or both. If it responds to the Simultaneous Policy proposal, forgive me but I don't see how it relates to that proposal and would be happy to be enlightened! best wishes John From jbunzl at simpol.org Thu Sep 7 10:14:33 2000 From: jbunzl at simpol.org (John Bunzl) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Abusive exploitive systems References: <20000905.103233.-155035.3.juneo4@juno.com> Message-ID: <003701c018f1$384c8de0$8e5a87d4@oemcomputer> jo* wrote: So, since > what you have said (about abusive environments begetting more abuse) > points up root causes, it would behoove us to take a long deep hard look > at how to reverse the trend/revert to collaborative cooperative > sustainable behaviours and systems, and I belive this is where it begins. > The solution that is. jo* My reply: I agree. Would it therefore be appropriate to sum up the challenge we face as 'How do we get from competition to cooperation?' If so, how do we do that? Are there any game theorists out there who might help? John From silviaa at servidor.unam.mx Thu Sep 7 11:48:07 2000 From: silviaa at servidor.unam.mx (Silvia Almanza Marquez) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] no mas mensajes References: Message-ID: <001a01c018f3$cb72ecc0$f799f884@iingen.unam.mx> "No more mesages" ----- Original Message ----- From: "TAHIR WOOD" To: Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 3:37 AM Subject: Re: [CrashList] no mas mensajes > I would appreciate it if someone could translate this for > me, since it appears to be asking something of me, but I > don't know enough Spanish to understand what exactly. > > Thanks > > Tahir > > >>> "Aieti" 09/06 5:53 PM >>> > POR FAVOR NO SIGAN MANDANDO MENSAJES. > SE LO RUEGO > gRACIAS. > aieti-direcci?n > -----Mensaje original----- > De: TAHIR WOOD > Para: crashlist@lists.wwpublish.com > > Fecha: mi?rcoles, 06 de septiembre de 2000 17:42 > Asunto: Re: [CrashList] Go ahead regardless? > > > >Barry, I was very interested to read your post below, > >because it is challenging, but also because it is in a way > >diametrically opposed to what I have been emphasising > >(basically "each according to his/her work). I don't have > >much time to respond right now, but I do hope that you will > >continue the engagement nevertheless. > > > >I think many people on this list would agree that there is > a > >labour surplus, but without necessarily agreeing with the > >conclusions that you derive from this. For example, I find > >it hard to regard as a 'solution' your radical separation > of > >production from distribution. The idea of dividing humanity > >into a group of producers and a large unproductive group > >while relying on technology to keep up a high level of > >productivity seems a rather contrived and unbalanced > >solution to me. Instead of focusing on the productive and > >creative powers of humanity as part of the solution, it > >reckons that a small group of productive and creative > >individuals will design the life support for the majority > >who will then play no further role in the production > >process. They will simply be the recipients of a certain > >distributed product. What will be the politics of this sort > >of society? In such a radical division of humanity what > >sorts of consciousness will define the doers and the > >receivers? Will it be egalitarian in any way? This is hard > >to imagine. > > > >Sentences such as the following seem curiously to take > >certain historical phenomena as given, whereas there surely > >is some basis for questioning them: " when we create nearly > >full employment our powerful technology and out large > supply > >of workers will always consume far too many resources for > >such hyper-activity to be sustainable." Is technology then > >some external force which impinges on humanity in a one-way > >determinism, as your formulation suggests to me, or is it > >something that we can create and control? > > > >Obviously you do not subscribe to the labour theory of > >value. What sort of economic theory supports statements > such > >as the following: "Our present views rarely include any > >awareness that wealth comes from nature and inheritance > more > >than from any work we do." > > > >But above all for me the stress that you put on unearned > >income is most bizarre, even while your critique of growth > >can and should be accepted. Also I think that your approach > >of starting from the labour surplus and then not adopting a > >position on population is strange, because if you are > >assuming a static population, against the current and > >empirically observable pattern - in other words stasis is > >something to be achieved - then why would you not try to > >achieve negative population growth, which would seem to be > a > >more direct and more coherent way of addressing your > problem > >of economic growth and labour surplus, no? If you are > >putting so much stress on highly productive technology, > >which is somehow taken as an extra-human given, why don't > >you look at the technology of reproduction? In both cases > >they are matters of human choice and agency. Neither the > >population level nor the level of productivity is an > >external fact of nature - they are effects of human > >relations and actions. > > > >Tahir > > > > > > > >>>> "Barry Brooks" 09/06 6:11 AM > >>> > > > > > > > > We need to find what kind of economy can provide > people's > >needs without making too much pollution and without running > >out of resources rapidly. Our present consumer economy has > >many nice features, yet it is basically at odds with > >resource stewardship. > > Labor has been surplus relative to local natural > >resources for a long time. In today's crowded world > >migration can no longer provide an escape from depleted > >local resources, and imported resources are no longer > >abundant and cheap. Even though we face a growing shortage > >of resources we still pretend that labor shortage is > >limiting production. Our fear of labor shortage is > >obsolete. Since the dawn of the industrial age it has been > >necessary to constantly find ways to increase consumption > in > >order maintain full employment. > > The left and the right agree that jobs are the only > >acceptable way to dole out money to the masses. Yet, when > >we create nearly full employment our powerful technology > and > >out large supply of workers will always consume far too > many > >resources for such hyper-activity to be sustainable. Only > in > >our dreams is there no conflict between expanding the > >economy to make jobs and contracting the economy to > conserve > >resources. > > Our present views rarely include any awareness that > >wealth comes from nature and inheritance more than from any > >work we do. To make our system work under present > conditions > >we must admit that human labor is no longer scarce because > >machines with computer control can replace most paid labor, > >even in services. We should expect to shift our dependence > >from wages toward unearned income as automation replaces > >more human labor. Our system already has unearned income, > >but for now it is only for a few. Changing that is the key > >to becoming sustainable. Unearned income can end our > >dependence on jobs and growth. > > Whether our goal is to preserve the present pecking > order > >or to help improve the lives of the poor, we must have a > >sustainable system for anything to really matter to anyone. > >Excess growth is the cause of our high consumption, and > high > >consumption is the reason our economic system is not > >sustainable. Growth is the common problem of all classes! > > True conservation cuts consumption and that cuts > >production and that cuts real paying jobs and profits. No > >one supports a sustainable economy. Without true > >conservation we can continue to squander scarce resources > to > >exercise all our surplus labor. Without conservation we > can > >have our giant SUVs. That is our plan, left or right. > > There are four basic ways, I can think of, to conserve > >resources: increased efficiency, increased durability, > >recycling and by doing less. Durability allows doing less > >without having less. Efficiency allows using less in what > we > >are doing. We can make deep cuts in consumption without > >sacrifice by designing new products to maximize their life > >time, efficiency and reparability. > > Durability will make it possible to stop the waste and > >pollution that are making our economy unsustainable. > >Because durability has been neglected we have a lot to gain > >when we starting using durability to conserve. > > Conservation of perishables using recycling and > >efficiency are already our goals, but the use of durability > >to conserve has had little notice. Yet, a stable population > >could use a general increase in durability to cut its > >resource consumption to very low levels while maintaining > >high living standards. > > If we could somehow accept unearned income for all > >classes then we could adjust the dole to stabilize wages. > >(No more tight money.) This will provide a mechanism > >allowing us to match the labor force to the real need for > >labor, instead of making jobs to match the labor force, > >regardless of the consequences. > > > >Barry Brooks > >durable@earthlink.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Crashlist resources: > http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > >http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crashlist resources: > http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > From silviaa at servidor.unam.mx Thu Sep 7 11:50:28 2000 From: silviaa at servidor.unam.mx (Silvia Almanza Marquez) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] no mas mensajes References: Message-ID: <001f01c018f4$1c3e36a0$f799f884@iingen.unam.mx> "Please, do not send more mesages, I beg you. Thank you" ----- Original Message ----- From: "TAHIR WOOD" To: Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 3:37 AM Subject: Re: [CrashList] no mas mensajes > I would appreciate it if someone could translate this for > me, since it appears to be asking something of me, but I > don't know enough Spanish to understand what exactly. > > Thanks > > Tahir > > >>> "Aieti" 09/06 5:53 PM >>> > POR FAVOR NO SIGAN MANDANDO MENSAJES. > SE LO RUEGO > gRACIAS. > aieti-direcci?n > -----Mensaje original----- > De: TAHIR WOOD > Para: crashlist@lists.wwpublish.com > > Fecha: mi?rcoles, 06 de septiembre de 2000 17:42 > Asunto: Re: [CrashList] Go ahead regardless? > > > >Barry, I was very interested to read your post below, > >because it is challenging, but also because it is in a way > >diametrically opposed to what I have been emphasising > >(basically "each according to his/her work). I don't have > >much time to respond right now, but I do hope that you will > >continue the engagement nevertheless. > > > >I think many people on this list would agree that there is > a > >labour surplus, but without necessarily agreeing with the > >conclusions that you derive from this. For example, I find > >it hard to regard as a 'solution' your radical separation > of > >production from distribution. The idea of dividing humanity > >into a group of producers and a large unproductive group > >while relying on technology to keep up a high level of > >productivity seems a rather contrived and unbalanced > >solution to me. Instead of focusing on the productive and > >creative powers of humanity as part of the solution, it > >reckons that a small group of productive and creative > >individuals will design the life support for the majority > >who will then play no further role in the production > >process. They will simply be the recipients of a certain > >distributed product. What will be the politics of this sort > >of society? In such a radical division of humanity what > >sorts of consciousness will define the doers and the > >receivers? Will it be egalitarian in any way? This is hard > >to imagine. > > > >Sentences such as the following seem curiously to take > >certain historical phenomena as given, whereas there surely > >is some basis for questioning them: " when we create nearly > >full employment our powerful technology and out large > supply > >of workers will always consume far too many resources for > >such hyper-activity to be sustainable." Is technology then > >some external force which impinges on humanity in a one-way > >determinism, as your formulation suggests to me, or is it > >something that we can create and control? > > > >Obviously you do not subscribe to the labour theory of > >value. What sort of economic theory supports statements > such > >as the following: "Our present views rarely include any > >awareness that wealth comes from nature and inheritance > more > >than from any work we do." > > > >But above all for me the stress that you put on unearned > >income is most bizarre, even while your critique of growth > >can and should be accepted. Also I think that your approach > >of starting from the labour surplus and then not adopting a > >position on population is strange, because if you are > >assuming a static population, against the current and > >empirically observable pattern - in other words stasis is > >something to be achieved - then why would you not try to > >achieve negative population growth, which would seem to be > a > >more direct and more coherent way of addressing your > problem > >of economic growth and labour surplus, no? If you are > >putting so much stress on highly productive technology, > >which is somehow taken as an extra-human given, why don't > >you look at the technology of reproduction? In both cases > >they are matters of human choice and agency. Neither the > >population level nor the level of productivity is an > >external fact of nature - they are effects of human > >relations and actions. > > > >Tahir > > > > > > > >>>> "Barry Brooks" 09/06 6:11 AM > >>> > > > > > > > > We need to find what kind of economy can provide > people's > >needs without making too much pollution and without running > >out of resources rapidly. Our present consumer economy has > >many nice features, yet it is basically at odds with > >resource stewardship. > > Labor has been surplus relative to local natural > >resources for a long time. In today's crowded world > >migration can no longer provide an escape from depleted > >local resources, and imported resources are no longer > >abundant and cheap. Even though we face a growing shortage > >of resources we still pretend that labor shortage is > >limiting production. Our fear of labor shortage is > >obsolete. Since the dawn of the industrial age it has been > >necessary to constantly find ways to increase consumption > in > >order maintain full employment. > > The left and the right agree that jobs are the only > >acceptable way to dole out money to the masses. Yet, when > >we create nearly full employment our powerful technology > and > >out large supply of workers will always consume far too > many > >resources for such hyper-activity to be sustainable. Only > in > >our dreams is there no conflict between expanding the > >economy to make jobs and contracting the economy to > conserve > >resources. > > Our present views rarely include any awareness that > >wealth comes from nature and inheritance more than from any > >work we do. To make our system work under present > conditions > >we must admit