From nmgoro at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 09:05:25 2008 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:05:25 +0100 Subject: [A-List] =?utf-8?b?U8OtIHBlcm8gc8OtLCBnYW7DsyAob3RyYSB2ZXopIGVs?= =?utf-8?q?_chavismo?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2fa158550812010805x1f08992fn5bd53013eaeec4ba@mail.gmail.com> Petare was lost. This is a red light blinking "Alarm". Other gains are true but don?t diminish this serious problem. El d?a 28 de noviembre de 2008 19:04, Yoshie Furuhashi escribi?: > > 2008-11-27 > Venezuela > S? pero s?, gan? (otra vez) el chavismo > Angel Guerra Cabrera > > Los resultados de las elecciones venezolanas del 23 de noviembre han > sido presentados como una debacle de la revoluci?n Bolivariana por la > m?quina (des)i -- N?stor Gorojovsky El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a From ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com Mon Dec 1 12:44:03 2008 From: ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com (Mohawk Nation News) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:44:03 -0500 Subject: [A-List] MNN Canada desperately spying on Mohawks Message-ID: <01228929$39783$0cd96139196875@xnote> CANADA SECRET SERVICE SPYING ON ONGWEHONWE - DESPERATE FOR SOMETHING TO DO? Or is the colonial hierarchy cracking up? MNN. Nov. 30, 2008. As we are seeing more and more clearly everyday, Canada has always been a totalitarian for-profit enterprise even though it tries to masquerade as a democracy. Canada is a Euro colonial settler state that governs by passing race laws. Every now and then declarations of legal rights are made to make things look kosher. But when push comes to shove, these are ignored. Things are done at the point of a gun by open terror and genocide. What information could the Canadian Secret Intelligence Service [CSIS] possibly be looking for in Mohawk communities? How many dogs we have running loose? How many rusted cars and old fridges are standing in our yards? We notice they don?t want to report on how bad our water is, or how corrupt the band council is or about the lack of funds for our education, medical care and housing. So what?s happening? Whatever anyone says, CSIS covertly sneaking into our communities can?t be for ?national security?. We?ve never been a military threat to Canada. CSIS is coming in as an agent of confusion to ?terrorize? us! What have we got that would scare anyone? Except, of course, for THE TRUTH!!! The land every Canadian stands on and all the resources in it belong to us. That?s why they?re trying to brainwash us and the Canadian people. Everyday we are seeing more cracks in the broken ?democracy? called ?Canada?. We Mohawks are targeted because we ask too many questions. We are always challenging their actions and asking them to prove the legality of what they?re doing. They want a ?white? nation. The colonists associate ?Indians? with a certain degeneracy of intellect, morals, self-restraint and political values. That was their excuse for stealing our resources. Canada sets us up as targets because they want to divert attention away from their economic and social problems. They need someone to blame. They want the public to believe we are dangerous. Never mind that their government rakes in millions from cigarette taxes. They spin it as the murky world of ?contraband?. They make it sound like it?s a crime for us to support our families by legally selling tobacco. Their border is the ?apartheid wall?. Their border guards routinely harass us and even try to kill us when we try to travel on our territory. Canadian agencies refuse to investigate these criminal acts. All their police, the OPP, RCMP, Canadian Border Services Agency and the colonial Akwesasne Mohawk Police, claim it?s not their jurisdiction. We are denied due process when they assault us. Two Mohawk women have been declared as ?non-residents? of Canada in order to make them pay for the Crown?s defence in the law suit they filed against Canada for not investigating border brutality! [M. Mireille Tabib, Oct. 23, 2008, Kahentinetha & Katenies v. The Queen T-1309-08]. If Kahnawake and Akwesasne are not part of Canada, then why haven?t they removed the illegal border control at Akwesasne? On the one hand, they say Akwesasne is in Canada so they can put their border there. On the other hand, they?re saying it?s not so they can force us to pay thousands of dollars to make border guards accountable for the assaults and crimes against us. Canada has plans to build a great big international high tech border installation at Akwesasne. We don?t want it. When three non-native people recently died in a botched border operation at the very same spot in Akwesasne, all those self same police services were stumbling all over each other to investigate. What?s the deal? The safety of ?white? people is precious? Ongwehonwe safety doesn?t matter? Presently Cree elder, David Ahenakew, is on trial for the third time because of some ill-considered private comments he made about the Jewish genocide in World War II. Remember, he didn?t kill any Jews. When he served in the military, he took part in the operations that freed people and helped stop abuse. The genocide against our own people is generally ignored. Why the double standard? Why is he being prosecuted with so much vengeance when Canadian border guards can attempt murder with impunity? These incidents just nibble at the internal conflicts raging within the colonial government apparatus. The Maher Arar and Omar Khadr cases, the extensive secret military exercises in November 2008 near so many Ongwehonwe communities, and so many other disturbing developments suggest that we are being prepared for totalitarianism or martial law. All it will take now is a pretext to bring it in. Another 9/11! When the hierarchical colonial system is threatened, it resorts to ?fratricide? to clean out its ranks. The higher ups become paranoid. They start getting rid of their underlings who they fear want to replace them or expose them. We certainly are not in these kinds of positions nor do we want to be. We?d rather stand back and watch the poisoning and beheadings going on in the palace, so to speak. Canada is still trying to look calm while it screams hysterically from within. They don?t want people to smell the blood beforehand. To divert attention they?re looking for those with opinions different from theirs to start imprisoning and shutting them up. The state is using slander and historical distortion to defame us and get the media to suppress discussion of the real issues. The current attempt to purge the Mohawks is based on false claims that we are likely to sabotage Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth. We?ve always stayed in our own boat according to the Two Row Wampum Accord. We have never committed any violence against Canada. In fact, we have defended Canada several times, going back to the War of 1812 right up to World War II. Of course, if our historic ally chooses to attack us, we will always defend ourselves. The violent and unfounded fantasies about us serve someone?s purpose. People get a chance to use lethal weapons when Canadian agencies send in cops and spies instead of talking with us on a straightforward and honest nation-to-nation basis. CSIS is Canada?s secret police look for demons and devils they can finger for purging. We?ve been told actions of this kind must have ministerial approval. Who is the prime sinister? Canada is ruining its international image because of the abuse and needless suffering that it causes to all Ongwehonwe. Up to now they?ve kept a lot of their skeletons in the closet to make it easier for CSIS to set us up. CSIS defames us by playing on the active imagination of a gullible public. CSIS has been sent in to corrupt our ?leadership?. They should know by now that we have none. Who is active in our Men?s Society? Who is the intelligentsia? [As if we aren?t all intelligent] They are trying to make us mistrust each other. They want to turn us into ?fifth column? communities. They think they can get away with it because we are a minority. They figure no one will help us when we?re attacked. The young and the vulnerable are targeted. When they?re snatched, the cops force them to ?confess? to anything regardless of the truth. Some of their lines are: ?Either you comply with us or we?ll charge you?. ?How well do you know your community?? ?Who are you related to?? ?Someone told me this, is it true?? ?Do what I say or I?ll break your arm?. Their old favorite, ?Who are your leaders?? CSIS wants to have us charged with ?counter revolutionary crimes? based on their racist colonial laws or those they intend to create!! Yes, we don?t like the colonial Canadian system as it has been shown to us. We know that Canada thinks that our land, cultures, bodies and minds must be sacrificed for the colonists to remain dominant and for their system to continue to function. Canadian occupation of our land and the usurpation of our resources are illegal under international law. One of their frequent tricks is to get someone to invite us somewhere and then set up a ?disappearance?. Rumor has it that now that we?ve been declared ?insurgents? a secret military tribunal has been set up to try us. Bye bye habeas corpus! Is Canada getting dangerously edgy about having their ?turf? stepped on by the real owners, us? Well, CSIS, you?ve been hung out on the clothesline to dry and your brown-laced underwear is flapping in the wind. What are you trying to prepare us for? The ?final solution?? Genocide? Iako?ha:kowa & MNN Staff ? Mohawk Nation News www.mohawknationnews.com kittoh at storm.ca Katenies20 at yahoo.com kahentinetha2 at yahoo.com Note: Your financial help is needed and appreciated. Please send your donations to PayPal at www.mohawknationnews.com, or by check or money order to ?MNN Mohawk Nation News?, Box 991, Kahnawake [Quebec, Canada] J0L 1B0. Nia:wen thank you very much. Go to MNN ?Canada? category for more stories; New MNN Books Available now! Purchase t-shirts, mugs and more at our CafePressStore http://www.cafepress.com/mohawknews; Subscribe to MNN for breaking news updates http://.mohawknationnews.com/news/subscription.php; Sign Women Title Holders petition! http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Iroquois THE OTTAWA PLAYERS. CSIS: http://www.csis-scrs.ca; Manon Berube ? Media 613-231-0100;Public Safety [Danger]: Minister Peter ?Pumpkin-Eater-and-Trough-Licker? Van Loan; Suzanne ?Hurts-to-be-Herself? Hurtubise DM 613- 991-2895; Myles ?Away-from-Reality? Kirvan ADM 613- 990-2633, 613-949-0322; Chantal ?Dirty-Fingers-in-Every-Pie? Bernier ADM Community Safety [Endangerment] and Partnerships (613) 993-4325; Scott ?ODB? Broughton Sr ADM Emergency [Mis]Management and National [In]Security (613) 991-2820; Lynda ?Useless-Forked-Tongued-Drone? Clairmont ADM, same as ?ODB? (613) 990-4976; Daniel ?Pepsi-and-May-West? Lavoie DG Communications (613) 990-2743; Elisabeth ?Botox-from-Head-to-Toe? Nadeau ADM, Corporate Theft (613) 990-2615; Kristina ?Fingers-Getting-Itchier-and-Itchier-to-push-the-Trigger? Namiesniowski ADM Strategic Policy (613) 949-6435; Eva ?Nosey-Nit-Picker? Plunkett Inspector Field ?General? of CSIS (613) 949-0675; Richard ?Diarrhea-Mouth? Wex ADM Policing, Law Enforcement & Interoperability (613) 990-2703. The biggest safety risk for us Ongwehonwe is this ADM cabal of agents; Health Canada, partners with the US through the Canada-US Joint Radiological Response Plan, under the Federal Nuclear Emergency Plan; Foreign Affairs Lawrence ?Chinese-Food-Glutton-at-Taxpyers-Expense? Cannon 613-992-5516 Fax 613-992-6802; 819-441-2510 Fax: (819) 441-2680; (819) 281-2626 Fax: (819) 281-2755 Cannon.L at parl.gc.ca; Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway Stockwell Day. From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 22:56:44 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 00:56:44 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Jalal Al-e Ahmad: An Existentialist in Mecca Message-ID: April 13, 1986 A SKEPTIC IN MECCA By DONNE RAFFAT; DONNE RAFFAT IS THE AUTHOR OF ''THE CASPIAN CIRCLE'' AND ''THE PRISON PAPERS OF BOZORG ALAVI.'' LOST IN THE CROWD By Jalal Al-e Ahmad. Translated by John Green. Introduction by Michael Hillman. l57 pp. Washington: Three Continents Press. Cloth, $20. Paper, $9. EARLY in April 1964, Jalal Al-e Ahmad (1923-1969), one of Iran's leading writers and social critics, undertook a hajj, or pilgrimage to the Moslem shrines in Saudi Arabia. Some three weeks later he returned to Teheran with a bleeding foot and a travel diary - now available in its first English-language edition as ''Lost in the Crowd'' - that ranks among his finest works. Why did Al-e Ahmad, a skeptic - indeed, a former member of Iran's Communist Tudeh Party - go on a hajj? He himself poses the question repeatedly. His older brother, a cleric and a representative of the Shiite religious leader Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Borujerdi, was buried in Medina: he is there to visit his grave. He is also there with other members of his family, who are fulfilling their duties as pious Moslems. But none of these reasons address the central issue he raises. ''What did I come on this journey to do?'' he writes. ''Visit shrines? Worship? Observe?'' He does all three, constantly taking notes. The result is a graphic, compelling account of his hajj experience, in a very readable translation by John Green, that also reveals why the travel diary, or safarnameh, has remained a major genre in Persian literature since the 11th century. Just arrived in Medina, Al-e Ahmad is critical and alienated. ''It's easy,'' he says, ''to be among the people and not be a part of them.'' He is offended by the filth, noise, traffic, inefficiency and blatant commercialism, all of which leads him to conclude there is ''no alternative but to internationalize these shrines, Mecca, Medina, Arafat, and Mina, to place them under the management of a joint council of Muslim nations, and to remove them from Saudi Arab control.'' Yet it is also here that his personal quest finds direction. In response to a man who asks him why he, a member of the Shiite minority within Islam, has been praying alongside Sunni Moslems, he declares, ''My dear sir . . . we came here to lose our-selves in the crowd. We didn't come here to reinforce our personalities and our isolation.'' But it is not until he reaches Mecca and undergoes the say, or ritual wandering before the Kaaba, that he fully experiences the ''great engulfing of the individual in the crowd.'' Here, ''utterly helpless'' amid the multitude, he is forced into continual contact with a host of eyes that ''aren't really eyes, but naked consciousnesses.'' ''Before today,'' he muses, ''I thought it was only the sun that could not be regarded with the naked eye, but I realized today that neither can one look at this sea of eyes.'' In that encounter the self, ''if it doesn't exist as a particle working to build a society, is not even a 'self.' It is absolutely nothing.'' The ''great engulfing'' never becomes for Al-e Ahmad a religious experience, though. If the self is temporarily lost in Mecca, it is shocked back into being in Mina, a small town between Mecca and Arafat in which ''all the streets end at a slaughterhouse, covered with mutilated carcasses.'' The stench and animal sacrifice nauseate the author: ''as it stands now,'' he writes, ''the Hajj is mechanized barbarism.'' HE stops again in Mecca, Medina and Jedda on his way out of the country, but his withdrawal has already occurred in his diary, his ''saving grace.'' The writing - for Moslem purists itself a form of sacrilege on the hajj - preserves and reintegrates the self, a process confirmed in his final notes on the flight back to Teheran. ''I mainly came on this trip looking for my brother - and all those other brothers - rather than to search for God,'' he writes. But that has led to ''a kind of awakening,'' a deepening personal skepticism about ideology, religious or political. ''In this way,'' he notes, ''I am smashing the steps of the world of certainty one by one with the pressure of experience, beneath my feet.'' Small wonder that his foot, at journey's end, is injured. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Tue Dec 2 04:14:11 2008 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:14:11 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Does Mr O Know? Message-ID: <49351883.8080009@ashisuto.co.jp> Clusterfuck Nation by Jim Kunstler Comment on current events by the author of The Long Emergency (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2005) www.kunstler.com (December 01 2008) A lot of readers are twanging on me for refraining to castigate President-elect Obama for deeds yet undone. They're discouraged by the advisors and cabinet secretaries he's picked, ostensibly because the crew coming in are Washington "insiders", meaning they can't possibly see or do things differently. My own starting point for this is the belief that in the years just ahead any sociopolitical entity organized at the giant scale will flounder - this includes everything from the federal government to global corporations to factory farms to centralized high schools to national retail chains. So even expecting Mr Obama's government to act effectively may be asking too much in a situation that will require mostly local action. The meta-situation will be the overall decline of energy resources and the necessary downscaling of our activities. We are obviously in a transitional period between the old profligate energy economy and the new economy of relative scarcity. We have no idea how disorderly this transition will be, but there is certainly potential for tremendous instability in daily life. For a while, perhaps, the federal government may retain some ability to affect the way things go, or give the appearance of doing so. This raises the issue of what Mr Obama and his team really know about our energy predicament. The president-elect has made some noises - recently on the 60 Minutes show - that he understands something about the current price dislocations in the oil markets resulting from the larger financial turmoil. He alluded to the public's erroneous notion that current low-ish oil prices mean the oil problem is over. But does the incoming president know some of the following details? For instance, does Mr O know that global oil production appears to have peaked at around 85 million barrels a day, with poor prospects of ever getting beyond that? This single naked fact has broad ramifications, above all whether we can continue to think in terms of industrial "growth" as the benchmark for economic health. There are many interpretations of the current financial fiasco. Some of them are based on long-term technical wave theories. A more down-to-earth view suggests the shock of peak oil - though it doesn't exclude wave theories. Does Mr O know that world oil discovery has fallen to insignificant levels after peaking long ago in the 1960s? Does he know we are finding no more super-giant oil fields on the scale of Arabia's Ghawar or Mexico's Cantarell, which have supplied most of the world's oil for the past forty years and are now running down? Does he know that you can't produce oil that hasn't been discovered? Does Mr O know that virtually all the oil-producing nations have entered production decline. Surely someone has whispered in his ear about the IEA's projection that global oil production would fall 9.1 percent in the coming year. Does Mr O know that oil exports have been trending to decline at a steeper rate than oil depletion? That is, the exporting nations are losing their ability to send oil to the importers (like us) at a rate mathematically greater than the run-down in their production.They are using more of their own oil even while their production is going down. For example, Mexico is depleting overall at more than nine percent a year (with the Cantarell field alone running down at more than fifteen percent annually). Does he know Mexico's net exports are crashing? Mexico has