that human labor is no longer scarce because > >machines with computer control can replace most paid labor, > >even in services. We should expect to shift our dependence > >from wages toward unearned income as automation replaces > >more human labor. Our system already has unearned income, > >but for now it is only for a few. Changing that is the key > >to becoming sustainable. Unearned income can end our > >dependence on jobs and growth. > > Whether our goal is to preserve the present pecking > order > >or to help improve the lives of the poor, we must have a > >sustainable system for anything to really matter to anyone. > >Excess growth is the cause of our high consumption, and > high > >consumption is the reason our economic system is not > >sustainable. Growth is the common problem of all classes! > > True conservation cuts consumption and that cuts > >production and that cuts real paying jobs and profits. No > >one supports a sustainable economy. Without true > >conservation we can continue to squander scarce resources > to > >exercise all our surplus labor. Without conservation we > can > >have our giant SUVs. That is our plan, left or right. > > There are four basic ways, I can think of, to conserve > >resources: increased efficiency, increased durability, > >recycling and by doing less. Durability allows doing less > >without having less. Efficiency allows using less in what > we > >are doing. We can make deep cuts in consumption without > >sacrifice by designing new products to maximize their life > >time, efficiency and reparability. > > Durability will make it possible to stop the waste and > >pollution that are making our economy unsustainable. > >Because durability has been neglected we have a lot to gain > >when we starting using durability to conserve. > > Conservation of perishables using recycling and > >efficiency are already our goals, but the use of durability > >to conserve has had little notice. Yet, a stable population > >could use a general increase in durability to cut its > >resource consumption to very low levels while maintaining > >high living standards. > > If we could somehow accept unearned income for all > >classes then we could adjust the dole to stabilize wages. > >(No more tight money.) This will provide a mechanism > >allowing us to match the labor force to the real need for > >labor, instead of making jobs to match the labor force, > >regardless of the consequences. > > > >Barry Brooks > >durable@earthlink.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Crashlist resources: > http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > >http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crashlist resources: > http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > From jones118 at lineone.net Thu Sep 7 11:18:22 2000 From: jones118 at lineone.net (Mark Jones) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Fw: Worldoil.com: Oil prices scale new peak amid scepticism about OPEC plans Message-ID: <000901c018ef$9fc1c320$d5298cd4@mjones> 7-Sep-2000 1:26:31 PM 07 Sep 2000 07:55:10 LONDON, Sept 7 (AFP) - Oil prices scaled new peaks on Thursday morning, soaring to 34.50 dollars a barrel, amid growing scepticism that OPEC will, or can, increase output enough to cool an overheating market. The price of North Sea Brent reference crude for October delivery spiked upwards from an opening value of 34.35 dollars, before easing back to 34.20 dollars by late morning. Oil prices have now more than tripled in the past 18 months, topping levels not seen since the 1990 Gulf war. The surge in prices has threatened inflation in industrialised and developing nations across the world, and prompted stern requests from Europe and the United States for the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to pump more crude to the market. Asian nations joined the chorus of concern on Thursday, when officials from the 21-nation APEC grouping warned that rising energy prices could trigger inflation and hamper the recovery of countries hurt in the 1997 regional economic crisis. Europe, suffering from widespread protests over soaring fuel prices, has already called on OPEC to take action. The United States added its voice late on Wednesday, calling for "reasonable" oil prices. "We have made clear to OPEC that we think there needs to be a balance between producing countries and consuming countries so that we can see oil at a fair price and meet the global demand," he added. But the 11 OPEC nations, due to discuss output quotas at a Vienna meeting on Sunday, may have neither the political will nor the industrial capacity to increase output sufficiently to cool the market, analysts said here Thursday. Top Venezuelan oil officials have said as much. Venezuelan oil minister and OPEC president Ali Rodriguez has warned that output increases alone would not bring prices down, while Hector Ciavaldini, president of state-run company Petroleos de Venezuela, said in New York that his government saw no need for increased OPEC production. "There is a balance in offer and demand and we are surprised that prices go high," Ciavaldini said. Analysts have noted that most OPEC countries are already producing at full capacity, and in any case feel strongly that they should bear no responsibility for prices. Only Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have spare capacity, and the other eight countries are expected to dig in for fear that production increases will bring down prices, and lose them revenue as well as market share. "I think OPEC can increase output, but whether they will is another matter, " said Philip Oxley, an oil market analyst with Credit Lyonnais Rouse. "Smaller countries which can''t produce much more are worried that they will lose out from an increase in output." "If they increase output by 500,00 barrels a day, it won''t do very much," he told AFP. "Even if they increase by one million barrels, it might not have much of an effect. We could see prices up to 40 dollars before too long, because I can''t see them doing anything drastic." Market watchers also warn that with winter looming and time lags likely to delay any quota increase, prices are set to remain high for months to come. Any output increase would take weeks to be transported to market, by which time the increased winter demand would already have kicked in. "Even if an increase is decided for the OPEC meeting, it will take time before it has impact on the prices," said Salomon Smith Barney analyst Peter Young. But not everyone believes oil prices will remain high through the long term. The Norwegian statistics bureau forecast on Thursday that the price of oil would fall to an average of 25.7 dollars a barrel this year, 21.0 dollars a barrel in 2001 and 18.5 dollars in 2002. From aabdo at webtv.net Thu Sep 7 13:28:35 2000 From: aabdo at webtv.net (Tony Abdo) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] The Garden of Eden In-Reply-To: "Tom Warren" 's message of Thu, 07 Sep 2000 16:28:30 GMT Message-ID: <27904-39B7EC63-1579@storefull-238.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Relax, Tom. Carrol Cox is not the only and LAST word on.... What is marxism? Carrol writes- Message-ID: <39B7F182.D6811382@ilstu.edu> Tom Warren wrote: > > Thanks, Carrol, for your reasoned and civil response. I apoligize for my loss of temper, but it seems that marxists must (in contexts where other participants pretend to a certain level of sophistication) forever debate ghosts. "Economics" as popularly conceived (and as conceived by the professional economists) can provide more or less (mostly less) useful technical advice to capitalists and it can provide morale-building justification for capitalists' trust in the eternal truth of TINA. A note on political activity. Most posters on this list seem to me to be expressions of voluntarism -- the conviction that there exists some policy which, if activists adopt it, will enable them to force the movement of history. This can have various repercussions, but one of them is a tendency to endless hand wringing over "what should we do, *now*, to make things moves. Voluntarism exhibits a total inability to honor the sheer contingency of life. I am not arguing for mere passivity; there is usually a good number of things to do, and I am attaching at the end of this post a recent post on the m-fem maillist from Yoshie Furuhashi which exhibits that. But I am arguing that the occasions on which history *moves*, and on which our actions (and our ideas) can make a tremendous difference, are few and far between, occur behind our back and in utterly unpredictable ways, and cannot be forced, no matter how anguished our attempts to force them. Someone once told me (though I know no actual source for this, it rings true to my sense of Lenin) that Lenin once observed that there are three revolutionary virtues: patience, patience, and patience. Before going further, let me note that "reasoned and civil response" is only half correct in its description of my post. Uncivil I may have been but if you think it was not carefully reasoned you are blinded by your own (understandable but intellectually stultifying) irritation at the incivility. You write: > I assume from the above statement that marxism therefore is of no practical > value in addressing the impeding problems of the crash, This exhibits what I call dogmatism -- the belief that there must be a direct relationship between theory and practice. One kind of [un]marxist dogmatism, for example, operates as follows. Marx says (this kind of Marxist hasn't read Marx either ) that class is central to understanding the movement of history, therefore in organizing this struggle to stop a Hog Farm in McLean County we must not become distracted by trivial concerns over gender or sexuality." That is, this sort of Marxist (who, incidentally, is far more rare than anti-marxist mythology holds, but does exist) assumes that there must be a direct relationship between the fundamental analytic category of class and whatever tactical or strategic situation is immediately involved. (Unfortunately, incidentally, my example is purely fictional. No battle, well or badly organized, is being waged against the proliferation of Hog Farms in McLean County.) This sort of dogmatism is often but not always closely intertwined with various forms of voluntarism. The right ideas *must* lead to the right action *must* lead to success. But very seriously, you will plan badly, even in local activities, if you haven't granted (at least parenthetically and in the back of your mind) that we may finally fail, fail completely, and Rosa Luxemburg's "or" (barbarism, depopulation, utter wretchedness) will cover the earth. Only Summer Soldiers and Sunshine Patriots believe that success either is or can be guaranteed. (I'm not going to argue this point, but your post seems to imply that "economics" has to be of use, and that since Marx is not, at least in your or Martin Feldstein's sense of the word, an economist, he and marxists can be of little use. I can't condense the literature and history of 200 years into a post, so I won't try, but I urge you to at least keep in the back of your mind the possibility that economics is of no use to those who want to change the world. This isn't true, but it ontly ceases to be false after you have granted its truth to begin with. If you begin with hope in economics, you sill spin futilely in one spot forever. Are you so utterly uninterested in humans and their activity that you believe that an understanding of how, under given historical conditions, that activity is shaped can be of no use to anyone?) > other than perhaps > producing a nice little watertight critique of the Political Economy You don't know what Political Economy is -- and you don't know what a Critique is. I have, in the past, been not wholly unsuccessful in giving various people some sense of the content of these terms. Perhaps even at the age of 70 I might help a few more in the next decade or so, but I can't do it on a maillist and I'm not going to try. It does seems to me that having at leas a shadowy understanding of the forces operative in the greatest transformation of human history since the neolithic revolution might be of some general interest to anyone hoping to be part, however small, of a transformation which will probably prove rather more difficult than either the neolithic or the capitalist revolutions -- and as many on this list have emphasized, the stakes of that wished-for necessary transformation are rather high. > that > got us to the edge of the abyss? Ahhh yes, well your response DOES confirm It wasn't "Political Economy" that got us into anything. It was that huge transformation of the world called capitalism. Classical Poltical Economy (Quesnay, Smith, Ricardo) was an honest and superb effort to understand from the inside that transformation, and to understand from the inside is to deny history. Lurking in even the greatest and noblest of the efforts of bourgeois culture, including Political Economy, is the silent assumptioin: There has been history but there no longer is any. Marx's critique (to use a gross bu essentially accurate simplification) reintroduced history. Economics as we know it arose within the threats and triumphs of late 19th century capitalism as an essentially apologetic discipline, which tried to isolate the "economy" as a watertight compartment of human life, into which all other concerns could be regarded as an illegitimate intrusion. Hence such bizarre propositons as those that speak of political interference with the economy -- which is something like speaking of the brain's interference in the nervous system. A hundred years of "economics" (by which in the bourgeois soul the dread news brought by both implicitly by Political Economy and explicitly by the Critique of Political Economy -- the dread news that we live in history -- could be concealed, and the lackeys of capitalism could proclaim TINA (almost everyone), Society does not exist, only individuals and their families (Margaret Thatcher), The End of History (Fukuyama), and The New Economy (almost everyone). Only from the perspective offered by the Critique of Political Economy can the insane vulgarity of those slogans be fully revealed. History isn't over, and it is I think worthwhile to understand, in other than a sloganeering way, *why* history isn't over. And people still struggle. Very rarely, and for reasons we cannot predict in advance and in ways or occasions that are equally unpredictable, those struggles coalesce around some issue that people, not we, select, and larger struggles explode. These usually, incidentally, come in periods *not* of crash but in periods of improvement, as was the case of both the French and Russian revolutions, and was actually the case even in the decade of "The Great Depression." Mere misery individualizes and suppresses struggle. An ancient Chinese general whose name I forget is frequently quoted by Mao: Know your enemy and know yourself and you will fight a hundred battles without defeat. That, I believe, is overoptimistic. You can do everything right and still lose if the enemy is stronger. (Mao also points this out.) Marx's critique of political economy provides the framework (but only the framework) within which it becomes possible to understand our enemy (and not only the enemy "out