been our number three leading source of imports. In a very few years they will not be able to send us any oil. A deluded American public has no idea that this is happening. Will Mr O explain it to them? Does Mr O know that the "old major" oil companies (Exxon-Mobil, Texaco, Shell, et al) produce less than ten percent of the world's oil now - the other ninety percent coming from the foreign nationals - and that blaming them for the situation is a waste of time. The foreign national companies are changing the landscape of the oil markets. They're making special contracts with "favored customers" rather than just putting their oil up for auction on the futures markets. One thing you can infer from this is that we're entering a period of national oil hoarding based on coming scarcity. The futures markets were based on relative abundance, and they will not operate very well in a climate of scarcity. Consider that the USA will probably not be among the "favored customers" for several oil producing nations. Figure that in with the coming loss of imports from Mexico (and Venezuela and Nigeria). Does Mr O know that the current drop in oil prices (due to massive financial deleveraging) has resulted in the cancellation or postponment of the very oil production projects that were hoped to offset the coming depletions? It's not worth it for an oil enterprise (private or foreign) to drill in deepwater or venture into arctic regions when oil is priced at $50-a-barrel - if it costs $80 to get the stuff out of the ground. It's not worth digging up tar sands in Canada at that price. This halt in activity is going to boomerang back on the US in a year or so, with depletions ongoing everywhere and no new oil to take its place. Does Mr O know that we're just as likely to see shortages as a resuming rise in oil prices here in the US during his coming term? Does Mr O know that the current re-inflation program being run by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve is so egregious that it may lead to loss of the dollar's legitimacy, to the renunciation of dollar holdings by other nations, to the down-rating of US Treasury debt instruments, and finally to an inability of the US to purchase foreign oil - which comprises two-thirds of all the oil we use every day? Does Mr O know that we are not going to run the US automobile and truck fleet on any combination of alt.fuels? Continuing it by other means is a fantasy that will only disappoint us. The motoring era is coming to an end. Heroic investments in highway infrastructure to create jobs will be a tragic waste of our dwindling capital. The pressure for Mr O to make these misinvestments will be enormous, perhaps insurmountable. There are probably not a thousand people in the US who agree with what I am saying - meaning the consensus to keep the cars running at all costs overwhelms reality at the moment. Does Mr O's concept of "change" include the possibility that we may have to live very differently in this society? Chances are, if Mr O knows any of these things he might be crucified in the polls and the media by acknowledging them. The only "change" that America really wants to hear about is evicting George Bush from the White House. They're sick of him and all the disturbance he has caused in their financial affairs. But beyond that, the American public is deathly afraid of the kind of changes we actually face - such as, the end of consumer culture, the gross loss of value in suburban real estate (which forms the bulk of the middle class's private wealth), the prospect of food and fuel scarcities, the need to re-localize our lives, the need to physically shape up to stop the costly and unnecessary drain on our medical resources, to grow more of our own food, to work harder at things that actually matter, and to save whatever we can for a difficult future. If Mr O introduces any of these themes into the national discourse, the public and the media and the bloggers will all dump on him for failing to prop up the wild party that American life became in recent decades. _____ My new novel of the post-oil future, World Made By Hand, is available at all booksellers. http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2008/12/does-mr-o-know.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Dec 2 07:31:00 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:31:00 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Tell Congress Message-ID: <49350059.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> in solidarity jim ____________________________________ Sent: 11/28/2008 12:04:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time Subj: Tell Congress: Save Autoworker Jobs Save Autoworker Jobs! Your urgent help is needed to help save the millions of jobs that are connected to America's auto industry. Allowing America's auto industry to fall into bankruptcy punishes workers and retirees for past management misjudgments, and would be a disaster for the country - especially in this deepening economic crisis. Congressional leaders have said they will consider emergency assistance to the domestic auto industry. But a new vote will be required, and we must continue to build support to save jobs. You can take action at: http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/autoworkers/5sxwn2h7t38nkt? From Nov. 24 through Dec. 7, most lawmakers are back in their home states or districts, meeting with constituents. The following week, December 7-13, groups across the country are mobilizing for a "People's Bailout" (http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/epaYzP11LcF-/) including an economic stimulus package, restoration of the middle class through collective bargaining, ending foreclosures and other measures to address the economic crisis. The American auto industry has been central to building America?s middle class. Preventing its collapse, and investing in its reform, should be an important part of a broader economic recovery program. Congress needs to hear from all of us - now. Without immediate government aid, one or more automakers could fail, costing millions of jobs, putting thousands of small and medium-sized businesses at risk, threatening health and pension benefits for retirees, and causing enormous damage to our economy. For background from the Economic Policy Institute, see: http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/e7aYzP11LcFF/ For United Auto Workers talking points see here: http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/d1aYzP11LcFJ/ You can take action on this alert via the web at: http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/autoworkers/5sxwn2h7t38nkt? Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this. http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/autoworkers/forward/5sxwn2h7t38nkt? We encourage you to take action by December 25, 2008 Save Autoworker Jobs! INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPOND VIA THE WEB: If you have access to a web browser, you can take action on this alert by going to the following URL: http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/autoworkers/5sxwn2h7t38nkt? Your letter will be addressed and sent to: Your Congressperson Your Senators ----THIS LETTER WILL BE SENT IN YOUR NAME---- Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here], The workers, retirees and small businesses that depend on America's auto industry need your help right away. GM, Ford and Chrysler need an immediate $25 billion bridge loan to help them weather the current severe credit and economic crises. Without this assistance, these companies will run out of cash and be forced to cease all manufacturing and business operations. Allowing these companies to collapse would be an economic disaster. Congress bailed out Wall Street - it's time to put people first and focus on the Main Street economy, including investing in manufacturing jobs while encouraging a long-term plan for a revitalized and sustainable American auto industry. I urge you to vote for this greatly needed assistance. Thank you for considering my views on this critically important issue. ----END OF LETTER TO BE SENT---- Sincerely, jim pita This message was sent to pitairis at aol.com. To modify your email communication preferences or update your personal profile, visit your subscription management page at: http://www.unionvoice.org/jobswithjustice/smp.tcl?nkey=5sxwn2h7t38nkt& To stop ALL email from Jobs with Justice, reply via email with "remove or unsubscribe" in the subject line, or use the following link: http://www.unionvoice.org/jobswithjustice/remove-domain-direct.tcl?ctx=center& nkey=5sxwn2h7t38nkt& This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Dec 2 07:55:48 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:55:48 -0500 Subject: [A-List] . DIVISION OF THE WORLD AMONG CAPITALIST ASSOCIATIONS Message-ID: <49350629.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> V. DIVISION OF THE WORLD AMONG CAPITALIST ASSOCIATIONS Monopolist capitalist associations, cartels, syndicates and trusts first divided the home market among themselves and obtained more or less complete possession of the industry of their own country. But under capitalism the home market is inevitably bound up with the foreign market. Capitalism long ago created a world market. As the export of capital increased, and as the foreign and colonial connections and ?spheres of influence? of the big monopolist associations expanded in all ways, things ?naturally? gravitated towards an international agreement among these associations, and towards the formation of international cartels. This is a new stage of world concentration of capital and production, incomparably higher than the preceding stages. Let us see how this supermonopoly develops. The electrical industry is highly typical of the latest technical achievements and is most typical of capitalism at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries. This industry has developed most in the two leaders of the new capitalist countries, the United States and Germany. In Germany, the crisis of 1900 gave a particularly strong impetus to its concentration. During the crisis, the banks, which by that time had become fairly well merged with industry, enormously accelerated and intensified the ruin of relatively small firms and their absorption by the large ones. ?The banks,? writes Jeidels, ?refused a helping hand to the very firms in greatest need of capital, and brought on first a frenzied boom and then the hopeless failure of the companies which had not been connected with them closely enough.? [1] As a result, after 1900, concentration in Germany progressed with giant strides. Up to 1900 there had been seven or eight ?groups? in the electrical industry. Each consisted of several companies (altogether there were 28) and each was backed by from 2 to 11 banks. Between 1908 and 1912 all these groups were merged into two, or one. The following diagram shows the process: GROUPS IN THE ELECTRICAL INDUSTRY Prior to 1900: Felten & Lahmeyer; Guillaume | | Union A.E.G. | | Siemens Schuckert & Halske & Co. | Berg- mann | Kum- mer | | | Felten & Lahmeyer |_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ | A.E.G. (G.E.C.) _-_-_-_-_-_-_-| | | Siemens & Halske- Schuckert |_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ | | Berg- man _-_-_-_-_-| | | Failed in 1900 By 1912: A.E.G. (G.E.C.) Siemens & Halske Schuckert (in close "co-operation" since 1908) The famous A.E.G. (General Electric Company), which grew up in this way, controls 175 to 200 companies (through the ?holding? system), and a total capital of approximately 1,500 million marks. Of direct agencies abroad alone, it has thirty-four, of which twelve are joint-stock companies, in more than ten countries. As early as 1904 the amount of capital invested abroad by the German electrical industry was estimated at 233 million marks. Of this sum, 62 million were invested in Russia. Needless to say, the A.E.G. is a huge ?combine??its manufacturing companies alone number no less than sixteen?producing the most diverse articles, from cables and insulators to motor-cars and flying machines. But concentration in Europe was also a component part of the process of concentration in America, which developed in the following way: General Electric Company United States: Thomas-Houston Co. establishes a firm in Europe Edison Co. establishes in Eu- rope the French Edison Co. which transfers its patents to the German firm Germany: Union Electric Co. General Electric Co. (A.E.G.) Thus, two electrical ?great powers? were formed: ?there are no other electrical companies in the world completely independent of them,? wrote Heinig in his article ?The Path of the Electric Trust?. An idea, although far from complete, of the turnover and the size of the enterprises of the two ?trusts? can be obtained from the following figures: Turnover (000,000 marks) Number of employees Net profits (000,000 marks) America: General Electric Co: (G.E.C) 1907 1910 252 298 28,000 32,000 35.4 45.6 Germany: General Electric Co: (A.E.G.) 1907 1911 216 362 30,700 60,800 14.5 21.7 And then, in 1907, the German and American trusts concluded an agreement by which they divided the world between them. Competition between them ceased. The American General Electric Company (G.E.C.) ?got? the United States and Canada. The German General Electric Company (A.E.G.) ?got? Germany, Austria, Russia, Holland, Denmark, Switzerland, Turkey and the Balkans. Special agreements, naturally secret, were concluded regarding the penetration of ?daughter companies? into new branches of industry, into ?new? countries formally not yet allotted. The two trusts were to exchange inventions and experiments. [2] The difficulty of competing against this trust, actually a single world-wide trust controlling a capital of several thousand million, with ?branches?, agencies, representatives, connections, etc., in every corner of the world, is self-evident. But the division of the world between two powerful trusts does not preclude redivision if the relation of forces changes as a result of uneven development, war, bankruptcy, etc. An instructive example of an attempt at such a redivision, of the struggle for redivision, is provided by the oil industry. ?The world oil market,? wrote Jeidels in 1905, ?is even today still divided between two great financial groups?Rockefeller?s American Standard Oil Co., and Rothschild and Nobel, the controlling interests of the Russian oilfields in Baku. The two groups are closely connected. But for several years five enemies have been threatening their monopoly? [3] : (1) the exhaustion of the American oilfields; (2) the competition of the firm of Mantashev of Baku; (3) the Austrian oilfields; (4) the Rumanian oilfields; (5) the overseas oilfields, particularly in the Dutch colonies (the extremely rich firms, Samuel, and Shell, also connected with British capital). The three last groups are connected with the big German banks, headed by the huge Deutsche Bank. These banks independently and systematically developed the oil industry in Rumania, for example, in order to have a foothold of their ?own?. In 1907, the foreign capital invested in the Rumanian oil industry was estimated at 185 million francs, of which 74 million was German capital. [4] A struggle began for the ?division of the world?, as, in fact, it is called in economic literature. On the one hand, the Rockefeller ?oil trust? wanted to lay its hands on everything; it formed a ?daughter company? right in Holland, and bought up oilfields in the Dutch Indies, in order to strike at its principal enemy, the Anglo-Dutch Shell trust. On the other hand, the Deutsche Bank and the other German banks aimed at ?retaining? Rumania ?for themselves? and at uniting her with Russia against Rockefeller. The latter possessed far more capital and an excellent system of oil transportation and distribution. The struggle had to end, and did end in 1907, with the utter defeat of the Deutsche Bank, which was confronted with the alternative: either to liquidate its ?oil interests? and lose millions, or submit. It chose to submit, and concluded a very disadvantageous agreement with the ?oil trust?. The Deutsche Bank agreed ?not to attempt anything which might injure American interests?. Provision was made, however, for the annulment of the agreement in the event of Germany establishing a state oil monopoly. Then the ?comedy of oil? began. One of the German finance kings, von Gwinner, a director of the Deutsche Bank, through his private secretary, Stauss, launched a campaign for a state oil monopoly. The gigantic machine of the huge German bank and all its wide ?connections? were set in motion. The press bubbled over with ?patriotic? indignation against the ?yoke? of the American trust, and, on March 15, 1911, the Reichstag, by an almost unanimous vote, adopted a motion asking the government to introduce a bill for the establishment of an oil monopoly. The government seized upon this ?popular? idea, and the game of the Deutsche Bank, which hoped to cheat its American counterpart and improve its business by a state monopoly, appeared to have been won. The German oil magnates already saw visions of enormous profits, which would not be less than those of the Russian sugar refiners.... But, firstly, the big German banks quarrelled among themselves over the division of the spoils. The Disconto-Gesellschaft exposed the covetous aims of the Deutsche Bank; secondly, the government took fright at the prospect of a struggle with Rockefeller, for it was very doubtful whether Germany could be sure of obtaining oil from other sources (the Rumanian output was small); thirdly, just at that time the 1913 credits of a thousand million marks were voted for Germany?s war preparations. The oil monopoly project was postponed. The Rockefeller ?oil trust? came out of the struggle, for the time being, victorious. The Berlin review, Die Bank, wrote in this connection that Germany could fight the oil trust only by establishing an electricity monopoly and by converting water-power into cheap electricity. ?But,? the author added, ?the electricity monopoly will come when the producers need it, that is to say, when the next great crash in the electrical industry is imminent, and when the gigantic, expensive power stations now being put up at great cost everywhere by private electrical concerns, which are already obtaining certain franchises from towns, from states, etc., can no longer work at a profit. Water-power will then have to be used. But it will be impossible to convert it into cheap electricity at state expense; it will also have to be handed over to a ?private monopoly controlled by the state?, because private industry has already concluded a number of contracts and has stipulated for heavy compensation.... So it was with the nitrate monopoly, so it is with the oil monopoly, so it will be with the electric power monopoly. It is time our state socialists, who allow themselves to be blinded by a beautiful principle, understood, at last, that in Germany the monopolies have never pursued the aim, nor have they had the result, of benefiting the consumer, or even of handing over to the state part of the promoter?s profits; they have served only to facilitate, at the expense of the state, the recovery of private industries which were on the verge of bankruptcy. [5] Such are the valuable admissions which the German bourgeois economists are forced to make. We see plainly here how private and state monopolies are interwoven in the epoch of finance capital; how both are but separate links in the imperialist struggle between the big monopolists for the division of the world. In merchant shipping, the tremendous development of concentration has ended also in the division of the world. In Germany two powerful companies have come to the fore: the Hamburg-Amerika and the Norddeutscher Lloyd, each having a capital of 200 million marks (in stocks and bonds) and possessing shipping tonnage to the value of 185 to 189 million marks. On the other hand, in America, on January 1, 1903, the International Mercantile Marine Co., known as the Morgan trust, was formed; it united nine American and British steamship companies, and possessed a capital of 120 million dollars (480 million marks). As early as 1903, the German giants and this American-British trust concluded an agreement to divide the world with a consequent division of profits. The German companies undertook not to compete in the Anglo-American traffic. Which ports were to be ?allotted? to each was precisely stipulated; a joint committee of control was set up, etc. This agreement was concluded for twenty years, with the prudent provision for its annulment in the event of war. [6] Extremely instructive also is the story of the formation of the International Rail Cartel. The first attempt of the British, Belgian and German rail manufacturers to form such a cartel was made as early as 1884, during a severe industrial depression. The manufacturers agreed not to compete with one another in the home markets of the countries involved, and they divided the foreign markets in the following quotas: Great Britain, 66 per cent; Germany, 27 per cent; Belgium, 7 per cent. India was reserved entirely for Great Britain. Joint war was declared against a British firm which remained outside the cartel, the cost of which was met by a percentage levy on all sales. But in 1886 the cartel collapsed when two British firms retired from it. It is characteristic that agreement could not be achieved during subsequent boom periods. At the beginning of 1904, the German steel syndicate was formed. In November 1904, the International Rail Cartel was revived, with the following quotas: Britain, 53.5 per cent; Germany, 28.83 per cent; Belgium, 17.67 per cent. France came in later and received 4.8 per cent, 5.8 per cent and 6.4 per cent in the first, second and third year respectively, over and above the 100 per cent limit, i.e., out of a total of 104.8 per cent, etc. In 1905, the United States Steel Corporation entered the cartel; then Austria and Spain. ?At the present time,? wrote Vogelstein in 1910, ?the division of the world is complete, and the big consumers, primarily the state railways?since the world has been parcelled out without consideration for their interests?can now dwell like the poet in the heavens of Jupiter.? [7] Let me also mention the International Zinc Syndicate which was established in 1909 and which precisely apportioned output among five groups of factories: German, Belgian, French, Spanish and British; and also the International Dynamite Trust, which, Liefmann says, is ?quite a modern, close alliance of all the German explosives manufacturers who, with the French and American dynamite manufacturers, organised in a similar manner, have divided the whole world among themselves, so to speak?. [8] Liefmann calculated that in 1897 there were altogether about forty international cartels in which Germany had a share, while in 1910 there were about a hundred. Certain bourgeois writers (now joined by Karl Kautsky, who has completely abandoned the Marxist position he had held, for example, in 1909) have expressed the opinion that international cartels, being one of the most striking expressions of the internationalisation of capital, give the hope of peace among nations under capitalism. Theoretically, this opinion is absolutely absurd, while in practice it is sophistry and a dishonest defence of the worst opportunism. International cartels show to what point capitalist monopolies have developed, and the object of the struggle between the various capitalist associations. This last circumstance is the most important; it alone shows us the historico-economic meaning of what is taking place; for the forms of the struggle may and do constantly change in accordance with varying, relatively specific and temporary causes, but the substance of the struggle, its class content, positively cannot change while classes exist. Naturally, it is in the interests of, for example, the German bourgeoisie, to whose side Kautsky has in effect gone over in his theoretical arguments (I shall deal with this later), to obscure the substance of the present economic struggle (the division of the world) and to emphasise now this and now another form of the struggle. Kautsky makes the same mistake. Of course, we have in mind not only the German bourgeoisie, but the bourgeoisie all over the world. The capitalists divide the world, not out of any particular malice, but because the degree of concentration which has been reached forces them to adopt this method in order to obtain profits. And they divide it ?in proportion to capital?, ?in proportion to strength?, because there cannot be any other method of division under commodity production and capitalism. But strength varies with the degree of economic and political development. In order to understand what is taking place, it is necessary to know what questions are settled by the changes in strength. The question as to whether these changes are ?purely? economic or non-economic (e.g., military) is a secondary one, which cannot in the least affect fundamental views on the latest epoch of capitalism. To substitute the question of the form of the struggle and agreements (today peaceful, tomorrow warlike, the next day warlike again) for the question of the substance of the struggle and agreements between capitalist associations is to sink to the role of a sophist. The epoch of the latest stage of capitalism shows us that certain relations between capitalist associations grow up, based on the economic division of the world; while parallel to and in connection with it, certain relations grow up between political alliances, between states, on the basis of the territorial division of the world, of the struggle for colonies, of the ?struggle for spheres of influence?. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes [1] Jeidels, op. cit., S. 232. ?Lenin [2] Riesser, op. cit.; Diouritch, op. cit., p. 239; Kurt Heinig, op. cit. ?Lenin [3] Jeidels, op. cit., S. 192-93. ?Lenin [4] Diouritch, op. cit., pp. 245-46. ?Lenin [5] Die Bank, 1912, 1, S. 1036; 1912, 2, S. 629; 1913, 1, S. 388. ?Lenin [6] Riesser, op. cit., S. 125. ?Lenin [7] Vogelstein, Organisationsformen, S. 100. ?Lenin [8] Liefmann, Kartelle und Trusts, 2. A., S. 161. ?Lenin This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Dec 2 10:22:37 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:22:37 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Nationalize GM Message-ID: <4935288D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-neil2-2008dec02,0,5617845.story December 2, 2008 Los Angeles Times Nationalize GM By Dan Neil The federal government should buy GM. We can run it, then sell it at a profit once it recovers. At the moment, D.C. and Detroit are brooding on a Morton's Fork: Watch the American automakers auger in and take hundreds of thousands of jobs with them, or bail out these failed and incorrigible companies whose management so richly deserves whatever hell (flying coach?) awaits them. Tops on the critics' list of grievances is Detroit's failure to anticipate the inevitable. Why didn't these companies sufficiently invest in next-generation technology -- fuel-efficient small cars, high-mileage hybrids, plug-ins and all-electric vehicles -- that could help wean the U.S. off foreign oil and take the automobile out of the climate-change equation? As the auto executives again bring their begging bowl to Congress, a consensus is forming: No bailout unless Detroit builds greener cars. From my perch, as someone who drives all of the Big Three's North American product offerings, I think a lot of the anger is reflexive and misplaced. Detroit makes some amazing cars, and anyone who thinks otherwise should hold a Corvette ZR1 to his head and pull the trigger. The Ford F-150 pickup I drove last week flat-out humbles rivals from Toyota or Nissan. Considering that the domestic carmakers are shouldering titanic "legacy" costs -- it's estimated that $2,000 in healthcare, pension and employee post-retirement benefits are baked into the price of every UAW-built vehicle -- just being competitive in any segment is a signal achievement. Nonetheless, the question remains: What to do about the domestic automakers? My modest proposal: Nationalize GM. To be clear, I mean that the federal government should buy GM; forget rathole loans or nonvoting equity shares. The company's stockholder value has been essentially wiped out. The company's enterprise value -- the lock, stock and forklift price -- is about $32 billion; its total debt is $45 billion. Let's make GM an offer. If you feel the gall of free-market ideology rising, consider that the measures being bruited about as preconditions for a bailout -- firing GM's top management; forcing a bankruptcy-like renegotiation of contracts with the UAW, suppliers and dealers (it has too many); and creating a czar of product development to force the building of green cars -- are nationalization in all but name. I say embrace it. GM-USA. Here are the benefits of nationalization: GM's fundamental problem is that it's too big -- and expecting it to fix itself in exchange for a $10-billion to $15-billion loan (its share of the vaunted $25-billion bailout) or magically right-size in Chapter 11 is foolhardy. It would take too long, cost too much and bankruptcy, should it come, would send customers running for the hills. Time is of the essence. Congress, writing a GM law and using federal power to abrogate contracts, could achieve at least some of these goals at a stroke. GM is full of talent and potential. The company spent $8.1 billion on research and development last year, second only to Toyota. Of all the carmakers, GM is closest to commercializing a full-size, four-door, plug-in electric vehicle, the Volt, due in the fourth quarter of 2010. The Volt should travel about 40 miles in all-electric mode before requiring the services of its onboard, gas-powered generator. Many owners could go weeks before they used any gasoline. This is precisely the sort of car that environmental and energy security advocates have been clamoring for. GM's business is growing in other parts of the world; it's only the North American operations that are killing the company. This is a corporation that had $181 billion in revenue and sold 9.4 million vehicles in 2007. To put it another way: GM, though distressed, looks like a good investment. Also, the federal government can sell the company -- at a profit -- once it's righted and sailing forward again. GM is competing with companies that are quasi-national now. If you consider the advantages the government of Japan has bestowed on Toyota, Nissan and Honda -- in terms of healthcare and retirement benefits for its employees -- the unevenness of the field is clear. The same goes for most European companies, and the rising rivals in China will enjoy similar state-subsidized advantages. The government can afford long-term planning. Many of GM's strategic missteps -- such as betting large on trucks and SUVs and not investing early in hybrid technology -- were the result of willful shortsightedness at the board level, responding to a financial market in which shareholders look for the quick return. Putting Uncle Sam in charge would fundamentally enlarge the return-on-investment horizon. We need government-sized automotive help anyway. This country should be putting millions of plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles on the road. As far as I can tell, without big subsidies, there is no way in the near term to build these vehicles and make a reasonable profit, due to the stubbornly high cost of advanced batteries. Besides, if GM were owned by the government, it wouldn't spend time and money litigating and lobbying against clean-air and safety rules Why not pick up Ford and Chrysler too? If Chrysler goes south, it's too small to drag down the rest of the domestic auto industry. Ford, which has been pursuing its "Way Forward" cost-cutting plan for more than two years, will probably survive the moment without government assistance, though it's going to be close. To be sure, the yard marks of democratic capitalism have moved under us in recent months. Last week, the feds announced that the government would take a $20-billion stake in Citigroup and guarantee hundreds of billions in risky assets, a move that would have seemed pure socialism had we not lived through the last few months. Have we not in effect nationalized the mortgage-loan industry? I say, let's avoid the euphemisms and have the courage of our supercharged Keynesian convictions. By nationalizing GM, we can aim the company's astonishing resources at one of the biggest public-policy problems we have: oil. Restructured and refocused, GM could build green vehicles by the millions in a few years and still have the capacity to build gasoline- and diesel-powered pickups (which we'll still need) ... and maybe even some Corvettes on the side. Dan Neil is The Times' automotive critic. dan.neil at latimes.com This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Tue Dec 2 12:03:38 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:03:38 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Nationalize GM In-Reply-To: <4935288D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <4935288D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <4935868A.8030502@gmail.com> They already get enough money from the government to build machines that KILL... and they're STILL bankrupt... Fuck 'Em! *price as tested $3 million (est)* Specifications, Where, and How Much? Although the LAV has a long and heroic history, the latest version is a joint venture between General Motors and General Dynamics and Systems, with most of the technology research and design coming out of the manufacturing facility in London, Ontario, Canada. Over the next seven years, the overall contract could be worth as much as $4 billion and will need to equip six brigade combat teams (up to 2131 vehicles). The basic platform costs about $1 million without the turret, $1.75 million with the turret, and about $4 million with the full electronics and weapons package. The LAV III is currently being built in London, Ontario, Canada; Lima, Ohio; Aniston, Mississippi; and in Switzerland. general specifications location of final assembly london, ontario, canada body style 4-door, 11-pass epa-size class n/a drivetrain layout front engine, 8wd airbags none powertrain engine type caterpillar 3126 i-6, cast-iron block, head displacement 7.2l compression ratio 18.9:1 fuel induction direct injection sae horsepower, hp @ rpm 350 @ 2800 sae torque, lb-ft @ rpm 580 @ 1400 transmission type 6-speed allison md3560 p rpm @ 60 mph 3200 axle ratio 2.42:1 transfer-case model gm corp. high-range ratio 0.86:1 low-range ratio 1.31:1 recommended fuel diesel dimensions/capacities wheelbase, in 185.0 length, in 283.0 width, in 103.2 height, in 103.0 total volume, cu ft 250.0 ground clearance, in 18.0 approach & departure angle, deg 40/36 base curb weight, lb 31,000 payload capacity, lb 6500 gvwr, lb 38,000 gcwr, lb 50,000 towing capacity, lb 10,000 fuel capacity, gal 65 chassis suspension, f/r 8-wheel independent, hydropneumatic, w/height management steering type power w/ground-driven pump turns, lock to lock 3.7 turning circle, ft 55.8 brakes, f/r abs rear 3 axles tires 1200 r20 ctis sound level @ 55 mph loud price base price $1 million (est) options too many to list price as tested $3 million (est) http://www.motortrend.com/features/travel/163_0112_gm_defense_stryker/specs.html Charles Brown wrote: > http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-neil2-2008dec02,0,5617845.story > > December 2, 2008 > Los Angeles Times > > Nationalize GM > By Dan Neil > > The federal government should buy GM. We can run it, then sell it at a > profit once it recovers. > > At the moment, D.C. and Detroit are brooding on a Morton's Fork: Watch > the American automakers auger in and take hundreds of thousands of jobs > with them, or bail out these failed and incorrigible companies whose > management so richly deserves whatever hell (flying coach?) awaits > them. > > Tops on the critics' list of grievances is Detroit's failure to > anticipate the inevitable. Why didn't these companies sufficiently > invest in next-generation technology -- fuel-efficient small cars, > high-mileage hybrids, plug-ins and all-electric vehicles -- that could > help wean the U.S. off foreign oil and take the automobile out of the > climate-change equation? As the auto executives again bring their > begging bowl to Congress, a consensus is forming: No bailout unless > Detroit builds greener cars. > > From my perch, as someone who drives all of the Big Three's North > American product offerings, I think a lot of the anger is reflexive and > misplaced. Detroit makes some amazing cars, and anyone who thinks > otherwise should hold a Corvette ZR1 to his head and pull the trigger. > The Ford F-150 pickup I drove last week flat-out humbles rivals from > Toyota or Nissan. Considering that the domestic carmakers are > shouldering titanic "legacy" costs -- it's estimated that $2,000 in > healthcare, pension and employee post-retirement benefits are baked > into the price of every UAW-built vehicle -- just being competitive in > any segment is a signal achievement. > > Nonetheless, the question remains: What to do about the domestic > automakers? My modest proposal: Nationalize GM. > > To be clear, I mean that the federal government should buy GM; forget > rathole loans or nonvoting equity shares. The company's stockholder > value has been essentially wiped out. The company's enterprise value -- > the lock, stock and forklift price -- is about $32 billion; its total > debt is $45 billion. Let's make GM an offer. > > If you feel the gall of free-market ideology rising, consider that the > measures being bruited about as preconditions for a bailout -- firing > GM's top management; forcing a bankruptcy-like renegotiation of > contracts with the UAW, suppliers and dealers (it has too many); and > creating a czar of product development to force the building of green > cars -- are nationalization in all but name. I say embrace it. GM-USA. > > Here are the benefits of nationalization: > > GM's fundamental problem is that it's too big -- and expecting it to > fix itself in exchange for a $10-billion to $15-billion loan (its share > of the vaunted $25-billion bailout) or magically right-size in Chapter > 11 is foolhardy. It would take too long, cost too much and bankruptcy, > should it come, would send customers running for the hills. Time is of > the essence. Congress, writing a GM law and using federal power to > abrogate contracts, could achieve at least some of these goals at a > stroke. > > GM is full of talent and potential. The company spent $8.1 billion on > research and development last year, second only to Toyota. Of all the > carmakers, GM is closest to commercializing a full-size, four-door, > plug-in electric vehicle, the Volt, due in the fourth quarter of 2010. > The Volt should travel about 40 miles in all-electric mode before > requiring the services of its onboard, gas-powered generator. Many > owners could go weeks before they used any gasoline. This is precisely > the sort of car that environmental and energy security advocates have > been clamoring for. > > GM's business is growing in other parts of the world; it's only the > North American operations that are killing the company. This is a > corporation that had $181 billion in revenue and sold 9.4 million > vehicles in 2007. To put it another way: GM, though distressed, looks > like a good investment. Also, the federal government can sell the > company -- at a profit -- once it's righted and sailing forward again. > GM is competing with companies that are quasi-national now. If you > consider the advantages the government of Japan has bestowed on Toyota, > Nissan and Honda -- in terms of healthcare and retirement benefits for > its employees -- the unevenness of the field is clear. The same goes > for most European companies, and the rising rivals in China will enjoy > similar state-subsidized advantages. > > The government can afford long-term planning. Many of GM's strategic > missteps -- such as betting large on trucks and SUVs and not investing > early in hybrid technology -- were the result of willful > shortsightedness at the board level, responding to a financial market > in which shareholders look for the quick return. Putting Uncle Sam in > charge would fundamentally enlarge the return-on-investment horizon. > > We need government-sized automotive help anyway. This country should be > putting millions of plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles on the road. > As far as I can tell, without big subsidies, there is no way in the > near term to build these vehicles and make a reasonable profit, due to > the stubbornly high cost of advanced batteries. Besides, if GM were > owned by the government, it wouldn't spend time and money litigating > and lobbying against clean-air and safety rules > > Why not pick up Ford and Chrysler too? If Chrysler goes south, it's too > small to drag down the rest of the domestic auto industry. Ford, which > has been pursuing its "Way Forward" cost-cutting plan for more than two > years, will probably survive the moment without government assistance, > though it's going to be close. > > To be sure, the yard marks of democratic capitalism have moved under us > in recent months. Last week, the feds announced that the government > would take a $20-billion stake in Citigroup and guarantee hundreds of > billions in risky assets, a move that would have seemed pure socialism > had we not lived through the last few months. Have we not in effect > nationalized the mortgage-loan industry? > > I say, let's avoid the euphemisms and have the courage of our > supercharged Keynesian convictions. By nationalizing GM, we can aim the > company's astonishing resources at one of the biggest public-policy > problems we have: oil. Restructured and refocused, GM could build green > vehicles by the millions in a few years and still have the capacity to > build gasoline- and diesel-powered pickups (which we'll still need) ... > and maybe even some Corvettes on the side. > > Dan Neil is The Times' automotive critic. dan.neil at latimes.com > > > > > > > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com > > > From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Dec 2 12:30:57 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:30:57 -0500 Subject: [A-List] A green light ,amid the gloom of the recession ... Message-ID: <493546A0.