there" but the enemy "inside" in so far as the common sense emerging from the daily experience of living inside capitalism engenders in us the spontaneous assumptions which empower the enemy. One final suggestion. The greatest barrier to the recruitment and growth of a force to fight capital is male supremacy within progressive movements and the working class as a whole. If you want to do something about global warming, I suggest you put front and center in your concerns the struggle against male supremacy. Otherwise you will never raise the army you need to change the world. > > my suspicions of the parochial nature of Socialism. Who said anything about socialism? I think I posted just the other day on the futility of spinning recipes for the cookshops of the future (quoting Marx). Here is the m-fem post I mentioned above. At the end I have placed some brief remarks linking it to the concerns of this post. ================= Subject: Re: FW: Skepticism & Obscurantism (was Re: Radical Feminism) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 03:07:46 -0400 From: Yoshie Furuhashi Reply-To: m-fem@csf.colorado.edu To: M-Fem@csf.colorado.edu References: 1 >what always amazes me is how quickly and arrogantly people on this list >are to size people up and write them off for the sake of winning an >argument.yu wouldn't last five minutes trying to organize talking to people >like that, and i'm sure yu don't, so why do it on this list bb Instead of fantasizing about snuff films, I'm active in the local political scene, and we (in Columbus, Ohio) are currently organizing a large protest (scheduled on September 28, at the statehouse in Columbus) against the prison industrial complex, and the protest is led by the Prisoners' Advocacy Network & joined by other political activists, including unionists, Greens, anti-sweatshop student activists, etc. Lots of us are going to participate in the September 9 rally in Mansfield, Ohio in support of locked-out steelworkers of AK Steel. There will be a rally against TANF time limits & sanctions ("Stop the Clock") in Columbus, organized by welfare rights activists (on September 12). What are you guys doing? One thing that relieves me is that, whatever fantasies you, Margaret, & Diane are spouting on this list with regard to the ghosts of snuff films, I'm certain that *none* of you is doing anything like hunting down ghostly snuff film producers. You *can't*, because they *don't* exist. Do some real political work, for change, instead of buying into fantasies promulgated by the Law & Order crowd like "Citizens for Decency Through Law." Yoshie ================= The important point for present purposes is to emphasize (a) that whenever possible it is essential to engage in such struggles as Yoshie describes, which most directly do not change the world but contribute to learning the enemy and to raising at least the cadre of future larger struggles, and (b) that there is no guarantee whatsoever that anything whatsoever will come from these struggles. The second point is crucial because it involves respecting the huge contingency of human history, its resistance to encapsulation within any one "plan." Activists in such a period as the present, when the enemy seems and to some extent is all powerful, is to train ourselve, to learn to understand how history moves (that contingency is not mere shapelessness -- but that is another question), to probe the enemy wherever possible, because we do not know where or on what grounds "The Old Mole" as Marx described the working class, will suddenly explode again. I would recommend you read the little pamphlet from which the titanic struggles of the Chinese Revolution grew. Mao, "A Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan." Mao was not in the leadership of the CCP at that time, and this pamphlet is as it were a begging note: LOOK! Look what is happening. Don't just follow your textbooks. Here is history in motion and we must honor it. Incidentally, I don't know what you know about Amiri Baraka, but I suggest you don't let differences of rhetoric or other preconceptions blind you. He may or may not be right on specific points at specific times, but any progressive who ignores Baraka is a fool. Carrol From cbcox at ilstu.edu Thu Sep 7 14:18:09 2000 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] The Garden of Eden References: <27904-39B7EC63-1579@storefull-238.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Message-ID: <39B7F801.359309C5@ilstu.edu> Tony Abdo wrote: > > This is pure B.S. Carrol. Human hands don't have to touch nature at > all for it to be human wealth. There may be some confusion around what we mean by the term "wealth," the material content of wealth or the social relations which constitute it inside capitalism. But assuming the sense I have been assuming, would you please explain to me how fish in the sea can become food in my stomach (or articles for sale in my meat counter) unless human hands affect them somehow along the line? Or, approaching it from the other hand, how would any amount of human activity place food in my stomach unless it had something (ultimately from nature: fish, peas, etc.) Carrol From aabdo at webtv.net Thu Sep 7 14:54:41 2000 From: aabdo at webtv.net (Tony Abdo) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: The Garden of Eden In-Reply-To: Carrol Cox 's message of Thu, 07 Sep 2000 15:18:09 -0500 Message-ID: <27906-39B80091-963@storefull-238.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Carrol, there is a lot of confusion about what is wealth, and Marx was very confused hmself on this subject. Wealth is not just 'what can you put in your stomach?', though it might have seemed that way in Marx's time. Nature is wealth....Period. As an example, think about the air you breathe. No human hand has done anything to produce it. Yet, if you are living in a city like Mexcio City, you would not find anyone not hoping to have the wealth of pure air again, a part of nature erased there, by captalist production methods. Yes, clean air is wealth. Having a nature full of the entire variety of animals and plant life that we once had is also wealth. Marx never concentrated on the actual destruction of wealth by capitalism. He did not notice this so much at the time. So his mechanistic, and overly economist studies of capitalist structure, have some major defects in their analysis. That's what this list should be about, helping people gain a better understanding of just how capitalism has destroyed natural wealth. And helping UPDATE marxist theory. Nature IS wealth. Let's not keep marxists being the only people on the planet still blind to this elemental truth. Tony ________________________________ Carrol wrote- From jones118 at lineone.net Thu Sep 7 11:15:44 2000 From: jones118 at lineone.net (Mark Jones) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Ecological Impact of New Russian Oil, Gas Fields Assessed Message-ID: <000701c018ef$4191d2e0$d5298cd4@mjones> Vremya MN 30 August 2000 [translation for personal use only] Article by Marina Sokolovskaya: "After Us, the Deluge" The oil companies are destroying Russian nature The 1st International Practical Conference, SRP-2000 (agreement on developing Russian oil and gas deposits with the participation of foreign investors who receive their share of the extracted products) is to take place at the beginning of September in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk. Vladimir Putin and Bill Richardson, U.S. Secretary of Energy, are expected to attend. Much has been said in the last few years about the fact that the SRP [production-sharing agreement] mechanism is not developed in Russia, and foreign companies therefore do not want to work in our country. The country is losing billions of dollars as a result. But the developments of new oil and gas deposits and the increase in the volumes of oil transport by sea may turn out to have unforeseen ecological consequences for Russia. There are four principal projects today -- they are already extracting oil on the Sakhalin shelf and transporting it through the Sea of Okhotsk to Japan and the United States. Next on the list is the development of deposits in the Barents and Karsk seas. Great hopes are linked with the export of oil supplied by the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (KTK) through the Black Sea, and by the Baltic Pipeline System, correspondingly through the Baltic. The plans are to transport 30-60 million tonnes of oil a year along Russia's Black, Okhotsk and North seas. In the euphoria of big money expectations, however, an extremely important circumstance is being overlooked. Not a single country is insured against oil spills, even in planned operations. Neither the level of personnel training nor the newest technology provide full guarantees. It is even calculated that 0.02 to 0.03 percent of the oil transported in the world yearly ends up in the sea during extraction and transport. This is not counting major accidents. For example, 30,000 tonnes of oil were spilled on the shore of France last year as the result of an accident to the tanker Erik. And 40,000 tonnes, in the catastrophe of the American tanker, Exxon Valdiz, in Alaska in 1989. The damage that time was $5 billion. In striving to secure themselves to the maximum, many Western countries have passed laws in which all procedures connected with the extraction and transport of oil are prescribed in detail. Russia has no such laws. A Love for Bankruptcies The extraction of oil in accordance with the Sakhalin-2 project began last summer on the Northeastern shelf of Sakhalin. The Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Limited (SEIK) was the operator of the project. We cannot help but say a few words about the prehistory of the development of this deposit. In 1992, a government commission chaired by Vladimir Danilov-Danilyan summed up the results of the announced competition of proposals of foreign firms to develop the oil and gas resources of the Sakhalin shelf. Leading world companies took part in the tender, including Shell and Exxon. But the winner of the competition was a consortium consisting of the MacDermott, Mitsui and Marathon Oil corporations (MMM). The government commission gave as the reasoning for its choice the fact that the consortium "has most completely fulfilled the requirements of the Russian side, has experience in developing deposits under Arctic conditions and possesses sufficient financial potentials to put the project into effect." It is surprising that the company's financial condition did not put the members of the commission on guard. At the moment of completing this "successful transaction," MacDermott had losses of $400 million, and Marathon -- of $70 million. MacDermott has been going to ruin for several years. Marathon is leaving the project right behind it. But joining in as a partner there appears, not even a "daughter," but a "granddaughter" company -- Shell-SEIK, registered in the Bahamas by three British nationals. Its charter capital is $100 million. Economical Foreigners One of the most important conditions of the Sakhalin-2 tender that was won was, as entered in the decision of the commission, the "satisfaction of the needs of Russia's Far Eastern region for gas and oil." Supplies of gas on the domestic market were to have begun in 1995. But SEIK is retracting its promises to build a reliable ecological security system, and is beginning to extract oil. According to Vitaliy Gorokhov, corresponding member of the RAYeN [Russian Academy of Natural Sciences] and expert of the Ekoyuris Institute of Ecological-Legal problems, the company was completing its building and equipping at the same time that the fish were spawning. Some 523,000 cubic meters of earth were moved when the Molikpak platform was installed. The materials of the state ecological expert appraisal indicated that this could harm or disturb the migratory route of salmon. SEIK, however, was little worried about the fate of the salmon. All the ecologists' reprimands were ignored. The next ecological problem was the dumping of drilling liquids, interstitial waters and drill cuttings (sludge) into the sea. In accordance with world technology, these burials are carried out at special refuse sites. But this would have required substantial expenditures from the developers or the deposits. SEIK and ENL decided to economize. Knowing that Russian water legislation prohibits dumping waters of this sort into the sea, they lobbied for their interests as much as they could. And they got their way. In the summer of last year, Sergey Stepashin, who was at that time chairman of the government, signed an order which permitted wastes to be dumped into all the seas of the Far East. In so doing, he failed to take into consideration the fact that it is in the Sea of Okhotsk that 65 percent of the Russian sea products are caught. It was then that public ecology organizations complained to the Supreme Court, which recognized the order as illegal. The total extraction of oil for the Sakhalin-1 and Sakhalin-2 projects should be 30 million tonnes. The plans are for the oil to go along pipelines to the south of the peninsula, to the Prigorodnoye settlement. Moreover, they intend to lay the company's oil pipeline through spawning rivers, earthquake-prone sections and forests. According to Vitaliy Gorokhov, projects of this sort are in operation in the world, for example, in Alaska. But there the companies are supplied with legislation within a strict framework and are forced to protect nature to the maximum. The pipelines are therefore removed from the ground and installed on special supports in earthquake-prone places, places where fish spawn and even where deer roam. Naturally, this sort of pipeline installation is extremely expensive. Sakhalinrybvoda has repeatedly stated that the route would cross 463 streams and 65 very important salmon rivers, which provide up to 73 percent of the humpback salmon. And in 1993, the State Ecological Expert Appraisal evaluated the Sakhalin-2 project and gave the decision that "developing oil and gas deposits on the Sakhalin shelf, with a surface pipeline laid to the south of the island, was fraught with irreversible consequences for the fish industry, which is a priority sector in the oblast's economy.... Not enough attention was paid to the methods and periods of the pipelines' passing through numerous rivers and to a guarantee that the spawning grounds and the purity of the water would be preserved." This had no effect on the foreigners, however. The plans to build the pipeline may soon begin to be realized. A Cabal Agreement It is, essentially, extremely difficult to stop the damage being done by Western entrepreneurs. First of all, because there is powerful support within the country for the activity of the oil companies. The State Ecological Expert Appraisal gave a negative decision on the Sakhalin-1 project. According to Russian legislation, the work was to be discontinued. But it goes on as if nothing had happened. Moreover, the Russian government concurred with a cabal agreement in accordance with which all the debatable questions (including ecological) are removed from Russian jurisprudence. The agreements will be interpreted in accordance with English law (the Sakhalin-1 project) and in accordance with the legislation of the state