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> http://metrotimes.com/news/story.asp?id=13482 A green light Amid the gloom of the recession ... By Curt Guyette The stock market continues to nosedive. Major financial institutions have crumpled and retirement funds are evaporating. There's no end in sight to the foreclosure pandemic that hit southeast Michigan before most other areas. The Big Three automakers are frantically trying to fend off collapse. With millions of manufacturing jobs lost already, the immediate future holds the dismal promise of unemployment lines swelling even more. But in the gloom, some see a shining green beacon, showing the way ahead. "This is the future," says Oakland County Commissioner Jim Nash, a longtime proponent of green development strategies. The way he sees it, amid all the negative trends that have combined to create economic disaster, another convergence also under way offers hope. Describing what he calls "a sort of perfect storm, but in a good way," Nash and others point to four factors: No. 1: widespread realization that continued dependence on Middle Eastern oil poses a clear economic and national security threat to the United States. No. 2: the financial imperative to reduce energy costs at all levels. No. 3: acceptance that climate change must be addressed by reducing use of carbon-based fuels. All three points demand a change in the way this nation deals with its energy issues. Add to this mix No. 4: a new president who has made investment in green technology and energy efficiency a top priority - with a promised investment of $150 billion over the next 10 years - and there's no doubt change is coming, Nash says. What remains to be seen is whether this beleaguered region will catch the rising green tide quickly enough to become a leader. "We were the Arsenal of Democracy," observes Nash. "There's no reason we can't be the arsenal in the fight against global warming. But if we don't do it, we are going to be buying this new technology from Germany and Japan." And this is no longer an issue of environmentalists always fighting an uphill battle against those who see them as a threat to economic development. As researchers from Duke University's Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness noted in a report released last week: "While some seek to pit the environment against economic growth, we see economic opportunity in the solutions to the climate crisis. Many business analysts agree. They believe the economic leaders of tomorrow will be companies that manage their resources efficiently and take the lead in developing and commercializing innovative clean technologies. These will also be the companies most able to create well-paying jobs and ensure that current jobs are secure. The demand for climate solutions will create - very directly - manifold job opportunities in many sectors, from core industries such as renewable and energy efficiency businesses to traditional areas such as construction trades, pipefitting and electrical jobs. Equally important, though, is the vast supporting cast of industries that make these low carbon end products possible." The Duke report described Michigan as being well-poised to mass manufacture solar technology. "U.S. auto production has the capacity to produce over 19 million vehicles [a year], but only about 15 million of the current capacity is being used," the report noted. Another report, this one by the Renewable Energy Policy Project, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit, states that "by virtue of its industrial base, Michigan stands to benefit from the increased demand for renewable technology." The way Oakland County's Nash sees it, there is a snowball effect to promoting a green economy, with local governments being in a particularly good position to get efforts rolling. A commitment to pursue energy-efficient building construction and renovation provides jobs and encourages manufacturers to locate in areas where they know their products will be in high demand. The hope is that a partnership of school districts and local colleges, units of local government and the private sector can be a catalyst for change. Nash and fellow members of the newly formed Regional Sustainability Partnership - which includes Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties and the city of Detroit - need look no further than Grand Rapids for an example of a comprehensive, sustainable philosophy of economic development at work. A city of fewer than 200,000 residents, Grand Rapids has leveraged its reputation as one of America's greenest cities to help spur growth. With a model that's been recognized by the United Nations, the city obtains 20 percent of its power from renewable resources and has a goal of 100 percent by 2020. As reported in the magazine Fast Company, the municipal government's energy use has been cut by more than 10 percent, the public transportation fleet features hybrid buses, and the city leads the nation in highly energy-efficient buildings per capita. And it's not just government. As the business magazine pointed out, local corporations such as office-furniture manufacturers Steelcase and Herman Miller "here, in the heart of the Rust Belt, are leading the greenification charge." The companies are turning "eco-friendly in the belief that reducing the environmental cost of commerce will raise their profits" and "boost the regional economy." It is a philosophy that's working. Grand Rapids' Renaissance Zone (where tax breaks are offered to spur business development) "has become the most successful in Michigan" and "continues to lead the state with the number of new Renaissance Zone projects," according to the city's website. Over the past 10 years, the zone has attracted investments totaling more than $250 million. As the Free Press recently reported: "When Mayor George Heartwell looks out his office window, he sees an unusual sight in Michigan: a skyline full of construction cranes. "The city is experiencing a building boom, and it's green. Four of the five giant new projects rising downtown are green-built." Those are the kinds of headlines Nash wants to see being written about southeast Michigan, which is why he was a strong proponent of establishing the Regional Sustainability Partnership, which is modeled on the Grand Rapids effort. A key part of the plan is to help local governments pursue higher energy-efficiency standards and promote the use of green technology, says Nash. Although the up-front costs might be higher, going green provides tremendous savings in the long run, says Nash. He points to Ann Arbor, which replaced its conventional street lights with energy efficient LED lights at a cost of $3 million but with the potential of saving $1 million a year on electricity. By helping local units of government to conduct energy audits and obtain grants to help pay for projects, the partnership seeks to both help save taxpayer dollars and promote job growth. He talks about solar panels and wind turbines, electric and hybrid vehicles, advanced water treatment systems and mass transit, pollution control technology and energy efficient products ranging from windows to refrigerators. Whether it is at a company making LED lights or installing upgraded installations, there are jobs to be had by going green. And by cooperating on a regional basis, the chance of obtaining those jobs improves. Kathryn Underwood, a staff member at the Detroit Planning Commission who focuses on sustainability issues, helped spur creation of Regional Sustainability Partnership, which will have its first meeting in January. Energy efficiency, especially, is a "no-brainer," she says. "It is something everyone - the city, the counties, municipalities, businesses, households - can grasp." And if you get everyone on board and moving in the same direction, you increase your potential for creating jobs. "If government takes leadership, we can start encouraging folks [from the private sector] to come in and start doing economic development," she says. There's also the chance of another spin-off benefit: "It's not an issue that's rife with a lot of controversy. If we, as a region, can come together and cooperate on this, it paves the way for the region to come together on more difficult issues, like transit." "I see the bleakness as a canvas," she says. It's a canvas open to the prospect of being painted over in bright green. She adds, "I see a lot of reason to hope." Curt Guyette is Metro Times news editor. Contact him at 313-202-8004 or cguyette at metrotimes.com. Comments On 12/1/2008 12:52:33 PM, DetroitGlenn said: Grand Rapids is a great example of the wide range of benefits from going Green. But when is Detroit going to wake up to this? We have been working hard to shut down the giant trash incinerator and move to curbside recycling. This would be a great start to new businesses, technological development and more jobs in Detroit. But Mayor Cockrel is dragging his feet. And where are the questions for the other mayoral candidates. Why aren?t the citizens demanding this from the candidates? It is our city. Let?s take it back and be leaders of the new Green Cities not followers. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From critical.montages at gmail.com Tue Dec 2 12:59:00 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:59:00 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Lost in the Desert Message-ID: Lost in the Desert by Yoshie Furuhashi To the peacemakers who want us to travel half the way with BHO. . . . In a book of Persian proverbs I find: ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????? This one kills with a sword, That one, with cotton. Wisdom of the ages Abandoned by wanderers Lost in the desert To whom Even an old shoe Is a gift from God. Yoshie Furuhashi is editor of MRZine. She is indebted to Mojtaba Aghamohammadi for the two proverbs used in this poem. From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Tue Dec 2 13:17:22 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:17:22 -0800 Subject: [A-List] A green light ,amid the gloom of the recession ... In-Reply-To: <493546A0.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <493546A0.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <493597D2.8030805@gmail.com> Charles Brown wrote: > http://metrotimes.com/news/story.asp?id=13482 > > A green light > Amid the gloom of the recession ... > > > "We were the Arsenal of Democracy," observes Nash. "There's no reason we can't be the arsenal in the fight against global warming. But if we don't do it, we are going to be buying this new technology from Germany and Japan." Sorry to inform you that we're going to end up using that arsenal of democracy (ROTFLMMFAO!) to defend ourselves from all the enemies we've made everywhere our combat boots have touched the ground over the last 60 or more years... along with allocating every last drop of oil, oil tar, coal, shale, whatever burns, clean or filthy... to that same defense. The global economy this guy visualizes is in critical-care, on life-support, and unlikely to survive. Take Japan... It's industrial economy is already deceased, and Germany, running on imported labor/refugees from war-torn countries in the region is gasping it's last breath of industrially stenched air. It IS significant that this rube didn't mention China in his perusal of where the next industrial economy to stick a knife in America's bloated economic belly is REALLY located and that omission shows how little he truly knows about the issue he's spewing about. Just another 'HOPE'... and "Hope is effortless. Thus, hope is still the order of the day." "We just concluded an election in which both parties talked about hope, one more so than the other. Hope, that murky, undefined belief that some unknown force, perhaps Jesus, or modern science, or some great political leader, or other -- as yet unknown force -- will reverse our national or personal condition... will deliver us from what every bit of evidence indicates is irreversible, if not politically, then ecologically: Decline and eventual collapse. There is quite a difference between hope and understanding the facts, then holding justified optimism. Hope is magical thinking, a sucker?s game. Politicians the world 'round fully understand this. Consequently, we go into a new year with millions of Americans still clinging to The Audacity of Hope. And we do so because we are victims of learned helplessness, learned from the cradle as it is rocked by the foot of the Capitalist consumer state. Sure we can hope for movement away from domination of the weak by the arrogant, away from ecocide and genocide toward a better world. What the hell, hope is one of the few free activities in this society. We don?t even have to put down the remote and get off our asses to do it. In fact, its delivered through television. But the fact is that when we encounter in-the-flesh examples of any merciful movement -- even through television -- we blanch and erect a wall of denial and excuses for our refusal to support that thing. Consider how the American public and the media (is there a difference?) responded to Rachel Cory, who willingly died under the Israeli bulldozer protecting the home of a non-partisan Palestinian village doctor. The U.S. media all but ignored her. What few of the public knew of Cory?s sacrifice were at first nonplussed, then deemed it a bizarre and stupid act. But even most Americans who did know joined the Larry Kings of the world in backhandedly mocking her. Moral conviction scares the hell out of us. Hope is effortless. Thus, hope is still the order of the day. --Joe Bageant " http://www.worldnewstrust.com/wnt-reports/commentary/the-sucker-bait-called-hope-making-the-best-of-a-slow-apocalypse-joe-bageant.html From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Dec 2 13:26:39 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:26:39 -0500 Subject: [A-List] change immigrants and labor can believe in References: <4935322A.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <493553AE.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Hi Charles -- Thanks for forwarding me the comment, and thank Mr. Wright for me for making a thoughtful and serious response. He is right that many of the laws allowing for increased detentions and deportations were passed during the Clinton years. Some, like employer sanctions, which is one of the most basic, go all the way back to the Immigration Reform and Control Act, passed in 1986 under Reagan. I would never deny this history, and Wright is correct to point out that anti-immigrant repression hardly started under Bush. I would never give Clinton a pass on immigration enforcement and deportations, and wrote many articles during that administration attacking IRAIRA and the other anti-inmigrant programs started during those years. I exposed Operation Vanguard in Nebraska in 98, and the effort to concentrate on "internal enforcement," which targeted workplaces and immigrant communities far from the border for enforcement actions. I exposed the fact that under Clinton SSA began sending out no-match letters leading to the firing of thousands of immigrants, and attacks on their union-organizing efforts. I attacked the efforts begun under Clinton to expand guest worker programs, and the political deals cooked up by Henry Cisneros and others to buy off part of the immigrant rights movement. These are all on my website, if anyone wants to take a look, and are also covered in my new book, Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants. That being said, there has been a change under Bush. Immigration enforcement has become much more systematized and more vicious. Operation Streamline, for instance -- the Federal court that processes now 100 border crossers a day and sends them to Federal prison in chains, is only a year old. The massive wave of workplace raids actually began in the post 9/11 period with Operation Tarmac, and has been greatly expanded. And the actual number of detentions and deportations has increased greatly, along with the private prisons to house detainees. Under Bush, immigrants are now sent to Federal prison for crossing the border or giving a false SS number. Under Bush, the link between enforcement and the push for guest worker programs (begun under Clinton) has become so strong that no other proposals for immigration reform were even discussable in Congress in the last three years. It doesn't let Clinton off the hook to look closely at what the Bush administration has done. The danger is that, especially with Napolitano (a Clintonite, if there ever was one), not much will change. That's why there's such a cry for stopping the enforcement wave in the first 100 days. It's a litmus test. If we can't get the administration to move on this, then it's very unlikely we can get it to repeal the Bush anti-immigrant and anti-terrorism laws, much less IRAIRA and the Clinton Anti-Terrorism Act. And since the comprehensive proposals combining guest worker programs and more enforcement were at least as much Democratic ones as Republican, there is a great danger that this will become the reform program for the Obama administration. In Detroit people need to begin talking seriously with Conyers about this, since he's deferred to people like Luis Gutierrez, who's been one of the main Democrats pushing the comprehensive proposals. Conyers has also said that we need new guest worker programs. Jackson Lee may be something of a wild card, but she had much better proposals over the last few years, and the Black Caucus should use her original bill as its starting point, not some recycled comprehensive reform program. David This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Dec 2 14:04:18 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:04:18 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Check out AFL-CIO NOW BLOG | Colombian Flower Workers Fired for Seeking Union References: Message-ID: <49355C88.