of New York (Sakhalin-2). In the opinion of Vitaliy Gorokhov, with the appearance of the arbitration investigation, the Russian side is virtually doomed to lose the case. Last year, for example, the action of the Sakhalin Oblast State Ecology brought against the defendant -- the company, Esson Oil and Gas Limited -- concerning compensation for the damage done to the natural environment, was dismissed because the company demanded that the case be transferred to the arbitration court of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. At that time, the mass death of fish, within a range of from 907.2 to 1,111.6 tonnes, was recorded by the SAKHNIRO Institute. But neither the environmental protection prosecutor's office nor the oblast committee to protect the environment could take the matter to court. The companies, in response to all the claims, handed over taunting dispatches, the sense of which boiled down to the fact that the entrepreneurs would not be responsible for stupid fish, which eat God knows what. Vera Mishchenko, president of the Ekoyuris Institute of Ecological-Legal Problems, told us that it is difficult to find the truth when the consistent squandering of natural resources goes on in the country. Licenses for an activity, particularly in the sphere of oil extraction, are issued to anyone you like. Two years ago, ecologists, accusing state officials of what was going on in Sakhalin, sent materials to the General Prosecutor. There however, in the best Soviet tradition, they sent the papers on to the Sakhalin prosecutor's office, which justly replied that it was not competent to monitor the activity of state officials at the federal level. From Borba100 at aol.com Thu Sep 7 16:45:31 2000 From: Borba100 at aol.com (Borba100@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] CHOMSKY REPLIES TO CRITICISMS Message-ID: <73.694645c.26e9748b@aol.com> On Wednesday I wrote an open letter to Noam Chomsky concerning his statements that the Serbian government has committed war crimes, and the effect of these attacks, which, I think, merely parrot media lies, on the potential antiwar movement. This criticism has generated debate on various email lists. The debate has been posted widely outside those lists. Yesterday Noam Chomsky responded. I answered. He replied to my answer last night and I wrote back today. I believe these issues are most important for the antiwar movement. FIRST REPLY FROM NOAM CHOMSKY Subj: Re: Fwd: Is it not slander because it is said by Chomsky? Date: 09/05/2000 3:22:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: chomsky@MIT.EDU (Noam Chomsky) To: JaredI@aol.com (by way of Noam Chomsky ) Dear Jared, I think you are aware of the fact that in the past 10 years the Milosevic regime has committed many crimes. The statement you quote is from a forum, where I rejected the charges made by a questioner against the Milosevic regime. In that context there is no need whatsoever to add an essay documenting every factual statement that is made. Noam FIRST ANSWER BY JARED ISRAEL Subj: Re: Is it not slander because it is said by Chomsky? Date: 09/06/2000 3:15:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: JaredI To: chomsky@MIT.EDU Dear Noam, In a message dated 09/05/2000 3:22:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, you wrote: << I think you are aware of the fact that in the past 10 years the Milosevic regime has committed many crimes. >> "The fact that"? Who said it was a fact? You construct a sentence that asserts as given the truth of the very thing which in my note I said was a lie. Clever. Noam, I have been reading your stuff for a long time and I am not a dope. I am "aware of the fact" that you have repeatedly charged Milosevich AND "The Serbs" with criminal actions, e.g., atrocities against civilians. Your sentences are routinely constructed so as to assert the truth of your charges, despite no proof. Your writing has "in fact" had a negative effect on the left, such as it is, cooling antiwar passions and hindering the creation of a serious antiwar movement. The burden of proof cannot be escaped by tricky wording or sloppiness. I repeat, what crimes has Milosevich committed in Kosovo, Bosnia, Croatia? Date or dates, place or places. Details. Prove the credibility of your sources. I think you just parrot what's written in the mass media. Jared SECOND REPLY FROM NOAM CHOMSKY Subj: Re: Is it not slander because it is said by Chomsky? Date: 09/06/2000 9:28:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: chomsky@MIT.EDU (Noam Chomsky) To: JaredI@aol.com (by way of Noam Chomsky ) Dear Jared, Apologies. I didn't realize you thought that Milosevic's regime was alone in the world in not having committed many crimes. If you think I'm going to take time to discuss this topic with you, think again. There are serious things to do. Noam SECOND REPLY FROM JARED ISRAEL Subj: Regarding your unserious note, Noam Date: 09/07/2000 6:18:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: JaredI To: chomsky@MIT.EDU Dear Noam, Yesterday you wrote me: << Apologies. I didn't realize you thought that Milosevic's regime was alone in the world in not having committed many crimes. >> What's the point of the sarcasm, Noam? You cannot avoid the serious questions I and others have raised about your writing on Yugoslavia by resorting to mockery. Your writing is full of explicit accusations such as: ""By summer [1998], the KLA had taken over about 40 per cent of the province, eliciting a vicious reaction by Serb security forces and paramilitaries, TARGETING THE CIVILIAN POPULATION." (el Ahram, June 2000, my emphasis) Obviously you are not talking about every government in the world. You are claiming that the Yugoslav government made certain choices. That is, faced with an isolated terrorist group (which the KLA was until after the onset of NATO bombing convinced key Albanian clan leaders that the KLA had the full support of NATO) - given that the Yugoslavs were faced with an isolated terrorist gang the Yugoslavs could a) do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties or b) take it out on civilians, thus guaranteeing support for the KLA. The Yugoslav Army has an unusual history. It's doctrine is based on the expectation of conducting a mass-based resistance to a new attack from the West, an attack which they anticipated for 50 years. This army studied the tactics of conducting a war of resistance. Now whether one likes or dislikes armies per se, this particular army grasps the key role played by popular support (and antagonism!) in warfare. Why would they make such a stupid mistake as to target the civilian population when they were fighting a (then) isolated gang of dope smuggling fascists? Moreover, as you have known for a year, the antiwar movement possesses a number of documents from the German Courts and Foreign Ministry, documents produced in response to the requests by Kosovo Albanians to receive the status of political refugees. The German courts studied the situation in Kosovo and ruled in every case that there was no evidence - none - that the Yugoslav Army targeted civilians. The Humanitarian Crisis was manufactured by Western officials and the mass media to justify Western demands that the Yugoslav special troops leave Kosovo - Yugoslav territory. All this was known to you a year ago. Every website that opposed the bombing of Yugoslavia featured those documents. I believe that even the Z website, stronghold of Serb bashing within the antiwar movement, posted those documents. Why then, a year after the end of the war, after Carla Del Ponte admitted in mid November that they had found a grand total of 2108 bodies whose identities were unknown - that is, that these bodies, which they allegedly found, could be anyone - why did you write in June, 2000 that the Yugoslav Army targeted Albanian civilians? This is not a trivial matter, Noam. And this is only one of the times you made statements which uncritically parroted what we have been told by the Western media. This particular statement was written in an Arab publication - particularly harmful since the Western media tries to convince Arabs of the lie that "the Serbs" are anti-Muslim bigots. You say: <>. What could be more serious than whether Yugoslavia has committed serious crimes of war? What could be more serious then whether you have, in fact, publicly lied with the effect of discouraging action by antiwar activists? A year ago you sent me the following email post: Date: 5/12/99 10:40:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: chomsky@MIT.EDU To: JaredI@AOL.COM CC: chomsky@MIT.EDU Dear Jared, I guess I feel I've known you for many years, even if we haven't actually met (so you tell me; I would have guessed otherwise). Thanks for the text of the speech [I had sent you Milosevic's speech, made in 1989 at Kosovo Field], which I'd never seen. Interesting. On the "demonization," it's actually been conceded. An article in the Times a few weeks ago, which I'm sure I kept, observed that "demonization" of Milosevic was necessary in order to maintain public support for the bombing. Noam [End of last year's email from Noam to Jared] Now Noam, if you knew way back then that demonizing Milosevich is critical in order to maintain public support for the attack on Yugoslavia, why have you persistently demonized him and the Serbian people and Yugoslav army? For example, during the bombing you wrote: "The bombing was then undertaken under the rational expectation that KILLING and refugee generation would ESCALATE as a result, as indeed happened, even if the scale may have come as a surprise to some, though apparently not the commanding general. " (This is from a piece you wrote and posted in May, 1999 on the Z website, my emphasis) I have done text analysis of several of your articles about Yugoslavia and the above excerpt demonstrates a technique you employ over and over. In brief, you attack the Yugoslavs in the guise of either defending them or attacking NATO. Thus, here you say that the NATO commanding general obviously knew how terribly the Serbs would react. Posing your point in this form seems to be a criticism of NATO; this lends it credibility on the left. But what you are really doing is taking the "commanding general's" statement - that the bombing DID precipitate escalated Serbian atrocities - as axiomatic: true without requirement of proof. Indeed, you assert the truth of NATO's charge in passing, using it as the basis of your false criticism of NATO. Now, your claim to fame is media criticism. You opposed the Vietnam War. Why does an antiwar activist, who studies the media, and who knows - who has told me he knows - that demonization "is critical in order to maintain public support for" the attack on Yugoslavia - why does such a person fail to even question - even question! - the anti-Yugoslav news reports? Why? Why, during the bombing and since, have your statements even at times lagged behind what we are reading in some of the mass publication newspapers? (This is the case with the El Ahram article which was contradicted by the German Court and Foreign Ministry documents over a year ago!) If these are trivial questions then what is serious? Jared From durable at earthlink.net Thu Sep 7 17:31:04 2000 From: durable at earthlink.net (Barry Brooks) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Go ahead regardless? References: Message-ID: <39B82538.C10E0818@earthlink.net> Tahir, Thanks for your post below. I need to clarify a few point in my essay to avoid misunderstanding. Barry TAHIR WOOD wrote: > .... The idea of dividing humanity > into a group of producers and a large unproductive group > while relying on technology to keep up a high level of > productivity seems a rather contrived and unbalanced > solution to me. Those who study and become qualified for a job can compete for available paid work. They will get paid for their work, just as is done today. The difference would be that those who can't compete wouldn't still have some income. There would be turnover and individual variation and control. Yet, life is always going to be unbalanced. Is a balanced diet half junk-food? > They will simply be the recipients of a certain > distributed product. What will be the politics of this sort > of society? Thank you god/nature/society for the gift of this food? ...As opposed to the arrogant pretense that we have earned what we have really just taken. > " when we create nearly > full employment our powerful technology and out large supply > of workers will always consume far too many resources for > such hyper-activity to be sustainable." Is technology then > some external force which impinges on humanity in a one-way > determinism, as your formulation suggests to me, or is it > something that we can create and control? Well technology helps us with our work and increases hourly output, we could use technology to impede production, but why? Just to feel in control? The control is in admitting that machine are supposed to replace human labor, that's what they are for! Now let's take a vacation! > Obviously you do not subscribe to the labour theory of > value. What sort of economic theory supports statements such > as the following: "Our present views rarely include any > awareness that wealth comes from nature and inheritance more > than from any work we do." For many years I didn't understand the labor theory of value, but now I see that prices reflect human(wage/profit) costs only, because we can never pay nature for what we take. God has no bank account. Wealth/value is not the same thing as prices/money. And, by the way, using high prices to limit consumption causes suffering and povery. Policyies to support need changes, to replace wasteful systems, are much better. Then demands can be cut after needs are cut. > But above all for me the stress that you put on unearned > income is most bizarre, even while your critique of growth > can and should be accepted. Also I think that your approach > of starting from the labour surplus and then not adopting a > position on population is strange, because if you are > assuming a static population, against the current and > empirically observable pattern - in other words stasis is > something to be achieved - then why would you not try to > achieve negative population growth, which would seem to be a > more direct and more coherent way of addressing your problem > of economic growth and labour surplus, no? What ever the population level, keeping people busy as wages-slaves is not my idea of a good society. If we don't stop our hyper-active economy very soon the population is going to go down whatever we may think about it, and in an unpleasant way. Barry Brooks From durable at earthlink.net Thu Sep 7 18:47:19 2000 From: durable at earthlink.net (Barry Brooks) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Go ahead regardless? References: <15.8e40f38.26e86832@aol.com> Message-ID: <39B83717.89AD8368@earthlink.net> Dear L., I like your message!(see below) Yes, there is an infinite amount of work to do. The problem is that much of the work we have neglected is the work that does not pay. Investment in infrastructure doen't pay. (Well, the contractor may get rich... But, government that pays makes no profit.) It doesn't pay, that' s why unearned income will be the key to getting the unpaid work work of love done. I'm glad my mom wasn't a hooker/day-care/for money/etc... For sale. I did say very clearly ...scarce relative to resources. Caring for old/young etc. it not a high consumption activity, and it is an economic cost to be avoided in the market system; not paid. It doesn't rip off mother nature, so no real profit. The work of stewardship and the work of love is the work that we can catch up of when we have unearned income! Barry Brooks LROBERTS46@aol.com wrote: > Do we really have a labor surplus? Our roads need fixing, our schools need > rebuilding, there is a health care professional shortage, a child care > provider shortage, thousands of children need foster care, we need drug > alcohol treatment centers, we need to replant the forests, we must clean up > pollution, we need to build housing, develop and test vaccines, provide > health eduction, we need organically grown food, etc. There is plenty of > labor that needs to be done. We must make those that have the gold expend > the resources to pay for the work to be done. We must quit spending the > money on B1 bombers, "smart bombs", prisons, and the "war on drugs" , etc. > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1879 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20000907/fc7460b5/attachment.txt From zapata at sezampro.yu Thu Sep 7 19:09:22 2000 From: zapata at sezampro.yu (Andrej Grubacic) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re:CHOMSKY REPLIES TO CRITICISMS Message-ID: <006001c01931$8a11fb20$77bd6ac2@k382> Jared, please send my message along ( including Noam) because I am not subbed to all of these lists. I don't know what your intentions are. I am puzzled. What Chomsky is saying, and what I am saying and what I have been saying for ten years, is that you cannot build antiwar movement on the category of support but only on the concept of resistance. Our web organization, Resistance, is built exactly on this fundament. You are not helping Serbian civilians, if you are intending to do so, as I hope, by supporting this little dictator. Oppose American interventionism, if you want to help us! Opposing interventionism and blatant imperialism is a moment coherent enough for building worldwide antiwar movement. Your continuing defense of Milosevic, Hussein, Quadafi etc isn't helpful, it is harmful, misleading and it creates confusion amongst anti war movement. You want to attack global power structures and their politic towards my country from an angle of supposed Milosevic purity, which is both, a looser approach and a false assumption. It seems to me that international leftist antiwar camp is divided between two "fractions": that support to suffering civilians must be in the same time support for their leaders, and the other, according to which support for suffering civilians must be based on resistance and opposition to militarism and imperialism per se, without idolizing the leaders. Frankly I don't understand your stubbornness. But obviously you are not lonely in this opinion and that's why I am writing back to you. I think that strategy of people like you , Remsy Clark and others from this camp is dangerous. I think that this strategy prevents making of strong antiwar movement. Only a consistent opposition towards *imperialism* and not idolization of people who are using superbly the situation people are in, only this kind of opposition could be fruitful. Leave americanist NGO's and Sorosh to us to fight with them: we are not that passive. Belgrade Libertarian Group is doing exactly this. With much success. If you want to be of some help, please concentrate on "opposition", rather than to "support", and avoid this peculiar attacks on people who have confirmed their loyalty to the ideas of truth, humanism, anti-imperialism long ago. Work with them instead. This is a friendly mail. Please, do accept it as such. I am just suggesting a change in perception and strategy of examining Yugoslav, Latin American, Iraqi situation. You'll have to admit that your strategy of supporting dictators and disregarding the facts hasn't been very productive insofar. Perhaps it is time for some serious reconsideration's. Yours, Andrej Grubacic www.resistancenet.org ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 12:45 AM Subject: [CrashList] CHOMSKY REPLIES TO CRITICISMS > On Wednesday I wrote an open letter to Noam Chomsky concerning his statements > that the Serbian government has committed war crimes, and the effect of > these attacks, which, I think, merely parrot media lies, on the potential > antiwar movement. This criticism has generated debate on various email > lists. The debate has been posted widely outside those lists. > > Yesterday Noam Chomsky responded. I answered. He replied to my answer last > night and I wrote back today. I believe these issues are most important for > the antiwar movement. > > FIRST REPLY FROM NOAM CHOMSKY > > Subj: Re: Fwd: Is it not slander because it is said by Chomsky? > Date: 09/05/2000 3:22:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time > From: chomsky@MIT.EDU (Noam Chomsky) > To: JaredI@aol.com (by way of Noam Chomsky ) > > Dear Jared, > > I think you are aware of the fact that in the past 10 years the Milosevic > regime has committed many crimes. > > The statement you quote is from a forum, where I rejected the charges made > by a questioner against the Milosevic regime. In that context there is no > need whatsoever to add an essay documenting every factual statement that is > made. > > Noam > > FIRST ANSWER BY JARED ISRAEL > Subj: Re: Is it not slander because it is said by Chomsky? > Date: 09/06/2000 3:15:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time > From: JaredI > To: chomsky@MIT.EDU > > Dear Noam, > > In a message dated 09/05/2000 3:22:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, you wrote: > > << > I think you are aware of the fact that in the past 10 years the Milosevic > regime has committed many crimes. > >> > > "The fact that"? Who said it was a fact? You construct a sentence that > asserts as given the truth of the very thing which in my note I said was a > lie. Clever. > > Noam, I have been reading your stuff for a long time and I am not a dope. I > am "aware of the fact" that you have repeatedly charged Milosevich AND "The > Serbs" with criminal actions, e.g., atrocities against civilians. Your > sentences are routinely constructed so as to assert the truth of your > charges, despite no proof. Your writing has "in fact" had a negative effect > on the left, such as it is, cooling antiwar passions and hindering the > creation of a serious antiwar movement. > > The burden of proof cannot be escaped by tricky wording or sloppiness. > > I repeat, what crimes has Milosevich committed in Kosovo, Bosnia, Croatia? > Date or dates, place or places. Details. Prove the credibility of your > sources. I think you just parrot what's written in the mass media. > > Jared > > SECOND REPLY FROM NOAM CHOMSKY > > Subj: Re: Is it not slander because it is said by Chomsky? > Date: 09/06/2000 9:28:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time > From: chomsky@MIT.EDU (Noam Chomsky) > To: JaredI@aol.com (by way of Noam Chomsky ) > > Dear Jared, > > Apologies. I didn't realize you thought that Milosevic's regime was alone > in the world in not having committed many crimes. > > If you think I'm going to take time to discuss this topic with you, think > again. There are serious things to do. > > Noam > > SECOND REPLY FROM JARED ISRAEL > > Subj: Regarding your unserious note, Noam > Date: 09/07/2000 6:18:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time > From: JaredI > To: chomsky@MIT.EDU > > Dear Noam, > > Yesterday you wrote me: > > << Apologies. I didn't realize you thought that Milosevic's regime was alone > in the world in not having committed many crimes. >> > > What's the point of the sarcasm, Noam? You cannot avoid the serious questions > I and others have raised about your writing on Yugoslavia by resorting to > mockery. > > Your writing is full of explicit accusations such as: ""By summer [1998], > the KLA had taken over about 40 per cent of the province, eliciting a > vicious reaction by Serb security forces and paramilitaries, TARGETING THE > CIVILIAN POPULATION." (el Ahram, June 2000, my emphasis) > > Obviously you are not talking about every government in the world. You are > claiming that the Yugoslav government made certain choices. That is, faced > with an isolated terrorist group (which the KLA was until after the onset of > NATO bombing convinced key Albanian clan leaders that the KLA had the full > support of NATO) - given that the Yugoslavs were faced with an isolated > terrorist gang the Yugoslavs could a) do everything possible to avoid > civilian casualties or b) take it out on civilians, thus guaranteeing support > for the KLA. > > The Yugoslav Army has an unusual history. It's doctrine is based on the > expectation of conducting a mass-based resistance to a new attack from the > West, an attack which they anticipated for 50 years. This army studied the > tactics of conducting a war of resistance. > > Now whether one likes or dislikes armies per se, this particular army grasps > the key role played by popular support (and antagonism!) in warfare. Why > would they make such a stupid mistake as to target the civilian population > when they were fighting a (then) isolated gang of dope smuggling fascists? > > Moreover, as you have known for a year, the antiwar movement possesses a > number of documents from the German Courts and Foreign Ministry, documents > produced in response to the requests by Kosovo Albanians to receive the > status of political refugees. The German courts studied the situation in > Kosovo and ruled in every case that there was no evidence - none - that the > Yugoslav Army targeted civilians. The Humanitarian Crisis was manufactured > by Western officials and the mass media to justify Western demands that the > Yugoslav special troops leave Kosovo - Yugoslav territory. > > All this was known to you a year ago. Every website that opposed the bombing > of Yugoslavia featured those documents. I believe that even the Z website, > stronghold of Serb bashing within the antiwar movement, posted those > documents. Why then, a year after the end of the war, after Carla Del Ponte > admitted in mid November that they had found a grand total of 2108 bodies > whose identities were unknown - that is, that these bodies, which they > allegedly found, could be anyone - why did you write in June, 2000 that the > Yugoslav Army targeted Albanian civilians? This is not a trivial matter, > Noam. > > And this is only one of the times you made statements which uncritically > parroted what we have been told by the Western media. This particular > statement was written in an Arab publication - particularly harmful since the > Western media tries to convince Arabs of the lie that "the Serbs" are > anti-Muslim bigots. > > You say: < you, think > again. There are serious things to do.>>. > > What could be more serious than whether Yugoslavia has committed serious > crimes of war? What could be more serious then whether you have, in fact, > publicly lied with the effect of discouraging action by antiwar activists? > > A year ago you sent me the following email post: > > Date: 5/12/99 10:40:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time > From: chomsky@MIT.EDU > To: JaredI@AOL.COM > CC: chomsky@MIT.EDU > Dear Jared, > I guess I feel I've known you for many years, even if we haven't > actually met (so you tell me; I would have guessed otherwise). > > Thanks for the text of the speech [I had sent you Milosevic's speech, made in > 1989 at Kosovo Field], which I'd never seen. > Interesting. On the "demonization," it's actually been conceded. > An article in the Times a few weeks ago, which I'm sure I kept, > observed that "demonization" of Milosevic was necessary in order > to maintain public support for the bombing. > Noam > > [End of last year's email from Noam to Jared] > > Now Noam, if you knew way back then that demonizing Milosevich is critical in > order to maintain public support for the attack on Yugoslavia, why have you > persistently demonized him and the Serbian people and Yugoslav army? > > For example, during the bombing you wrote: > > "The bombing was then undertaken under the rational expectation that KILLING > and refugee generation would ESCALATE as a result, as indeed happened, even > if the scale may have come as a surprise to some, though apparently not the > commanding general. " (This is from a piece you wrote and posted in May, 1999 > on the Z website, my emphasis) > > I have done text analysis of several of your articles about Yugoslavia and > the above excerpt demonstrates a technique you employ over and over. In > brief, you attack the Yugoslavs in the guise of either defending them or > attacking NATO. > > Thus, here you say that the NATO commanding general obviously knew how > terribly the Serbs would react. Posing your point in this form seems to be a > criticism of NATO; this lends it credibility on the left. But what you are > really doing is taking the "commanding general's" statement - that the > bombing DID precipitate escalated Serbian atrocities - as axiomatic: true > without requirement of proof. Indeed, you assert the truth of NATO's charge > in passing, using it as the basis of your false > criticism of NATO. > > Now, your claim to fame is media criticism. You opposed the Vietnam War. > Why does an antiwar activist, who studies the media, and who knows - who has > told me he knows - that demonization "is critical in order to maintain public > support for" the attack on Yugoslavia - why does such a person fail to even > question - even question! - the anti-Yugoslav news reports? Why? Why, > during the bombing and since, have your statements even at times lagged > behind what we are reading in some of the mass publication newspapers? (This > is the case with the El Ahram article which was contradicted by the German > Court and Foreign Ministry documents over a year ago!) > > If these are trivial questions then what is serious? > > Jared > > _______________________________________________ > Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 16716 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20000908/037dd7f4/attachment.txt From Borba100 at aol.com Thu Sep 7 19:49:32 2000 From: Borba100 at aol.com (Borba100@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re:CHOMSKY REPLIES TO CRITICISMS Message-ID: Dear Andrej, I am unsure why you seem to avoid the issues I am raising. Chomsky has lied and continues to lie about the actions of the Yugoslav forces in Kosovo. Before that he lied about the actions of Yugoslav forces in Bosnia. He repeated the lies made in the Western media that the Yugsolav forces committed atrocities against civilians. That is the issue. If you agree with him - that the Yugoslav army targeted civilians in Kosovo - than what can I say? If you don't then I say: your disputes with Milosevich are not the issue. When the Western press says Milosevich is a monster they are mainly talking about what Chomsky has been writing about - namely that he and his forces (i.e. the Serbian people) committed lots of atrocities and they got worse during the bombing. ATRCOTIES. MURDERS. TARGETING OF CIVILIANS> These are Chomsky's charges. Did you read