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> AFL-CIO NOW BLOG | Colombian Flower Workers Fired for Seeking Union. You Can Help_ (http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/11/30/colombian-flower-workers-fired-for-seeking-union-you-can-help/) This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Dec 2 14:16:29 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:16:29 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Current economic crisis Message-ID: <49355F63.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Sam Webb: Current economic crisis If there were such a thing as an economic tsunami, I would say we are close to experiencing it. The housing crisis continues and shows no sign of ending; credit and money markets are still tight; the stock market gyrates while trending downward; unemployment climbs upward (sharply so in the communities of the nationally and racially oppressed) and will only get worse; wages are down and poverty is up; the level of indebtedness is astronomical and difficult to reduce in the near term. Consumer spending, the engine of economic growth in the 1990s, is tanking. State and local governments are cutting back sharply on services and jobs; deflation, which simply means falling prices over significant sectors of the economy, is a creeping and perilous danger; and financial markets have yet to stabilize as evidenced by the troubles of CitiGroup. In short, not since the Great Depression has the economy deteriorated so rapidly and broadly, leading many economists to predict that the downturn will be L-shaped, that is, deep and prolonged. What is more, the world economy is contracting. At one time the main unit of economic analysis was the national economy, but recent events and trends point to the fallacy of this notion. Looking at the economy and its prospects through strictly a national prism is conceptually mistaken and thus bound to lead to imperfect analysis and ineffective policy prescriptions. Financialization ? two-edged sword While the present turbulence was triggered by the collapse of financial markets, it is located first in the outgrowth of longer-term processes of capitalism that go back to the mid-1970s and the systemic imperatives of profit maximization and wage exploitation that are at its core. Thirty years ago U.S. capitalism was beset by seemingly intractable and contradictory problems ? high inflation and unemployment, declining confidence in the dollar as an international currency, new competitive rivals in Europe and Asia, a slowing of economic growth, and, above all, a falling profit rate. And all of these problems occurred in the context of and were shaped by overproduction in world commodity markets. Faced with this unraveling of the economy, a weakening of U.S. imperialism and a profitability crisis, then-chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker stepped into the breech and pushed up interest rates to record levels. This spike in interest rates sent unemployment rates to the highest level since the Great Depression, forced the closing of scores of manufacturing plants and a great number of family farms, brought incredible hardship to the working class, and especially African-American, Latino and other racially oppressed workers, and negatively impacted the global economy, particularly the developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. It also created, as we know too well, the conditions for a many-sided attack on labor and its allies, the likes of which hadn?t been seen since the pre-Depression era. At the same time (and of prime importance to Volker), it wrung inflation out of the economy, restored confidence in the dollar (investors are averse to holding dollars when inflationary pressures are eroding their value), attracted and redirected domestic and foreign capital abruptly and massively from the ?real? economy into financial channels where returns were higher. Volcker, as an experienced banker, knew that the problem wasn?t too little money capital, but rather too much and too few opportunities to invest and absorb that capital profitably in the ?real? economy. Once in financial channels, money capital stayed there, but not idly. Financial agents of capital (banks, investment houses, hedge funds, private equity firms and so on) intent on expanding their profits in a very competitive and permissive regulatory environment raced at breakneck speed into a massive buying and selling and borrowing and spending spree for the next three decades ? all of which led to an explosion of the financial sector in terms of employment, transactions, risky products, players and profits. In other words, financialization, which economist Gerald Epstein defines as a process in which ?financial motives, financial markets, financial actors and financial institutions come to play an increasing role in the operation of domestic and international economies? proceeded at a feverish pace and with a broad sweep. (In Financialization and the World Economy, Introduction, 2005) Capital that produces little, destroys much If the cause of financialization lies in the stagnation tendencies in the material goods sector of the U.S. economy and the weakening of the role of U.S. imperialism internationally, its lubricant is the production and reproduction, seemingly without end, of staggering amounts of debt ? corporate, consumer and government. Debt is as old as capitalism. But what is different in this period of financialization is that the production of debt and accompanying speculative excesses and bubbles were not simply passing moments at the end of a cyclical upswing, but essential to ginning up and sustaining investment and especially consumer demand in every phase of the cycle. Indeed, financialization grew to the point where it became the main determinant shaping the contours, structure, interrelations, evolution and dynamism of the national and world economy. Without speculative bubbles, generated by the federal government and Federal Reserve over the past 15 years in internet technology, then in the stock market, and most recently, in housing ? the performance of the U.S. and world economy would have been far worse. But, as we are painfully learning, financialization is a two-edged sword. While it stimulated the domestic and global economy and reflated the power of U.S. imperialism, it also left our nation with an astronomical pileup of debt; introduced enormous instability into the arteries of the U.S. and world economy; drained capital from private and public investment; contributed to jobless recoveries and heightened exploitation in the material goods sector of the economy; successfully engineered the biggest redistribution of wealth in our nation?s history to the upper crust of U.S. finance capital; made the U.S. economy dependent on the willingness of foreign investors to absorb massive amounts of debt in the form of short term government securities; and, finally, greased the wheels for a hard economic landing and a much deeper crisis on the down side of the economic cycle. In other words, the growth of the financial sector was a parasitic and temporary fix for a sluggish economy and a declining imperial power, but as events have shown, it could not forever mask and compensate for slow growth, deindustrialization, stagnant wages, jobless recoveries, heightened exploitation, and a declining role internationally. A Wal-Mart economy of low wages, meager benefits and mounting debt, even when combined with massive military spending, is unsustainable and eventually erupts into crisis. Of course, it took more than shock therapy in the form of high interest rates and then financialization to effect changes of this magnitude and usher in a new era of relentless attacks on the working class, the racially oppressed, women and other social groups. If Volcker struck the first blow, it was the Reagan administration, entering the White House less than a year later, and then successive administrations that were the main political agents of this upheaval in ideology, politics and economics. Reaganites ? main agents of neoliberalism At the ideological level, the Reaganites said that government is best that governs least, that markets are self-correcting and efficient, that wealth is distributed according to work performed, that income inequality is a good thing, that deregulation and privatization are the best cures for what ails the private and public sectors, and that tax cuts for the rich and wealthy trickle down to working people, thereby lifting all boats. But the Reaganites didn?t stop here. At the political-economic level, they dismantled the model of economic governance at the state and corporate level, a model that had its origins in the New Deal and was sustained and expanded by successive administrations in the next three decades. It rested on a measure of class compromise, societal obligations, union rights, formal equality and expansive macroeconomic policies that favored broadly shared prosperity. In its place, the Reaganites built another model of governance popularly called neoliberalism. Not only did this model facilitate a reassertion and consolidation of power by finance capital at the expense of other groupings of capital, but it also used its control of the state apparatus to encourage deindustrialization and off shoring of production, union busting, deregulation, low-wage labor, low inflation, trade liberalization, the shrinkage and privatization of the public sector, draconian control (to the degree possible) over cross-border movements of labor, the re-embedding of racist and sexist practices into the country?s political economy, massive wealth redistribution to the wealthiest families and corporations, a stronger dollar, and the restructuring of the state?s role and functions. This new model, combined with an increased readiness to use military power, was created for the purpose of strengthening the position of U.S. imperialism at home and abroad, radically changing the conditions of exploitation to the advantage of the transnational corporate class, and resubjugating the developing countries. But, as is said, the best laid plans of mice and men and often come to naught, at least in the long run. Offspring of capitalism The rise and fall of neoliberalism is organically connected to the underlying dynamics of capitalism. While each required hit men in the corridors of government and the suites of corporations and a set of institutions (the Federal Reserve Bank and the International Monetary Fund, for example) to grease the skids, it also is the indisputable offspring of capitalism?s internal laws and tendencies. Although an anti-capitalist strategy would be premature at the present conjuncture, the faith of millions of people in capitalism has been shaken. People might defend capitalism if challenged, but not with the same vigor and not without a sympathetic ear to measures that would curb the power and profits of transnational corporations. Did we hear any hue and cry coming from industrial centers when the federal government partially nationalized some banks? And, I?m sure, if the government insisted on ownership and control as a condition for assisting the auto companies, few working people would complain. Most would say, ?They messed up. Why give something and get nothing in return?? In short, the events of recent months and weeks constitute a profound defeat of capitalism ideologically, politically, and economically. From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Dec 2 14:30:40 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:30:40 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Dialogue Message-ID: <493562B6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Listmember Patrick Bond "schools" a comrade > Not at all. But your theory seems to generalize from a sample of 1, > the 1929-45 period of depression and war. You're STILL not reading Louis P's FAQs? Even after being so wrong on the question of financial crisis, comrade Doug? Try it here - http://www.marxmail.org/faq/financial_crisis.htm (a piece I did 9 years ago) - and you can get the other samples of accumulation cycles under Kism: 1815-48, 1873-96, 1917-48, and 1974-99. > ... Your notion of devalorization does that implicitly, by ignoring > the regional and sectoral ebb and flow, which can involve significant > devalorization without showing up in the aggregate stats. Of course that's the case. Harvey called this a partial devalorisation. But the point is that it doesn't have the effect of preparing the ground for a new round of accumulation, it's mainly a displacement not a resolution of the crisis. > ... Call it what you want, but speedup, outsourcing, wage cutting, > etc., are all pretty major structural changes. Read Das K and you'll see them as tried-and-tested *minor* responses ('absolute s.v. extraction') to crisis. Major structural changes occur with vast devalorisations and restructurings of social relations, not these adjustments at the margins. > ... Here again, another of my problems. A "spatio-temporal fix" sounds > a bit like three-card monte, some sort of confidence trick. But this > has been the history of capitalism for centuries - long-term growth in > the aggregates with a lot of regional and sectoral volatility under > the surface. If I weren't sick to death of the phrase, I'd say the > "s-t f" is just another way of saying "creative destruction." No, sometimes the 'fix' involves destruction, but often it doesn't. Often it entails a renewed source of bubbling (instead of surplus value extraction) as a source of profit-taking. These are quite basic aspects of Marxian poli econ that I hope you can become more acquainted with, comrade. Seriously. >> Indeed, because Keynesian capitalism failed to transform and instead >> adopted neoliberal fixes, the crisis tendencies were never properly >> resolved during the business cycle downturns, and instead the crises >> were managed and displaced... temporarily (as I've been trying to >> persuade you for about 20 years - and this year should have been >> persuasive, comrade!) > We still don't know how this is going to turn out, do we? And what if > it is a long, deep recession? You think the system will never recover > and grow again? When did I ever say that? Why would you assume such nonsense? The only reason 'the system never recover and grow again' is if a socialist revolution supplants it. And that doesn't seem likely in our lifetimes, does it. (Though it shouldn't stop us from working on it.) > ... The entire system of production and distribution has been > revolutionized by high tech. You may remember that I was once a > skeptic on the contribution of ICT to the productivity acceleration, > but I renounced my skepticism in the early 2000s. The evidence was > just too strong - Gordon, Jorgenson, Stiroh, Oliner, Sichel, etc. Or > ask Sam Gindin about what tech has done to the labor process in auto. If so, why do we have such extreme overaccumulation in the auto sector? I've talked lots with Sam about techo-fetishes ranging from informal sector calculators to financial instruments. But what, really, is qualitatively different? How did the high techery change the dynamic of accumulation and overaccumulation? Sam told me that financial sector activity added incredible amounts of efficiency - but it's all burning down now. I just don't see how you'd read the ICT investments as anything more than an amplification of our old friend the STF! > I'm glad you're turning to the valorisation/devalorisation framework. > But as you know, these were partial, not the kind of full-fledged > 1929-45 devalorisation required to clear away all the economic > deadwood and restart capital accumulation. > n=1 4 >> Yes, in addition to financial profiteering, the amplification of >> uneven development has been a major contributing force to the >> problems caused ultimately by overaccumulation. > Again, history of capitalism. Was English development a displacement > of a Dutch problem? Of the U.S. a displacement of an English problem? > Etc. Yes, quite right. History of capitalism: uneven/combined development. Geographical shifts in sites of valorisation/devalorisation. A strong case for historical-geographical materialism. Join us... >> Malaysia?s ambiguous capital controls. > Not socialist revolution, but a lot better than what happened to South > Korea. Finally we agree, com. (Though Korean workers are lots more ideologically advanced than Malaysian nationalists, you'd also admit.) > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Dec 2 15:11:42 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:11:42 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Interest-Bearing Capital Message-ID: <49356C53.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Capital Vol. III Part V. Division of Profit into Interest and Profit of Enterprise. Interest-Bearing Capital Chapter 21. Interest-Bearing Capital In our first discussion of the general, or average, rate of profit (Part II of this book) we did not have this rate before us in its complete form, the equalisation of profit appearing only as equalisation between industrial capitals invested in different spheres. This was supplemented in the preceding part, which dealt with the participation of merchant's capital in this equalisation, and also commercial profit. The general rate of profit and the average profit now appeared in narrower limits than before. It should be remembered in the course of our analysis that in any future reference to the general rate of profit or to average profit we mean this latter connotation, hence only the final form of average rate. And since this rate is the same for mercantile, as well as industrial, capital, it is no longer necessary, so far as this average profit is concerned, to make a distinction between industrial and commercial profit. Whether industrially invested in the sphere of production, or commercially in the sphere of circulation, capital yields the same average annual profit pro rata to its magnitude. Money ? here taken as the independent expression of a certain amount of value existing either actually as money or as commodities ? may be converted into capital on the basis of capitalist production, and may thereby be transformed from a given value to a self-expanding, or increasing, value. It produces profit, i.e., it enables the capitalist to extract a certain quantity of unpaid labour, surplus-product and surplus-value from the labourers, and to appropriate it. In this way, aside from its use-value as money, it acquires an additional use-value, namely that of serving as capital. Its use-value then consists precisely in the profit it produces when converted into capital. In this capacity of potential capital, as a means of producing profit, it becomes a commodity, but a commodity sui generis. Or, what amounts to the same, capital as capital becomes a commodity.