my email exchange? Nothing there about INTERNAL policies. I am not talking about your gripes about life in Serbia. That is a matter to be resolved by the Serbian people, not by me. The people on these lists can have no effect on Serbia. So the effect of all your attacks is to play into the main argument we are getting in the press: that the Serbs commit atrocities. I am interested in the lies about Serbia's actions in Kosovo, etc., that are used by the West to justify attack. These lies are pushed by Chomsky. Please, Andrej, what about what I have said is unclear??? Jared From tomzbox at hotmail.com Thu Sep 7 16:06:41 2000 From: tomzbox at hotmail.com (Tom Warren) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Re: The Garden of Eden Message-ID: >That's what this list should be about, helping people gain a better >understanding of just how capitalism has destroyed natural wealth. >And helping UPDATE marxist theory. Nature IS wealth. Let's not >keep marxists being the only people on the planet still blind to this >elemental truth. > >Tony Well said, sir. In that spirit: [Tony] >>That's ONE GREAT reason we seek to end capitalism, not reform it. So, Tom, don't be so hot to trot every time one of us marxists spout some sort of line. Nah. I am only as "hot" to respond as are the attacks mounted against me. (Zhukov) [Tony] >I know. I feel the same way when Christians come around. But some of them really are OK in their beliefs. Yes, and both X-tians and Marxists have many sects, it seems. (Of course us neo-malthusians have sole possession of the single truth. ...) [Carrol] >>I apoligize for my loss of temper, but it seems that marxists must (in contexts where other participants pretend to a certain level of sophistication) forever debate ghosts. << So must green doomers, Carrol. I appreciate you extending your remarks, I know it takes time and effort. It gives me hope as well of achieving a genuine level of sophistication rather than pretense to one. [Carrol] >>A note on political activity. .. the conviction that there exists some policy which, if activists adopt it, will enable them to force the movement of history… can have various repercussions, but one of them is a tendency to endless hand wringing over "what should we do, *now*, to make things moves. … I am not arguing for mere passivity; there is usually a good number of things to do… But I am arguing that the occasions on which history *moves*, and on which our actions (and our ideas) can make a tremendous difference, are few and far between, occur behind our back and in utterly unpredictable ways, and cannot be forced, no matter how anguished our attempts to force them.<< I certainly agree with this. [Carrol]>> >>This exhibits what I call dogmatism …but your post seems to imply >>that"economics" has to be of use, and that since Marx is not, at least in your or Martin Feldstein's sense of the word, an economist, he and marxists can be of little use. … but I urge you to at least keep in the back of your mind the possibility that economics is of no use to those who want to change the world. This isn't true, but it ontly ceases to be false after you have granted its truth to begin with. If you begin with hope in economics, you sill spin futilely in one spot forever. Are you so utterly uninterested in humans and their activity that you believe that an understanding of how, under given historical conditions, that activity is shaped can be of no use to anyone?)<< [all 'snips" for brevity only] [Tom] I am too disconcerted for words that this is the image of my views that you perceive. I would be angry at such a fellow as I appear to you. Hell, I AM pissed off at me merely on the strength of your characterization of me! Damn me! I am speechless at the prospect of trying to unwind the misunderstandings, I will not try. Perhaps over the next weeks you will get to know me a bit better and perhaps discover that I do not entertain those beliefs projected onto me. [Carrol] >>You don't know what Political Economy is -- and you don't know what a Critique is. Apparently not. I am returning to the bursar’s office to ask for the money back I paid for my MS in Political Science. [Carrol] >>Incidentally, I don't know what you know about Amiri Baraka, but I suggest you don't let differences of rhetoric or other preconceptions blind you. He may or may not be right on specific points at specific times, but any progressive who ignores Baraka is a fool.<< Anyone who attempts to verbally abuse others on the list in that particular way the chomsky posters did is a fool, as well. [Carrol] to Tony in the Garden of Eden: >>But assuming the sense I have been assuming, would you please explain to me how fish in the sea can become food in my stomach (or articles for sale in my meat counter) unless human hands affect them somehow along the line? Or, approaching it from the other hand, how would any amount of human activity place food in my stomach unless it had something (ultimately from nature: fish, peas, etc.)<< The answer to that is the point we are trying to teach you after your 70 years, Carrol, and I hope your receiver is still operating, not just your transmitter, regardless of your alloted decade to impart a little more wisdom: Anthropocentrism and the “Man is the measure of all things” argument holds for VERY many scenarios, but reorganizing the nature of reality is not one of them. All the systems under discussion here in relation to the crash – be they capitalist, marxist or Roman Catholic – start from one common, flawed assumption: that the “theory” in question can avoid the consequences of the rape of the planet -- that somehow a political, social or economic scheme can mitigate the actions of 6 billion people all failing to realize that control ultimately rests within the rules of the biosphere we must exist within. If Marxisim recognizes this, then I will continue to carry my party card when Tony faxes it. But Ricardo, Adam Smith, Marx, Lenin, Greenspan, Bill Gates, Jesus nor you and I can redefine or change those natural rules in such a way as to render them ineffective. Any one who lulls himself into believing otherwise is … [insert pejorative of choice.] Thanks, Tom "We are stardust. We are golden. We are billion-year-old carbon. And we've gotto get ourselves back to the Garden."---Joni Mitchell _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From jones118 at lineone.net Fri Sep 8 01:19:05 2000 From: jones118 at lineone.net (Mark Jones) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Ft.com: Profits caught in oil-euro squeeze Message-ID: <000801c01965$12793ae0$c42c8cd4@mjones> By Philip Coggan in London and Adrian Michaels in New York Published: September 7 2000 20:44GMT | Last Updated: September 8 2000 07:06GMT Fears about the impact of the soaring price of oil and the plunging euro spread on Thursday as companies warned investors to expect lower profits. Chemicals group DuPont blamed substantially higher oil prices for increasing its costs and said a weak euro was hitting its revenues as it issued a profits warning. Investors forced Dupont shares down 11 per cent to $41.19 on Wall Street, triggering a decline in shares of its competitors as concerns spread through the chemical sector about the oil-euro squeeze. Dow Chemical fell 7.5 per cent to $25.38 and ICI of the UK and Germany's BASF and Bayer all fell about 2.5 per cent. Electrical group Invensys also issued a profit warnings, citing the weak euro, sluggish capital goods markets and a drop in US housing starts. The shares fell 93.25?p, or 35.7 per cent, to 167?p. "My concern is that the oil price rise will cause a much sharper-than-expected economic slowdown," said Trevor Greetham, global strategist at Merrill Lynch. Peter Oppenheimer, global strategist at HSBC, added that "higher oil prices are likely to push up interest rates in Europe, cause economies to slow and prompt more profit warnings and downgrades". Thursday oil notched a 10 year-high when October Brent crude closed at $34.55 a barrel. Earlier it fell to $33.95 on reports that Saudi Arabia had told President Clinton that Opec was planning to raise production by 700,000 barrels a day. Opec ministers meet in Vienna on Sunday. The euro rebounded off its all-time lows on Thursday as investors showed caution ahead of a meeting of European finance ministers Friday. Traders are concerned that central banks might intervene to support the currency and the euro closed at 87.1 cents in London trading. Profits growth in the US and Europe has been generally buoyant this year thanks to strong economic growth in the first six months. But in recent weeks there have been signs of a slowdown in the US and UK manufacturing sectors while the German Ifo survey of business sentiment has shown that confidence has started to slip. Higher oil prices push up the costs of big corporate users, such as chemical and transport companies, while at the same time prompting central banks to raise interest rates to head off inflationary pressures. While the weak euro helps European exporters, it exacerbates the problem of higher raw materials prices because oil and other commodities are priced in dollars. This adds to inflationary pressures. The European Central Bank raised interest rates last week while the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England left them unchanged at their most recent meetings. In the US, DuPont said the high oil price and weak euro would cost it more than a $1bn in pre-tax profit for the full year. From jones118 at lineone.net Fri Sep 8 01:20:14 2000 From: jones118 at lineone.net (Mark Jones) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] FT.com: Iran backs Saudi on need to raise Opec output Message-ID: <000901c01965$3b96be20$c42c8cd4@mjones> By Carola Hoyos and Stephen Fidler in New York Published: September 7 2000 19:09GMT | Last Updated: September 8 2000 07:12GMT Mohammed Khatami, Iran's president, said on Thursday Iran would support a rise in oil production by Opec, the oil cartel, when its members meet in Vienna this weekend. But a production increase of 700,000 b/d rumoured to be backed by Saudi Arabia, may be "on the high side for Iran", according to a close adviser to the president. "In principle we are not against an output rise in proportion to the rise in global demand in oil," Mr Khatami said, adding that statistics forecast oil demand to increase in the next four months. Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia this week told President Bill Clinton that he expected Opec to agree to a rise in output. The increase in world oil prices - October Brent blend closed on Wednesday at another 10-year-high of 34.28 a barrel - dipped to $33.89 on news of the apparent Saudi proposal. Although the cartel seems to be moving to a consensus over the need for an output increase, the size of the increase will be hotly debated in the Sunday meeting. Venezuela, one of the US's biggest suppliers of crude oil, and a country whose economy is highly dependent on the price of oil, does not expect any decision by Opec this weekend to stabilise the price. Hector Ciavaldini, president of PDVSA, Venezuela's state oil company, said in an interview on Thursday that he expected Opec to agree a token increase but that the measure would be unlikely reduce prices below $30 per barrel. Oil inventories will not increase before November and December, when demand will increase due to rising heating oil consumption, he said. He admitted that the US has put extreme pressure on Venezuela to increase output, but said that Opec was not responsible for the upward trend. Instead, he echoed comments also made by Ali Naimi, Saudi Arabia's oil minister, and Mr Khatami, that oil consuming countries must reconsider their taxes and the environmental standards they dictate for their gasoline. Mr Clinton met Crown Prince Abdullah this week to push for Opec to increase oil output. "I told him that I was very concerned that the price of oil was too high, not just for America, but for the world, that if it's a cause of recession in any part of the world, that would hurt the oil producing countries. He agreed with that," Mr Clinton said after the meeting. Earlier, the Saudi crown prince stressed that his country was doing all it can to stabilise prices. "Saudi Arabia will continue to make every effort to ensure equilibrium in the oil markets and to stabilise prices," he said. From ssandron at hotmail.com Thu Sep 7 19:00:26 2000 From: ssandron at hotmail.com (Seth Sandronsky) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] MICHAEL PERELMAN TO TALK ABOUT THE INFORMATION AGE AT THE MARXIST SCHOOL OF SACR Message-ID: Hi CrashListers, Seth Sandronsky here. If you're in Sacramento on September 20, come hear Michael Perelman, a Marxist economics professor, talk on capitalism and the Information Age. See the news release below for more details. Seth Sandronsky September 7, 2000 For more information: News Release Call John Rowntree 916-446-1758 MICHAEL PERELMAN TO TALK ABOUT THE INFORMATION AGE AT THE MARXIST SCHOOL OF SACRAMENTO Michael Perelman, professor of economics at California State University, Chico and author of 12 books, will deliver a talk on “The Information Age: New Technologies, Same Old Capitalism,” on Wednesday, September 20 at 7 p.m. at the Green Room in the Sierra 2 Center, 2791 24th Street, Sacramento, CA. Perelman’s talk will launch Point of View, Challenging Perspectives on Current Issues, a speaker series sponsored by The Marxist School of Sacramento. “Despite the overblown hype about the so-called new economy, the way that the capitalist market is exploiting high technology will mean deeper divisions between classes, a more intrusive state, and a slowdown in the rate of technical change,” said Perelman. He will show how the optimal development of high technology is incompatible with a market economy. There will be a question-and-answer period after Perelman’s lecture. This event is free and open to the public. Donations are welcome. For more information call John Rowntree at 916-446-1758 ### _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From jones118 at lineone.net Fri Sep 8 03:18:51 2000 From: jones118 at lineone.net (Mark Jones) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Guardian: Clinton wins oil pledge Message-ID: <000c01c01975$cdbc1f60$c42c8cd4@mjones> Saudis to raise production as revolt on prices brings France to a halt Larry Elliott, Charlotte Denny and Jon Henley in Paris Friday September 8, 2000 Bill Clinton last night won a pledge from the world's biggest oil producer, Saudi Arabia, to halt the relentless rise in the price of crude which yesterday brought France to a halt and prompted fears of a global recession. As UK petrol firms responded to the 10-year-high in oil prices by putting up fuel prices by 2p a litre, crown prince Abdullah said Saudi Arabia would raise production by 700,000 barrels a day in an effort to ease pressure on the west. However, oil experts said the 3% increase in output would not be enough to bring crude oil prices to below $30 a barrel and motoring organisations warned that British drivers could soon expect to pay ?4 for a gallon of petrol. Speaking at the UN millennium summit in New York, President Clinton said he had put pressure on Saudi Arabia to take action ahead of Sunday's meeting of Opec - the 11-member oil producers' cartel. "I told