[1] Suppose the annual average rate of profit is 20%. In that case a machine valued at ?100, employed as capital under average conditions and an average amount of intelligence and purposive effort, would yield a profit of ?20. A man in possession of ?100, therefore, possesses the power to make ?120 out of ?100, or to produce a profit of ?20. He possesses a potential capital of ?100. If he gives these ?100 to another for one year, so the latter may use them as real capital, he gives him the power to produce a profit of ?20 ? a surplus-value which costs this other nothing, and for which he pays no equivalent. If this other should pay, say, ?5 at the close of the year to the owner of the ?100 out of the profit produced, he would thereby pay the use-value of the ?100 ? the use-value of its function as capital, the function of producing a profit of ?20. The part of the profit paid to the owner is called interest, which is just another name, or special term, for a part of the profit given up by capital in the process of functioning to the owner of the capital, instead of putting it into its own pocket. It is plain that the possession of ?100 gives their owner the power to pocket the interest ? that certain portion of profit produced by means of his capital. If he had not given the ?100 to the other person, the latter could not have produced any profit, and could not at all have acted as a capitalist with reference to these ?100. [2] To speak here of natural justice, as Gilbart does (see note), is nonsense. The justice of the transactions between agents of production rests on the fact that these arise as natural consequences out of the production relationships. The juristic forms in which these economic transactions appear as wilful acts of the parties concerned, as expressions of their common will and as contracts that may be enforced by law against some individual party, cannot, being mere forms, determine this content. They merely express it. This content is just whenever it corresponds, is appropriate, to the mode of production. It is unjust whenever it contradicts that mode. Slavery on the basis of capitalist production is unjust; likewise fraud in the quality of commodities. The ?100 produce the profit of ?20 because they function as capital, be it industrial or mercantile. But the sine qua non of this function as capital is that they are expended as capital, i.e., are expended in purchasing means of production (in the case of industrial capital) or commodities (in the case of merchant's capital). But to be expended, they must be available. If A, the owner of the ?100, were either to spend them for personal consumption, or to keep them as a hoard, they could not have been invested as capital by B in his capacity of functioning capitalist. B does not expend his own capital, but A's; however, he cannot expend A's capital without A's consent. Therefore, it is really A who originally expends the ?100 as capital, albeit his function as capitalist is limited to this outlay of ?100 as capital. In respect to these ?100, B acts as capitalist only because A lends him the ?100, thus expending them as capital. Let us first consider the singular circulation of interest-bearing capital. We shall then secondly have to analyse the peculiar manner in which it is sold as a commodity, namely loaned instead of relinquished once and for all. The point of departure is the money which A advances to B. This may be done with or without security. The first-named form, however, is the more ancient, save advances on commodities or paper, such as bills of exchange, shares, etc. These special forms do not concern us at this point. We are dealing here with interest-bearing capital in its usual form. In B's possession the money is actually converted into capital, passes through M ? C ? M' and returns to A as M', as M+DM, where DM represents the interest. For the sake of simplicity we shall not consider here the case, in which capital remains in B's possession for a long term and interest is paid at regular intervals. The movement, therefore, is M ? M ? C ? M' ? M'. What appears duplicated here, is 1) the outlay of money as capital, and 2) its reflux as realised capital, as M' or M+DM. In the movement of merchant's capital, M ? C ? M', the same commodity changes hands twice, or more than twice, if merchant sells to merchant. But every such change of place of the same commodity indicates a metamorphosis, a purchase or sale of the commodity, no matter how often the process may be repeated, until it enters consumption. On the other hand, the same money changes hands twice in C ? M ? C, but this indicates the complete metamorphosis of the commodity, which is first converted into money and then from money back into another commodity. But in interest-bearing capital the first time M changes hands is by no means a phase either of the commodity metamorphosis, or of reproduction of capital. It first becomes one when it is expended a second time, in the hands of the active capitalist who carries on trade with it, or transforms it into productive capital. M's first change of hands does not express anything here, beyond its transfer from A to B ? a transfer which usually takes place under certain legal forms and stipulations. This double outlay of money as capital, of which the first is merely a transfer from A to B, is matched by its double reflux. As M', or M + DM, it flows back out of the process to B, the person acting as capitalist. The latter then transfers it back to A, but together with a part of the profit, as realised capital, as M + DM, in which DM is not the entire profit, but only a portion of the profit ? the interest. It flows back to B only as what he had expended, as functioning capital, but as the property of A. To make its reflux complete, B must consequently return it to A. But in addition to the capital, B must also turn over to A a portion of the profit, a part which goes under the name of interest, which he had made with this capital since A had given him the money only as a capital, i.e., as value which is not only preserved in its movement, but also creates surplus-value for its owner. It remains in B's hands only so long as it is functioning capital. And with its reflux ? on the stipulated date ? it ceases to function as capital. When no longer acting as capital, however, it must again be returned to A, who had never ceased being its legal owner. The form of lending, which is peculiar to this commodity, to capital as commodity, and which also occurs in other transactions instead of that of sale, follows from the simple definition that capital obtains here as a commodity, or that money as capital becomes a commodity. A distinction should be made here. We have seen (Book II, Chap. I), and recall briefly at this point, that in the process of circulation capital serves as commodity-capital and money-capital. But in neither form does capital become a commodity as capital. As soon as productive capital turns into commodity-capital it must be placed on the market to be sold as a commodity. There it acts simply as a commodity. The capitalist then appears only as the seller of commodities, just as the buyer is only the buyer of commodities. As a commodity the product must realise its value, must assume its transmuted form of money, in the process of circulation by its sale. It is also quite immaterial for this reason, whether this commodity is bought by a consumer as a necessity of life, or by a capitalist as means of production, i.e., as a component part of his capital. In the act of circulation commodity-capital acts only as a commodity, not as a capital. It is commodity-capital, as distinct from an ordinary commodity, 1) because it is weighted with surplus-value, the realisation of its value, therefore, being simultaneously the realisation of surplus-value; but this alters nothing about its simple existence as a commodity, as a product with a certain price; 2) because its function as a commodity is a phase in its process of reproduction as capital, and therefore its movement as a commodity being only a partial movement of its process, is simultaneously its movement as capital. Yet it does not become that through the sale as such, but only through the connection of the sale with the whole movement of this specific quantity of value in the capacity of capital. In the same way as money-capital it really acts simply as money, i.e., as a means of buying commodities (the elements of production). The fact that this money is simultaneously money-capital, a form of capital, does not emerge from the act of buying, the actual function which it here performs as money, but from the connection of this act with the total movement of capital, since this act, performed by capital as money, initiates the capitalist production process. But in so far as they actually function, i.e., actually play a role in the process, commodity-capital acts here only as a commodity and money-capital only as money. At no time during the metamorphosis, viewed by itself, does the capitalist sell his commodities as capital to the buyer, although to him they represent capital; nor does he give up money as capital to the seller. In both cases be gives up his commodities simply as commodities, and money simply as money, i.e., as a means of purchasing commodities. It is only in connection with the entire process, at the moment where the point of departure appears simultaneously as the point of return, in M ? M' or C ? C', that capital in the process of circulation appears as capital (whereas in the process of production it appears as capital through the subordination of the labourer to the capitalist and the production of surplus value). In this moment of return, however, the connection disappears. What we have then is M', or M + DM, a sum of money equal to the sum originally advanced plus an increment ? the realised surplus-value (regardless of whether the amount of value increased by DM exists in the form of money, or commodities, or elements of production). And it is precisely at this point of return where capital exists as realised capital, as an expanded value, that it never enters the circulation in this form ? in so far as this point is fixed as a point of rest, whether real or imaginary ? but rather appears to have been withdrawn from circulation as a result of the whole process. Whenever it is again expended, it is never given up to another as capital, but is sold to him as an ordinary commodity, or given to him as ordinary money in exchange for commodities. It never appears as capital in its process of circulation, only as commodity or money, and at this point this is the only form of its existence for others. Commodities and money are here capital not because commodities change into money, or money into commodities, not in their actual relations to sellers or buyers, but only in their ideal relations to the capitalist himself (subjectively speaking), or as phases in the process of reproduction (objectively speaking). Capital exists as capital in actual movement, not in the process of circulation, but only in the process of production, in the process by which labour-power is exploited. The matter is different with interest-bearing capital, however, and it is precisely this difference which lends it its specific character. The owner of money who desires to enhance his money as interest-bearing capital, turns it over to a third person, throws it into circulation, turns it into a commodity as capital; not just capital for himself, but also for others. It is not capital merely for the man who gives it up, but is from the very first given to the third person as capital, as a value endowed with the use-value of creating surplus-value, of creating profit; a value which preserves itself in its movement and returns to its original owner, in this case the owner of money, after performing its function. Hence it leaves him only for a specified time, passes but temporarily out of the possession of its owner into the possession of a functioning capitalist, is therefore neither given up in payment nor sold, but merely loaned, merely relinquished with the understanding that, first, it shall return to its point of departure after a definite time interval, and, second, that it shall return as realised capital ? a capital having realised its use-value, its power of creating surplus-value. Commodities loaned out as capital are loaned either as fixed or as circulating capital, depending on their properties. Money may be loaned out in either form. It may be loaned as fixed capital, for instance, if it is paid back in the form of an annuity, whereby a portion of the capital flows back together with the interest. Certain commodities, such as houses, ships, machines, etc., can be loaned out only as fixed capital by the nature of their use-values. Yet all loaned capital, whatever its form, and no matter how the nature of its use-value may modify its return, is always only a specific form of money-capital. Because what is loaned out is always a definite sum of money, and it is this sum on which interest is calculated. Should whatever is loaned out be neither money nor circulating capital, it is also paid back in the way fixed capital returns. The lender periodically receives interest and a portion of the consumed value of the fixed capital itself, this being an equivalent for the periodic wear and tear. And at the end of the stipulated term the unconsumed portion of the loaned fixed capital is returned in kind. If the loaned capital is circulating capital, it is likewise returned in the manner peculiar to circulating capital. The manner of reflux is, therefore, always determined by the actual circuit described by capital in the act of reproduction and by its specific varieties. But as for loaned capital, its reflux assumes the form of return payments, because its advance, by which it is transferred, possesses the form of a loan. In this chapter we treat only of actual money-capital, from which the other forms of loaned capital are derived. The loaned capital flows back in two ways. In the process of reproduction it returns to the functioning capitalist, and then its return repeats itself once more as transfer to the lender, the money-capitalist, as return payment to the real owner, its legal point of departure. In the actual process of circulation, capital appears always as a commodity or as money, and its movement always is broken up into a series of purchases and sales. In short, the process of circulation resolves itself into the metamorphosis of commodities. It is different, when we consider the process of reproduction as a whole. If we start out with money (and the same is true if we start out with commodities, since we begin with their value, hence view them sub specie as money), we shall see that a certain sum of money is expended and returns after a certain period with an increment. The advanced sum of money returns together with a surplus-value. It has remained intact and increased in making a certain cycle. But now, being loaned out as capital, money is loaned as just the sum of money which preserves and expands itself, which returns after a certain period with an increment, and is always ready to perform the same process over again. It is expended neither as money nor as a commodity, thus, neither exchanged against a commodity when advanced in the form of money, nor sold in exchange for money when advanced as a commodity; rather, it is expended as capital. This relation to itself, in which capital presents itself when the capitalist production process is viewed as a whole and as a single unity, and in which capital appears as money that begets money, is here imparted to it as its character, its designation, without any intermediary movement. And it is relinquished with this designation when loaned out as money-capital. A queer conception of the role of money-capital is hold by Proudhon (Gratuit? du Cr?dit. Discussion entre M. F. Bastiat et M. Proudhon, Paris, 1850). Loaning seems an evil to Proudhon because it is not selling. Loaning for an interest is "the faculty of selling the same article over and over again, and of receiving its price again and again, without once relinquishing ownership of the object which is being sold" (p. 9). [The cited words belong to Cheve, one of the editors of the newspaper La Voix du peuple, and the author of the "first letter" in the book Gratuit? du Cr?dit. Discussion entre M. F. Bastiat et M. Proudhon, Paris, 1850. ? Ed] The object ? money, a house, etc. ? does not change owners as in selling and buying. But Proudhon does not see that no equivalent is received in return for money given away in the form of interest-bearing capital. True, the object is given away in every act of buying and selling, so far as there are processes of exchange at all. Ownership of the sold article is always relinquished. But its value is not given up. In a sale the commodity is given away, but not its value, which is returned in the form of money, or in what is here just another form of it ? promissory notes, or titles of payment. When purchasing, the money is given away, but not its value, which is replaced in the form of commodities. The industrial capitalist retains the same value in his hands throughout the process of reproduction (excluding surplus-value), but in different forms. Inasmuch as there is an exchange, i.e., an exchange of articles, there is no change in the value. The same capitalist always retains the same value. But so long as surplus-value is produced by the capitalist, there is no exchange. As soon as an exchange occurs, the surplus-value is already incorporated in the commodities. If we view the entire circuit made by capital, M ? C ? M', rather than individual acts of exchange, we shall see that a definite amount of value is continually advanced, and that this same amount plus surplus-value, or profit, is withdrawn from circulation. The actual acts of exchange do not, at any rate, reveal how this process is promoted. And it is precisely this process of M as capital, on which the interest of the money-lending capitalist rests, and from which it is derived. "In fact," says Proudhon, "the hat-maker, who sells hats, receives their value, neither more nor less. But the money-lending capitalist ... does not recover just his capital, he recovers more than his capital, more than he throws into the exchange; he receives an interest over and above his capital" (p. 69). Here the hatter represents the productive capitalist as distinct from the loan capitalist. Proudhon has obviously failed to grasp the secret of how the productive capitalist can sell commodities at their value (equalisation through prices of production is here immaterial to his conception) and receive a profit over and above the capital he flings into exchange. Suppose the price of production of 100 hats = ?115, and that this price of production happens to coincide with the value of the hats, which means that the capital producing the hats is of the same composition as the average social capital. Should the profit = 15%, the hatter makes a profit of ?15 by selling his commodities at their value of ?115. They cost him only ?100. If he produced them with his own capital, he pockets the entire surplus of ?15 but if with borrowed capital, he may have to give up ?5 as interest. This alters nothing in the value of the hats, only in the distribution among different persons of the surplus-value already contained in this value. Since, therefore, the value of the hats is not affected by the payment of interest, it is nonsense on Proudhon's part to say: "As in commerce the interest on capital is added to the wages of labourers in making up the price of commodities, it is impossible for the labourer to buy back the product of his own labour. Vivre en travaillant is a principle which contains a contradiction under the rule of interest" (p. 105). [3] How little Proudhon understood the nature of capital is shown in the following statement, in which he describes the movement of capital in general as a movement peculiar to interest-bearing capital: "Since money-capital returns to its source from exchange through the accumulation of interest, it follows that reinvestment always made by the same individual continually brings profit to the same person," p. 154. What is it that still puzzles him in the peculiar movement of interest-bearing capital? The categories: buying, price, giving up articles, and the immediate form in which surplus-value appears here; in short, the phenomenon that capital as such has become a commodity, that selling, consequently, has turned into lending and price into a share of the profit. The return of capital to its point of departure is generally the characteristic movement of capital in its total circuit. This is by no means a feature of interest-bearing capital alone. What singles it out is rather the external form of its return without the intervention of any circuit. The loaning capitalist gives away his capital, transfers it to the industrial capitalist, without receiving any equivalent. His transfer is not an act belonging to the real circulation process of capital at all. It serves merely to introduce this circuit, which is effected by the industrial capitalist. This first change of position of money does not express any act of the metamorphosis ? neither buying nor selling. Ownership is not relinquished, because there is no exchange and no equivalent is received. The return of the money from the hands of the industrial capitalist to those of the loaning capitalist merely supplements the first act of giving away the capital. Advanced in the form of money, the capital again returns to the industrial capitalist through the circular process in the form of money. But since it did not belong to him when he invested it, it cannot belong to him on its return. Passing through the process of reproduction cannot by any means turn the capital into his property. He must therefore restore it to the lender. The first expenditure, which transfers the capital from the lender to the borrower, is a legal transaction which has nothing to do with the actual process of reproduction. It is merely a prelude to this process. The return payment, which again transfers the capital that has flowed back from the borrower to the lender is another legal transaction, a supplement of the first. One introduces the actual process, the other is an act supplementary to this process. Point of departure and point of return, the giving away and the recovery of the loaned capital, thus appear as arbitrary movements promoted by legal transactions, which take place before and after the actual movement of capital and have nothing to do with it as such. It would have been all the same as concerns this actual movement if the capital had from the first belonged to the industrial capitalist and had returned to him, therefore, as his own. In the first introductory act the lender gives his capital to the borrower. In the supplemental and closing act the borrower returns the capital to the lender. As concerns the transaction between these two ? and aside from the interest for the present ? as concerns the movement of the loaned capital between lender and borrower, therefore, the two acts (separated by a longer or shorter time interval, during which the actual reproduction process of the capital takes place) embrace the entire movement. And this movement, disposing on condition of returning, constitutes per se the movement of lending and borrowing, that specific form of conditionally alienating money or commodities. The characteristic movement of capital in general, the return of the money to the capitalist, i.e., the return of capital to its point of departure, assumes in the case of interest-bearing capital a wholly external appearance, separated from the actual movement, of which it is a form. A gives away his money not as money, but as capital. No transformation occurs in the capital. It merely changes hands. Its real transformation into capital does not take place until it is in the hands of B. But for A it becomes capital as soon as he gives it to B. The actual reflux of capital from the processes of production and circulation takes place only for B. But for A the reflux assumes the same form as the alienation. The capital returns from B to A. Giving away, i.e., loaning money for a certain time and receiving it back with interest (surplus-value) is the complete form of the movement peculiar to interest-bearing capital as such. The actual movement of loaned money as capital is an operation lying outside the transactions between lender and borrower. In these the intermediate act is obliterated, invisible, not directly included. A special sort of commodity, capital has its own peculiar mode of alienation. Neither does its return, therefore, express itself as the consequence and result, of some definite series of economic processes, but as the effect of a specific legal agreement between buyer and seller. The time of return depends on the progress of the process of reproduction; in the case of interest-bearing capital, its return as capital seems to depend on the mere agreement between lender and borrower. So that in regard to this transaction the return of capital no longer appears as a result arising out of the process of reproduction; it appears as if the loaned capital never lost the form of money. To be sure, these transactions are really determined by the actual reproductive returns. But this is not evident in the transaction itself. Nor is it by any means always the case in practice. If the actual return does not take place in due time, the borrower must look for other resources to meet his obligations vis-?-vis the lender. The bare form of capital ? money expended as a certain sum, A, which returns as sum A + 1/x A after a given lapse of time without any other intermediate act save this lapse of time ? is only a meaningless form of the actual movement of capital. In the actual movement of capital its return is a phase in the process of circulation. The money is first converted into means of production; production transforms them into commodities; through sale of the commodities they are reconverted into money and return in this form into the hands of the capitalist who had originally advanced the capital in the form of money. But in the case of interest-bearing capital, the return, like alienation, is the result of a legal transaction between the owner of the capital and a second party. We see only the alienation and the return payment. Whatever passes in the interim is obliterated. But since money advanced as capital has the property of returning to the person who advanced it, to the one who expended it as capital, and since M ? C ? M' is the immanent form of the movement of capital, the owner of the money can, for this very reason, loan it out as capital, as something that has the property of returning to its point of departure, of preserving, and increasing, its value in the course of its movement. He gives it away as capital, because it returns to its point of departure after having been employed as capital, hence can be restored by the borrower after a certain period precisely because it has come back to him. Loaning money as capital ? its alienation on the condition of it being returned after a certain time-presupposes, therefore, that it will be actually employed as capital, and that it actually flows back to its starting-point. The real cycle made by money as capital is, therefore, the premise for the legal transaction by which the borrower must return the money to the lender. If the borrower does not use the money as capital, that is his own business. The lender loans it as capital, and as such it is supposed to perform the functions of capital, which include the circuit of money-capital until it returns to its starting-point in the form of money. The acts of circulation, M ? C and C ? M', in which a certain amount of value functions as money or commodities, are but intermediate processes, mere phases of the total movement. As capital, it performs the entire movement M ? M'. It is advanced as money or a sum of values in one form or another, and returns as a sum of values. The lender of money does not expend it in purchasing commodities, or, if this sum of values is in commodity-form, does not sell it for money. He advances it as capital, as M ? M', as a value, which returns to its point of departure after a certain term. He lends instead of buying or selling. This lending, therefore, is the appropriate form of alienating value as capital, instead of alienating it as money or commodities. It does not follow, however, that lending cannot also take the form of transactions which have nothing to do with the capitalist process of reproduction. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have so far only considered the movements of loaned capital between its owner and the industrial capitalist. Now we must inquire into interest. The lender expends his money as capital; the amount of value, which he relinquishes to another, is capital, and consequently returns to him. But the mere return of it would not be the reflux of the loaned sum of value as capital, but merely the return of a loaned sum of value. To return as capital, the advanced sum of value must not only be preserved in the movement but must also expand, must increase in value, i.e., must return with a surplus-value, as M + DM, the latter being interest or a portion of the average profit, which does not remain in the hands of the operating capitalist, but falls to the share of the money-capitalist. The fact that the latter has relinquished it as capital implies that it must be restored to him as M + DM. Later, we shall also have to turn our attention to the form in which interest is paid in the meantime at fixed intervals, but without the capital, whose return follows at the end of a lengthy period. What does the money-capitalist give to the borrower, the industrial capitalist? What does he really turn over to him? It is only this act of handing over money which changes lending money into alienation of money as capital, i.e., alienation of capital as a commodity. It is only by this act of alienating that capital is loaned by the money-lender as a commodity, or that the commodity at his disposal is given to another as capital. What is alienated in an ordinary sale? Not the value of the sold commodity, for this merely changes its form. The value exists ideally in a commodity as its price before it actually passes as money into the hands of the seller. The same value and the same amount of value merely change their form. In the one instance they exist in commodity-form, in the other in the form of money. What is really alienated by the seller, and, therefore, passes into the individual or productive consumption of the buyer, is the use-value of the commodity ? the commodity as a use-value. What, now, is the use-value which the money-capitalist gives up for the period of the loan and relinquishes to the productive capitalist ? the borrower? It is the use-value which the money acquires by being capable of becoming capital, of performing the functions of capital, and creating a definite surplus-value, the average profit (whatever is above or below it appears here as a mere accident) during its process, besides preserving its original magnitude of value. In the case of the other commodities the use-value is ultimately consumed. Their substance disappears, and with it their value. In contrast, the commodity-capital is peculiar in that its value and use-value not only remain intact but also increase, through consumption of its use-value. It is this use-value of money as capital ? this faculty of producing an average profit ? which the money-capitalist relinquishes to the industrial capitalist for the period, during which he places the loaned capital at the latter's disposal. Money thus loaned has in this respect a certain similarity with labour-power in its relation to the industrial capitalist. With the difference that the latter pays for the value of labour-power, whereas he simply pays back the value of the loaned capital. The use-value of labour-power for the industrial capitalist is that labour-power creates more value (profit) in its consumption than it possesses itself, and than it costs. This additional value is use-value for the industrial capitalist. And in like manner the use-value of loaned capital appears as its faculty of begetting and increasing value. The money-capitalist, in fact, alienates a use-value, and thus whatever he gives away is given as a commodity. It is to this extent that the analogy with a commodity per se is complete. In the first place, it is a value which passes from one hand to another. In the case of an ordinary commodity, a commodity as such, the same value remains in the hands of the buyer and seller, only in different forms; both have the same value which they had before the transaction, and which they had alienated ? the one in the form of a commodity, the other in the form of money. The difference is that in a loan the money-capitalist is the only one in the transaction who gives away value; but he preserves it through the prospective return. In the loan transaction just one party receives value, since only one party relinquishes value. ? In the second place, a real use-value is relinquished on the one side, and received and consumed on the other. But in contrast to ordinary commodities this use-value is value in itself, namely the excess over the original value realised through the use of money as capital. The profit is this use-value. The use-value of the loaned money lies in its being able to serve as capital and, as such, to produce the average profit under average conditions.[4] What, now, does the industrial capitalist pay, and what is, therefore, the price of the loaned capital? "That which men pay as interest for the use of what they borrow" is, according to Massie, "a part of the profit it is capable of producing," 1. c., p. 49. [5] What the buyer of an ordinary commodity buys is its use-value; what he pays for is its value. What the borrower of money buys is likewise its use-value as capital; but what does he pay for? Surely not its price, or value, as in the case of ordinary commodities. No change of form occurs in the value passing between borrower and lender, as occurs between buyer and seller when it exists in one instance in the form of money, and in another in the form of a commodity. The sameness of the alienated and returned value is revealed here in an entirely different way. The sum of value, i.e., the money, is given away without an equivalent, and is returned after a certain period. The lender always remains the owner of the same value, even after it passes from his hands into those of the borrower. In an ordinary exchange of commodities money always comes from the buyer's side; but in a loan it comes from the side of the seller. He is the one who gives away money for a certain period, and the buyer of capital is the one who receives it as a commodity. But this is only possible as long as the money acts as capital and is therefore advanced. The borrower borrows money as capital, as a value producing more value. But at the moment when it is advanced it is still only potential capital, like any other capital at its starting-point, the moment it is advanced. It is only through its employment that it expands its value and realises itself as capital. However, it has to be returned by the borrower as realised capital, hence as value plus surplus-value (interest). And the latter can only be a portion of the realised profit. Only a portion, not all of it. For the use-value of the loaned capital to the borrower consists in producing profit for him. Otherwise there would not have been any alienation of use-value on the lender's part. On the other hand, not all the profit can fall to the borrower's share. Otherwise he would pay nothing for the alienated use-value, and would return the advanced money to the lender as ordinary money, not as capital, as realised capital, for it is realised capital only as M + DM. Both of them, lender and borrower, expend the same sum of money as capital. But it is only in the hands of the latter that it serves as capital. The profit is not doubled by the double existence of the same sum of money as capital for two persons. It can serve as capital for both of them only by dividing the profit. The portion which falls to the lender is called interest. The entire transaction, as assumed, takes place between two kinds of capitalists ? the money-capitalist and the industrial or merchant capitalist. It must always be borne in mind that here capital as capital is a commodity, or that the commodity here discussed is capital. All the relations in evidence here would therefore be irrational from the standpoint of an ordinary commodity, or from that of capital in so far as it acts as a commodity-capital in the process of reproduction. Lending and borrowing, instead of selling and buying, is a distinction which here springs from the specific nature of the commodity-capital. Similarly, the fact that it is interest, not the price of the commodity, which is paid here. If we want to call interest the price of money-capital, then it is an irrational form of price quite at variance with the conception of the price of commodities.[6] The price is here reduced to its purely abstract and meaningless form, signifying that it is a certain sum of money paid for something serving in one way or another as a use-value; whereas the conception of price really signifies the value of some use-value expressed in money. Interest, signifying the price of capital, is from the outset quite an irrational expression. The commodity in question has a double value, first a value, and then a price different from this value, while price represents the expression of value in money. Money-capital is nothing but a sum of money, or the value of a certain quantity of commodities fixed in a sum of money. If a commodity is loaned out as capital, it is only a disguised form of a sum of money. Because what is loaned out as capital is not so and so many pounds of cotton, but so much and so much money existing in the form of cotton as its value. The price of capital, therefore, refers to it as to a sum of money, even if not currency, as Mr. Torrens thinks (see Footnote 59). How, then, can a sum of value have a price besides its own price, besides the price expressed in its own money-form? Price, after all, is the value of a commodity (this is also true of the market-price, whose difference from value is not one of quality, but only one of quantity, referring only to the magnitude of value) as distinct from its use-value. A price which differs from value in quality is an absurd contradiction.