him I was very concerned that the price of oil is too high, not just for America but for the world," said Mr Clinton after his meeting with the crown prince. "If it was to cause a recession in any part of the world that would hurt the oil producing countries." Large parts of France ran out of fuel yesterday as hauliers and farmers, more determined than ever to win big fuel tax cuts from the government, continued their four-day blockade of oil refineries and depots. Angry farmers, already active on most of the 120 blockades up and down the country, successfully blocked the entrance to the Channel tunnel with their tractors, triggering scuffles with British tourists. Around 50 British holidaymakers mounted a counter-blockade by blocking a lane being used by the authorities to allow French cars to trickle past the barricades, and threatened to cut off the main A16 motorway if they were not allowed to get through the blockade and go home. Under police escort, a convoy of British cars and coaches was eventually allowed through in the late afternoon. A British police sergeant, who was part of the convoy but asked not to be named, said: "It seems we managed to outmanoeuvre them with a bit of British courage and some cunning. We played them at their own game and it worked. In the end it was quite a fun victory for all." Another convoy member, Frank Davidson, 49, said: "This was as sweet a victory as Wellington over Napoleon at Waterloo. They didn't like it when we put up a fight." While talks resumed late in the afternoon between the French transport minister, Jean-Claude Gayssot, and the two main hauliers' federations, the government reiterated that it would go no further than the 15% tax cut, worth ?100m, it offered on Wednesday. Meanwhile, the European commission threatened legal action if the free movement of goods within the EU was disrupted. As the protest spread, the hauliers, farmers, ambulance drivers and coach firms were joined by thousands of taxi drivers in massed "go-slow" processions that brought traffic to a halt in a dozen cities and caused motorway tailbacks. At least three regional airports reported they would be out of aviation fuel by this morning. Wholesalers at the main Rungis market outside Paris said supplies of fresh fruit and vegetable were beginning to be affected and 80% of the country's petrol stations were either dry, subject to rationing of ?15 per vehicle, or had been requisitioned for emergency service use only. In the financial markets yesterday, the price of a barrel of crude oil eased back from a peak of $34.50 to $33.91. However, dealers said that most of the Saudi production increase had been anticipated by the markets and that prices were not likely to fall markedly. They said Saudi Arabia was the key player in the crisis because it was the only Opec nation with the spare capacity to pump the extra oil needed to bring prices under control. But it can expect opposition from other Opec members who are enjoying extra revenues from the price surge from under $10 a barrel at the start of last year. Lawrence Eagles, oil analyst at the City firm GNI Securities, said a harsh winter could boost demand by an extra 500,000 barrels a day, pushing prices still higher."You can't rule out $40 a barrel if Opec aren't prepared to act," he said. From jones118 at lineone.net Fri Sep 8 08:16:14 2000 From: jones118 at lineone.net (Mark Jones) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] OGJ: UK offshore to thrive with cost-cutting, new technology Message-ID: <000e01c0199f$58f32c80$c42c8cd4@mjones> [Really? This story is NOT about the thriving UK offshore, it is about declining production hidden behind optimistic headlines, with big reservoirs like Forties a thing of the past, and marginal high-entropy fields brought into production by the Expro life-support system. North Sea oil + gas is another tombstone over Big Oil. Mark] from Oil & Gas Journal Online's Upstream This Week Friday, Sept. 8, 2000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Malcolm Brinded, managing director of Shell Exploration & Production PLC, recently revealed a confident vision of a UK North Sea oil industry prolonging its productive life through new technology and further cost-cutting. The Shell Expro chief tipped reservoir- optimizing 4D seismic,"smart wells," expandable tubulars, and sand screens, as well as Shell's own gas separation "Twister" system, as technologies that would help "get the most value out of what we've already got" in the North Sea. Brinded said North Sea companies would have to leverage their technologies along with "what they had going for them" -- existing infrastructure, a "quality" service sector, and ready-made gas market -- to answer the rigors of the region's "maturity, small field size, and global competition." Given the "small but many" untapped reservoirs on the UK Continental Shelf, further cost reduction could widen the net so that many of the most marginal central North Sea's fields could be exploited economically as subsea tiebacks. The pan-industry "change in behavior" required, however, he added, is a fundamental hurdle in a mature basin such as the UKCS. From jones118 at lineone.net Fri Sep 8 09:31:34 2000 From: jones118 at lineone.net (Mark Jones) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] life after the Soviet Union Message-ID: <000f01c019a9$def15820$c42c8cd4@mjones> Moscow Times September 8, 2000 EDITORIAL: No Safety For Moscow Prostitutes You've seen them. The hundreds of women that gather nightly on Moscow's busiest thoroughfares, in courtyards, alleyways and even the quietest nooks of the city's more peaceful neighborhoods. Cars skim past, headlights shining, and deals are quickly brokered. Like Chechen arrest quotas and random document checks, prostitution has become such an intrinsic element of the Moscow city tableau that it's easy to forget what a miserable business it is. Occasionally there are reminders. Take Thursday's early morning attack on a group of prostitutes gathered on the northern end of the Garden Ring Road. The grenade attack left 16 people injured, eight seriously enough to be hospitalized. Apart from one Muscovite, the victims were from the Tula and Ivanovo regions, Moldova and Ukraine. Bomb-tossing is an increasingly frequent gesture in this violent city; a quick fix for what irks you. The casual attitude is all the worse for being commercially driven. Moscow's bustling sex trade f 70,000 women reportedly work as prostitutes f has already reduced women to a dispensable commodity. Thursday's incident strips them of their humanity altogether. Police have not yet ruled out the latest motive du jour, Chechen-sponsored terrorism. But what seems far likelier is that the attack was a simple chess move in the city's ongoing turf warfare over the prostitution business. Moscow's sex trade is such a success that it has several spin-off enterprises as well f including roadside service for travelers heading in from Sheremetyevo Airport and a citywide network of old women who stand just down the road from the prostitutes, holding signs saying they will rent out their apartments for nightly trysts. It is a dirty business, like anywhere, that thrives on a steady supply of impoverished and desperate young women. And in Russia, it is given an extra boost by the country's absolute lack of protective legislation and a society that continues to put women low on the food chain. The majority of Moscow's prostitutes are reportedly from the regions and neighboring countries, driven to Russia's capital city out of aching poverty and then literally enslaved, earning next to nothing while being exposed every day to abuse and the very real dangers of life on the street. People can dismiss Thursday's attack as something that could never happen to them f as a less morally outrageous crime than last month's underpass bombing, for example f but that only skirts the terrible truth that Moscow's most miserable job just got worse. From jones118 at lineone.net Fri Sep 8 12:03:00 2000 From: jones118 at lineone.net (Mark Jones) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:03 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Why am I "obsessed with oil", asked Carrol Cox Message-ID: <001501c019bf$067431a0$c42c8cd4@mjones> ask one million French workers on the streets today. From jbunzl at simpol.org Fri Sep 8 14:18:01 2000 From: jbunzl at simpol.org (John Bunzl) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:04 2006 Subject: [CrashList] the Plan References: Message-ID: <006d01c019d1$ec6560a0$875a87d4@oemcomputer> Tahir, I look forward to hearing from you further in due course concerning SP. Meantime, please unsubscribe me from the Crash List. I hope to return in the not too distant future. best wishes John Bunzl ----- Original Message ----- From: "TAHIR WOOD" To: Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [CrashList] the Plan > John > > Thanks for engaging with us further. I intend to go back to > your website for another look as soon as I can clear my desk > a little. In the meantime could I make one small request: > please would you not reply in capitals like this? It is hell > to read, at least on my eyes, and it is not hard at all to > tell whose voice is coming through. If you need to signal > who is speaking you can just put your name or initials in > front of a colon, followed by your text, like this: > > JB: ............. > > Thanks > > Tahir > > > > >>> "John Bunzl" 09/03 10:11 PM >>> > Hello Perry, > You wrote: > > "that 'plan' is flawed". > > I take it you were referring to the Simultaneous Policy. > Thank you for > visiting our website and I will respond to your points > beneath each one in > capital letters for clarity: > > > > 1) it requires the voluntary compliance of millions > against whose own best > > interest it is to comply > I DON'T BELIEVE THIS ASSERTION IS GENERALLY CORRECT. PLEASE > SPECIFY > PRECISELY WHICH OF THE PROPOSED POLICIES WOULD BE AGAINST > THE BEST INTERESTS > OF THE MILLIONS EXPECTED TO ADOPT SP. > > > > 2) there is insufficient time for mega-solutions to be > executed before the > > crash effects begin > YOU MAY BE RIGHT, BUT HAVE YOU ANY BETTER IDEA OR SHOULD WE > JUST WAIT FOR > THE CRASH? > > > > 3) the only 'solutions' are local : personal, individual, > family, small > > community; not mega-state or global; > I THINK THERE ARE SOLUTIONS AT EVERY LEVEL. I ALSO BELIEVE > THAT A SOLUTION > AT ONE LEVEL DOES NOT NECESSARILY PRECLUDE SOLUTIONS AT > OTHER LEVELS. I > THINK WE NEED TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND. > > > > 4) the only effective 'plans' are those not published to > the world via the > > WWW > NOT QUITE SURE WHERE YOU'RE GOING HERE PERRY... > > > > 5) Joan writes: > > > > ...Any plan is better than no plan, or is it? > > > > it isn't . > > > > sorry; won't work... > I REALLY THINK WE ARE HARDLY GOING TO GET VERY FAR WITH SUCH > GLIB > DISMISSALS. AS, REQUESTED ABOVE, PLEASE SPECIFY WHICH OF THE > PROPOSED > POLICIES WOULD BE AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THOSE WHO ARE > EXPECTED TO ADOPT > SP. THEN LET'S HAVE A SENSIBLE DISCUSSION. > LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU. > BEST WISHES > JOHN. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crashlist resources: > http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > From jones118 at lineone.net Fri Sep 8 14:52:13 2000 From: jones118 at lineone.net (Mark Jones) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:07:04 2006 Subject: [CrashList] Shostakovich 7th (Leningrad) Symphony Message-ID: <000001c019d6$aa7d2d80$de0b063e@mjones> Tonight I went to hear Dmitry Shostakovich's 7th Symphony performed as part of the BBC Promenade Concerts, by what was essentially an ad hoc orchestra conducted by the great Russian conductor, Vladimir Gergiev (who immediately after his tumultuous reception at the Royal Albert Hall, went to a Mayfair restaurant to eat blinis and caviar). Shostakovich is now rightly popular. His deeply contradictory, angst-ridden music, suffused with patriotic ardour, but also anguish at the human price paid for socialism's successes, strikes a chord with contemporary audiences. Perhaps because of his current popularity, there is a perverse but well-funded fashion for derogating Shostakovich's life commitments: thus it is argued that even the glorious Seventh, written in Leningrad in 1942 at the height of the Nazi seige of that city, which claimed more than two million lives, was actually not a lyrical paean to the Soviet Motherland, but an anti- Bolshevik musical diatribe. That is absurd, of course. Whatever they may say, Dmitry Shostakovich lived and died a paid-up member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Shostakovich's political commitment is rooted in the dynamic reality of Soviet cultural life. This dynamism is evident in literature and painting as well as in music. Critics of Stalinist policy towards the arts have difficulty admitting what is actually obvious: that despite the supposed philistinism, bloodthirstiness, stupidity, evil-mindedness and malice of Stalin and his 'henchmen', the Soviet Thirties saw the greatest outpouring of works of art, theatre, literature, film, music, sculpture and architecture in Russian history. This takes some explaining: the tally of major 20th century works in any field of culture (symphonic works, novels, paintings, films etc) shows a high number of works created in the Soviet Union under High Stalinism. It is said that under the rubric of Socialist Realism Stalin inflicted a cruel and stultefying regime on the fine arts, which engendered easel-painting and sculpture of generally second-rate dullness and awful, servile conformity. These defects are said to be matters of principle and outweigh any conceivable theoretical gains which in any case are lacking in the fine arts (compared to cinematography etc). It is usually added that it is no excuse to point out that actually some of the stuff was rather good: since we do not applaud the Borgias because their rule happened to coincide with the flowering of Renaissance art, we should not indulge Stalin's excesses either. In civilised (bourgeois) society artists and the consumers of their work are each allowed to do their thing in serenity and personal security. Stalin's 'Terror' did not permit this. The Party stood between artist and viewer, subjecting both to its baleful gaze. Stalin's policy towards the arts is therefore to be opposed on two general grounds. First, no-one (least of all a jackbooted commissar personifying the absolute state) has the right to mediate between the artist and his/her viewer. Second, the sovereignty of the individual and the right to live free from fear in a law-governed society, is more fundamental even than the right of the state to survive. Stalinist repression and policing of the arts is 'barbaric' and 'unconscionable' [but one justification for Stalin's policy towards Russian artists might lie in comparing it with Hitler's and then trying to judge whether Stalin's policy helped or hindered the Soviet state in its attempt to prevent Hitler carrying _his_ policy out]. It is not just a matter of the Stalinist liquidation of the avant-garde and their substitution by the alleged aridities of socialist-realism. The real issue is more serious and universal: freedom of expression versus the interests and rights of the state. The Bolsheviks arrogated the right to subordinate art to politics, meaning, to the creation of their dictatorship. Still more heroically, Lenin even wanted not merely to use art for his own purposes but to insist theoretically that art could not even be art unless it served those purposes. If you grant that art is a class question and must be subordinated to a class politics, then you take your stand with Lenin's frankly 'totalitarian' subordination of art to political life and the interests of the state. Art has no more autonomy than any other sphere of life. The proletarian dictatorship insists on its subjugation. It is clear too that Stalin was the executor of Lenin's behests, and you cannot separate Lenin's policy from Stalin's. If Lenin was wrong, so was Stalin. If both were wrong then we have to admit that the socialist revolutionary project contains a radical defect and cannot be the instrument of human freedom. So the question is important. Ironically, both Lenin and Stalin turned out to be conservators of bourgeois cultural forms. Lenin destroyed the Proletkult and called instead for the preservation of the finest achievements of bourgois culture, and for making them accessible to the masses. Stalin in his time purged the avant-garde, accusing it of 'formalism' and even drove Mayakovsky to his grave. However in terms of the principled question it would not have mattered if the Party had done things the other way round, ie, purged the Socialist Realists and the Victorian novelists and made the practitioners of Proletkult into honoured representatives of official Soviet art. The issue would still be, does the Party have the right to decide which art and which artists shall survive and prosper, and which shall be silenced and purged? As the anti-stalinist Aleksandr Sidorov of the USSR (now Russian) Academy of Arts put it, under the Bolsheviks 'Man, and especially 'simple' Soviet man, was thought of exclusively as a viewer, but by no means a consumer or possible possessor, of decorative art works, and at best he had to be content with a mere reproduction, copy or album of an artist's work. This circumstance is indissolubly linked to the following four processes. Firstly, public awareness was transformed into the object of demagogic manipulations and speculations. Secondly, aesthetic requirements were depersonalised, and the interests of the individual were completely dissolved in ideological and artistic programmes imposed by the State. Thirdly, leaders appeared who acted as mediators of culture and invariably took up a position above the viewer, reader or listener and knew better than others what to teach, how to educate, what the people must know and what they must not know, what the people needed and what was contrary to their needs, what was 'good' and what was 'bad'. And fourthly, art criticism was reduced to a concrete exposition of ideas sent down from on high; it played the role of a priest of a new belief who explained the postulates of that belief to the parishioners of the church of socialist realism.' (Matthew Cullerne Brown, 'Art Under Stalin', (1991) pp 12-13). [Sidorov is worth debating even if it seems unfair to blame the Bolsheviks for flooding the country with cheap editions of colour prints of the fina arts, which they did.] Related to this totalitarian Bolshevik intent is the Stalinist notion that art, like society itself, can make progress, and that since socialism is 'a higher stage', socialist art too must be higher, must be 'the most forward looking and progressive of all the artistic methods that have ever existed.' (ibid). All these assumptions, needless to say, have been falsified by events. Or have they? The decay of Soviet culture under Brezhnev, its progressive atrophy, fissiparousness and lack of direction, and the growing cynicism of official circles towards its products, the growing public indifference to socialist-realist art and the hypocrisy of its practitioners and apologists, and the growth of 'dissident' oppositional art, might seem all the evidence we need that the goals of Stalinist High Art were absurd and self-defeating: as Sidorov says (or seems to), only the market, with its purveyors and possessors, can clean up the arts. In Stalin's own time, such cynicism and hypocrisy was largely absent. Officially-sanctioned art was also the art consumed privately by leading officials, including Stalin himself, who was a great admirer of the works of socialist-realists like Sergei Gerasimov, Oganes Zardaryan, Martinos Sarayan and Aleksandr Laktionov. The belief in the unfailing superiority of socialist methods, and in the certain victory of socialism and decline of capitalism, was genuine and widely held. By the time of Brezhnev, such 'naivete' was openly mocked within the ruling circles, whose corruption was almost boundless, as was their contempt for the stupidity, helplessness and vulgarity of the masses. Thus official attacks on the avant-garde coincided with growing immorality and debauchery in the ruling circles, such that Brezhnev's own daughter held up banks at gunpoint - aided by her husband (the chief of police!) in order to fund her jewelry acquisitions; and every high official had his 'own' private collections of forbidden Western art, literarture, and pornography. Sovietart was soon divided into sinned-aganst and sinners; most execrated were the portrait-painters of Stalin himself; they and their works (irony!) were purged from the historical record and Stalin's once-ubiquitous image was effaced from public spaces. Since 1991 there has been a reversal of attitudes. The bourgeois collector has decided in his counting-house of a soul that works of Socialist Realism are high-value items. Of course! What else could you expect, given the way of the art world? However, it was unexpected. The first Sotheby auctions, held in Moscow during the era of Peretsroika, showed formerly forbidden avant garde (often openly anti-soviet) works. The history of those works and of these auctions was curious: they did not fetch the prices hoped for, and these first attempts to stimulate and profit from, anti-soviet and post-soviet painting in Russia, did not lead anywhere. But Socialist Realism, on the contrary, has powered on from strength to strength. Socialist Realist paintings, especially from the era of High Stalinism, proved highly collectible and now fetch extravagant prices in auctions. That such political works should end up as prized commodities seems odd. I am not aware that the same posterity obtained for Nazi High Art, so it cannot be a question of the general collectibility of alleged totalitarian art forms. Of course, despite everything there is no reason why Socialist Realist works should not prove to be art. After all it is no disqualification of any artwork that it was produced to state order, or according to an ideological plan of some kind. Western art began out of church and state patronage, or out of fawning depictions of the persons, families and possessions of powerful and wealthy men. The issue for Sidorov and for us is still therefore not whether works produced for supposedly bad reasons or under difficult circumstances can be art but whether or not socialists who hold state power acquire a right to decide the content of art and the style it is produced in. In any case, Sidorov's prioritising of the relationship between the artwork and the viewer, in a solipsistic and private discourse, also makes little sense. In capitalism, artworks make the same uncertain journey of realisation as do all other commodities and in the process become the bearers of social relations. Under socialism, artworks may enjoy a different modality, which subverts their existence qua commodities. But in either case it remains true that any work submitted for public scrutiny enters the social world and is subject to the conventions, controls and internalised censoriousness which exist in all cultures, times and places and arguably provide not a straitjacket but the *form* of a representation without which it would be impossible for the artist to create anything meaningful. While for art to be art the epiphanic relationship to the viewer must exist and be real, it is useless to deny the social context. The moment of repression/internalisation of normative categories is also the moment of creation. This is literally so. Not for nothing was the Stalinist 1930s characterised BOTH by the fierce and relentless struggle against formalism in music, literature and the arts that ended careers and even lives, AND by a torrential outpouring of new work. The famous Pravda attack on Shostakovich in 1934 put an end to musical adventures like Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk, but also led to the towering achievements of Shostakovich's middle years. The arts were to not merely prefigure socialism but also to serve the goal of 'communist education'. In a society of total mobilisation, art too was mobilised. Even when railing against the patronising, authoritarian state, Aleksandr Sidorov (quoted above) is certainly aware that the issue is thus more complicated than it seems (he ends his tirade with these words: 'I may have thrown too negative a light on the range of art in the Stalinist period, and perhaps I have paid too much attention to the 'extreme' manifestations of that art. But, as the Russian saying has it, things are seen more clearly when observed from one side.') Socialist Realism was meant to take art beyond capitalist commodity production. Just as the avant-garde of the Twenties strove to push beyond the limits of the frame of the picture (its conceptual, formal, technical or expressive frame; and even the 'frame' itself) so, too, did the anti-formalist 'Realism' of the Thirties actually have the same avowed goal: to push art beyond the boundary of its commoditised frame of perceptual reference, of social signing or emblematage, and even of the picture's physical frame which encapsulates it, marks it off from the world, and makes of it a potential commodity. Realism inducted the viewer thru the frame and beyond it into a world of concrete objectivity, of limitless possibility and boundless growth. Socialist realism is art precisely because it was the strict opposite of 'realist socialism', ie, the unvarnished depiction of actual (blemished, faulty, dysfunctional, warped) Soviet reality, the socialism of the everyday world of overwork, shortage, ennui, of private feuding and conspiracy. Socialist realism was a confabulation of impossible opposites, an explosive equilibrium founded on the concrete-objectivity of the form of representation of allegedly normal, everyday events, scenes and contexts which are actually unreal, hyperreal, or simply fabulous. That is why when one contemplates them now, these paintings often have a mirage-like quality, a hallucinatory, iconic, narrative substance which can arouse intense feelings, which can wound the observer, and all this of course sharply contradicts the technical realism of the specific representation. It is as if all of them: Stalin, his politburo, the stern-faced captains of the Workers and Peasants Red Army and the masses themselves: the miners, railwaymen, aviators and constructors, the collective farmworkers, the plump, well-found, ruddy-cheeked maidens in their banya - creamy-skinned, full-bodied women holding infants, in images so violently real that the intense scents of birch leaves and pine resin, the steam hissing from the furnace, the sound of gaiety and laughter, almost overwhelm the viewer - or labour-scenes, with tanned, lithe men working a lathe or scything a field, or the shining-eyed masses at a factory-committee meeting, an avuncular bust of Lenin beaming impishly on -- all are part of a landscape of pure dreams, which we can behold with a kind of nostalgic languor, with feelings of desire which seem to have neither a source within ourselves nor in the object-field of the painting. I am just now examining an image of a painting by Aleksandr Samokhvalov entitled 'Woman Metro Builder with Penumatic Drill', (1937, from the Russian State Museum collections). This shows a woman shock-worker briefly resting from excavating the tunnel for the Moscow Metro. In reality it is a Palladian scene; classical and statuesque, there is a stillness about her face, which is strongly illuminated from the front, and as she gazes into the bright light, we almost see the socialist Arcadia she is seeing, the disclosed/hidden, future/past utopia. One half-clenched hand, plump and dainty, unmarked by labour, rests upon a rock; she has tied her jacket round her waist and the effect is of a classicial, robed piece of statuary that seems to have emerged from the living rock; the face is youthful, plastic, inquisitive, robustly beautiful and determined: there is defiance in her eyes. Whatever this painting is of, it is not of a woman metro builder (but there were tens of thousands of women volunteers, often office workers, who did help dig the tunnels, even during lunch-breaks; it is them the painting celebrates, not as they are but as they should be). As the magazine Sovietskoe Isskustvo (Soviet Arts) said in 1935, Moscow was to become 'a city of happiness,' which would inspire 'feelings of harmony and well-being'. This was not so much socialist town-planning as a kind of delirium. And only it was only a year before that Zhdanov officially declared to the writers' congress, the policy of 'socialist-realism'. There are not many art historians writing much about socialist realism. Two are Brandon Taylor and Matthew Cullerne Brown, whose 1998 book 'Socialist Realist Painting' is a resplendent, coffee-table edition and highly recommended; it is glorious feast of 'art of Stalin's time [that is] full of purpose - always ready, as it were, to die with its boots on' (Cullerne Brown, Art Under Stalin, (1991) p277). Importantly, Cullerne Brown locates the origins of Socialist Realism in the prerevolutionary history of Russian iconography, and of the peredvizhniki, the 19th century Itinerants who celebrated everyday life. He does not manage to answer Sidorov's questions, but perhaps they are unanswerable anyway. Brandon Taylor's two-volume work on Soviet art which Pluto published in I think 1992-93 have this market pretty much to themselves. If all art is socially conditioned (as well as conventionally constrained) then at least Leninist-Stalinist policy has the merits of transparency, openness and honest partisanship, expressed in the idea that artists, like everyone else, shall be driven by what was known as partiinost', that is, the over-riding commitment to the Party and its principles and endeavours. These were about generalising to the masses the promise of bourgeois civilisation, and increasing the education, health, welfare and life opportunities of the common woman/man. The Party strove to make art a mass and not just an elite activity and was proud of its achievement, announcing in the late Thirties, in the style of High Stalinist statistics, that 80 percent of Soviet artists hailed from the working class and the peasantry. According to the party, that made them part of the new ruling class's (proletarian) intelligenstia. This is shaky Marxism, but anyway this is not the real achievement of Soviet Socialist Realism: which is that actually it DOES fulfil Sido