[7] Capital manifests itself as capital through self-expansion. The degree of its self-expansion expresses the quantitative degree in which it realises itself as capital. The surplus-value or profit produced by it ? its rate or magnitude ? is measurable only by comparison with the value of the advanced capital. The greater or lesser self-expansion of interest-bearing capital is, therefore, likewise only measurable by comparing the amount of interest, its share in the total profits, with the value of the advanced capital. If, therefore, price expresses the value of the commodity, then interest expresses the self-expansion of money-capital and thus appears as the price paid for it to the lender. This shows how absurd it is from the very first to apply hereto the simple relations of exchange through the medium of money in buying and selling, as Proudhon does. The basic premise is precisely that money functions as capital and may thus be transferred as such, i.e., as potential capital, to a third person. Capital, however, appears here as a commodity, inasmuch as it is offered on the market, and the use-value of money is actually alienated as capital. Its use-value, however, lies in producing profit. The value of money or of commodities employed as capital does not depend on their value as money or as commodities, but on the quantity of surplus-value they produce for their owner. The product of capital is profit. On the basis of capitalist production it is merely a different use of money ? whether it is expended as money; or advanced as capital. Money, or commodities, are in themselves potentially capital, just as labour-power is potential capital. Because, 1) money may be converted into elements of production and is, as is, merely an abstract expression of them ? their existence as value; 2) the material elements of wealth have the property of potentially becoming capital, because their supplementary opposite, which makes them into capital, namely wage-labour, is available on the basis of capitalist production. The contradictory social features of material wealth ? its antagonism to labour as wage-labour ? are expressed in capitalist property as such independently of the production process. This particular fact, set apart from the process of capitalist production itself, from which it constantly results and as whose constant result it serves as a constant prerequisite, expresses itself in that money and commodities alike are latent, potential, capital, so that they may be sold as capital, and in that they can in this form command the labour of others bestowing a claim to appropriate the labour of others, and therefore represent self-expanding values. It also becomes clearly apparent that this relationship, and not the labour offered as an equivalent on the part of the capitalist, supplies the title and the means to appropriate the labour of others. Furthermore, capital appears as a commodity, inasmuch as the division of profit into interest and profit proper is regulated by supply and demand, that is, by competition, just as the market-prices of commodities. But the difference here is just as apparent as the analogy. If supply and demand coincide, the market-price of commodities corresponds to their price of production, i.e., their price then appears to be regulated by the immanent laws of capitalist production, independently of competition, since the fluctuations of supply and demand explain nothing but deviations of market-prices from prices of production. These deviations mutually balance one another, so that in the course of certain longer periods the average market-prices equal the prices of production. As soon as supply and demand coincide, these forces cease to operate, i.e., compensate one another, and the general law determining prices then also comes to apply to individual cases. The market-price then corresponds even in its immediate form, and not only as the average of market-price movements, to the price of production, which is regulated by the immanent laws of the mode of production itself. The same applies to wages. If supply and demand coincide, they neutralise each other's effect, and wages equal the value of labour-power. But it is different with the interest on money-capital. Competition does not, in this case, determine the deviations from the rule. There is rather no law of division except that enforced by competition, because, as we shall later see, no such thing as a "natural" rate of interest exists. By the natural rate of interest people merely mean the rate fixed by free competition. There are no "natural" limits for the rate of interest. Whenever competition does not merely determine the deviations and fluctuations, whenever, therefore, the neutralisation of opposing forces puts a stop to any and all determination, the thing to be determined becomes something arbitrary and lawless. More on this in the next chapter. In the case of interest-bearing capital everything appears superficial: the advance of capital as mere transfer from lender to borrower; the reflux of realised capital as mere transfer back, as a return payment with interest, by borrower to lender. The same is true of the fact, immanent in the capitalist mode of production, that the rate of profit is not only determined by the relation of profit made in one single turnover to advanced capital-value, but also by the length of this period of turnover, hence determined as profit yielded by industrial capital within definite spans of time. In the case of interest-bearing capital this likewise appears on the surface to mean that a definite interest is paid to the lender for a definite time span. With his usual insight into the internal connection of things, the romantic Adam M?ller says (Elemente der Staatskunst, Berlin, 1809, Dritter Theil, S. 138); "In determining the prices of things, time is not considered; while in determining interest, time is the principal factor." He does not see how the time of production and the time of circulation enter into the determination of commodity-prices, and how this is just what determines the rate of profit for a given period of turnover of capital, whereas interest is determined by precisely this determination of profit for a given period. His sagacity here, as elsewhere, consists in observing the clouds of dust on the surface and presumptuously declaring this dust to be something mysterious and important. Notes 1. At this point certain passages may be quoted, in which the economists so conceive the matter. ? "You (the Bank of England) are very large dealers in the commodity of capital?" is the question posed to a director of this bank when he was interrogated for the Report on Bank Acts on the witness stand. (H. of C. 1857, p. 404.) 2. "That a man who borrows money with a view of making a profit by it, should give some portion of his profit to the lender, is a self-evident principle of natural justice." (Gilbart, The History and Principles of Banking, London, 1834, p.463.) 3. "A house," "money," etc., are not to be loaned as "capital" if Proudhon is to have his way, but are to be sold as "commodities ... cost-price" (p. 44). Luther stood somewhat above Proudhon. He knew that profit-making does not depend on the manner of lending or buying: "They turn buying also into usury. But this is really too much to bite off at once. We must first confine ourselves to one thing, usury in lending, and after we have stopped that (after judgement-day), we shall not fail to preach against usury in buying." (Martin Luther, An die Pfarherrn wider den Wucher zu predigen, Wittenberg, 1540.) 4. "The equitableness of taking interest depends not upon a man's making or not making profit, but upon its" (the borrowed) "being capable of producing profit if rightly employed". (An Essay on the Governing Causes of the Natural Rate of Interest, wherein the sentiments of Sir W. Petty and Mr. Locke, on that head, are considered, London, 1750, p. 49. The author of this anonymous work is J. Massie.) 5. "Rich people, instead of employing their money themselves ... let it out to other people for them to make profit of, reserving for the owners a proportion of the profits so made" (l. c., pp. 23-24). 6. "The term 'value,' when applied to currency, has three several meanings ... 2) currency, actually in hand... compared with the same amount of currency to be received upon a future day. In this case the value of currency is measured by the rate of interest, and the rate of interest being determined by the ratio between the amount of liable capital and the demand for it." (Colonel R. Torrens, On the Operation of the Bank Charter Act of 1844, etc., 2nd ed., 1847, pp. 5, 6.) 7. "The ambiguity of the term 'value of money' or of the currency, when employed indiscriminately as it is, to signify both value in exchange for commodities and value in use of capital, is a constant source of confusion." (Tooke, Inquiry into the Currency Principle, p. 77.) The main confusion (implied in the matter itself) that value as such (interest) becomes the use-value of capital, has escaped Tooke. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Next: Chapter 22 | Table of Contents for Capital, Vol. III This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Tue Dec 2 16:34:18 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:34:18 -0800 Subject: [A-List] What's LEFT Of Blogs? Message-ID: <4935C5FA.8040305@gmail.com> Boo! The boogeymen are out to get you. This story: > *The odds that terrorists will soon strike a major city with weapons > of mass destruction are now better than even, a bipartisan > congressionally mandated task force concludes* in a draft study that > warns of growing threats from rogue states, nuclear smuggling networks > and the spread of atomic know-how in the developing world. ...is all over the left blogs today, and most of what I read is people lapping it up as easily and thoughtlessly as the 26 percenters lapped up all of Bush's years of Rovian manipulations, and using it as justification for "pragmatic" hide their heads in the sand denial of Barack Obama's obvious militarist tendencies and full intentions to continue the war on terror memes and determination to militarily dominate the earth while blaming the blowback on "terrists" on behalf of the corporatocracy that rules America. http://ooibc.blogspot.com/2008/12/whats-left-of-blogs.html From jfgf.consult at mail.telepac.pt Tue Dec 2 16:56:29 2008 From: jfgf.consult at mail.telepac.pt (jfgf.consult at mail.telepac.pt) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:56:29 +0000 Subject: [A-List] PCP 18th Congress Message-ID: <1228262189.e7orisf3ho0@w2.webmail.telepac.pt> "Opening Speech of the Congress" Monday, 01 December 2008 Jer?nimo de Sousa Portuguese Communist Party General-Secretary Opening speech of the 18th Congress Dear comrade delegates Esteemed comrades and friends, national and international guests Our Party arrives at this 18th. Congress anchored on ideals and goals, on answers to the situations and problems, with a very clear idea on the course we want to follow, not only of consolidation, but of political, organizational, social and electoral progress and growth. It is an outward-looking Congress, that focuses on action and struggle, with the workers and the people. At the same time - in our own way, the Communist way - we held a broad debate on the Draft Political Resolution, with a unique and democratic participation of over 26 thousand members. It is not only those who prophesized our death who were wrong. Also wrong were those who announced that we would be surviving in decline. We did not die, nor did we merely "survive". Thrashed by the storms of political and ideological offensive, facing the tempest head-on, we stand on our feet, we grow and we march forward without feeling disheartened by conjunctural defeats or resting on our victories, anchored to our nature, ideology and project. The disappointment and silence of those prophets, regarding our 18th. Congress, reminds us of the fable of the fox and the grapes. They jumped trying to catch the bunch of grapes. Now, seeing the Party's vigour, they shrug their shoulders and say "the grapes are not ripe, they are sour". Those who, like us, fight for democracy and socialism, are aware that beyond the horizon we see - at the next bend in the road, however curved it may be - there will be yet more road to travel in a long but fascinating process of social change for which we strive. We arrive at this 18th.Congress without the presence of comrades S?rgio Vilarigues, Jos? Vitoriano and ?lvaro Cunhal. From their lives we draw the example of their revolutionary struggle, their whole life dedicated to their Party, to the workers and the Portuguese people. Of ?lvaro Cunhal we shall keep at the heart of our memory his example and shall use his work as a tool for action and for the political and ideological struggle. We arrive at the 18th.Congress with objectives that can be summarized in the slogan "For April, for Socialism - a stronger Party". "For April", with everything it represented in terms of freedom, transformation, achievement and conquest - elements that constitute an advanced democracy in the political, economic, social and cultural fields and in the assertion of national sovereignty. "For socialism", as a goal of the PCP's programme, with communism on the horizon. "For socialism" - as an alternative system to capitalism and a real possibility and the most solid prospect in the evolution of Humankind - where our struggle at the national level is the first and indispensable condition for the development of solidarity, cooperation and internationalist struggle. "For a stronger Party", a central and ever-present issue in our action and struggle, of our priorities, in itself inseparable and a decisive condition to build and attain the objectives we propose. Comrades, We hold our Party's 18th Congress in the context of one of the most serious crises of capitalism, whose world impact is yet to appear in its full extent. We are facing the worst crisis since the "great depression" of 1929, and it results from the development of an acute contradiction between overproduction and over-accumulation of means of production on one hand, and the shrinkage of markets and consumption resulting from the diminution of the masses' purchasing power on the other, namely due to the devaluation of the labour incomes, but also due to the brutal and increasing disproportion in the distribution of wealth. At the same time this crisis confirms capitalism's inability to free itself from the crises that shake it periodically and reveals a deeper systemic and structural crisis, that exposes the capitalist system's historical limits. To overcome it through revolution is a demand of our times. The ruling class, and the governments at their service, try to answer the crisis with huge operations of transfer of debts and losses from the financial institutions to the public coffers, in an attempt to make the workers and the peoples pay its costs, while leaving unchanged the power and domination of those responsible for the crisis. The scope, depth and consequences of this crisis confirm how right the analyses of our 17th Congress were. Fundamental traits and trends that appeared in an unprecedented rhythm in the process of centralization and concentration of capital and wealth, led to more strength and power for the great multinational corporations and to destruction for the less developed and more dependent economies. The wide financialization of the economy with the explosion of credit and fictitious money, was another characteristic that emphasized, instead of productive investment, the irrationality and anarchy of the capitalist system. These traits and trends also appeared in the deepening social polarization, inside each country, including the great capitalist powers, and around the world. Attacks against the social functions of the State were stepped up, aiming at the commercialization of all spheres of social life, in a logic of privatizing everything than could bring more returns on capital. There was a clear growth of the parasitic and decadent nature of capitalism, with power occupied by organized crime and all types of criminal traffic flourishing - with the cover and complicity of international banks, specially the off-shores. This evolution has been and is accompanied by developments in the political, cultural, ideological and military fields, in a very clear reactionary or even fascist-leaning, direction. It is this background of the evolution of the capitalist system, while clearly showing the roots of the present crisis, these past four years brought about significant developments! Firstly, with the evolution of the situation in the US - where the crisis exposed the very serious problems of a high deficit economy, indebted and increasingly dominated by the military-industrial complex, with extremely serious social problems and a colossal foreign debt. In spite of undeniable US military superiority, its scientific and technological potential, its economic power and its privileged position as the main world financial centre are now weakened, as seen in the devaluation and discredit of the US dollar and in the fact that its role as an international reserve currency is now being openly questioned. A significant change also resulted from the strengthening of the European Union as an imperialist bloc. But, the significant developments that weigh in the balance of forces at the international level have been the increasing international weight of China, resulting from its economic development, the appearance of other great countries like India, Brazil, Russia and the processes of regional cooperation and integration that tend to counter the hegemonic aims of the US and other great powers and show that their influence is no longer absolute. Comrades The past four years were marked by the increase of imperialist offensive, embodying a vindictive and violent process of retaliation against the struggle of the workers and the peoples and with 20th century history. The militarization of international relations has been the aspect of the imperialist offensive that grew most in the last years - with the widespread idea of "preventive wars" and the recurrent use of violence - supported by the idea of "fighting international terrorism". The tearing down of international treaties essential to strategic balance; the setting up of the so-called American "anti-missile defence system" in Europe; the expansion of NATO and US military bases to the borders of Russia; the militarization of Germany; the provocations against China; the "return to Africa" by various military powers - are all clear examples of the global nature of imperialism's military and geo-strategic offensive and of the associated re-colonizing intentions. It is a fact that is from imperialism's political and military centres that the insecurity and dangers that characterize the international situation emanate. This is very clear in the fact that the military budgets of the US and its main NATO allies reach record figures, in the importance that the nuclear issue regained in their multimillionaire military projects and in the strengthening of imperialism's strategic and military coordinating structures, particularly in NATO, which during this period deepened its nature as a global organisation of an offensive nature and proves its role as imperialism's "shock troops". This evolution strengthens the demand for its dissolution, as stated by the Portuguese Constitution. It is a fact that the world finds itself facing great dangers, not be underestimated. But it is also clear that these dangers coexist with a strong resistance by the workers and the peoples, with a real potential for a progressive, or even revolutionary, development. The struggle of the working class and of millions of workers in all continents continued. The struggle of the peasants and farm workers in several countries continued also. The struggle spread in a strong way to other layers of the population. Resistance against the policy of interference, aggression and war, particularly by the US, represented a marked aspect of the peoples' struggle in defence of their sovereignty and inalienable right to decide their fates, specially in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon, Cuba and Venezuela, as well as in Syria, Iran, PDR Korea, the Balkans, Colombia or Cyprus, where decisive battles for the future of these peoples and the stability of these regions continue. They all deserve the active solidarity of the Portuguese communists. This solidarity extends to the struggle of peoples for their self determination and independence, as in Palestine, Western Sahara, Cyprus, and for the consolidation of the democratic process of national independence, as in East Timor. The evolution of the situation in Latin America in a progressive and anti-imperialist direction - in spite of the contradictory traits and diversity of processes - is one of the most encouraging examples of the progress of liberation struggles since the 17th Congress. The revolutionary example of socialist Cuba has been an important stimulus to the progressive changes in Bolivarian Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and other countries. The convergence of the struggle of peoples for their national and social liberation with the struggle of the working class and the workers and other anti-monopolist strata, today is a central task of all the forces opposing capitalism's hegemony. At a time which is still of resistance and gathering of forces, but also of great progressive and revolutionary potential, huge responsibilities lie upon the Communist Parties and the international communist and revolutionary movement. In view of the crisis of capitalism, and the dangers it holds, it is up to the communist and revolutionary movement to develop the widest cooperation among anti-imperialist progressive and revolutionary forces, fighting reformism and spontaneity, and vigorously fighting the dominating ideology. Socialism, as a goal of the PCP's programme, with communism in the horizon, not only shows the superiority of the values of freedom and social justice that drive communists in their struggle against capital, but also represents, nowadays, a real possibility, an increasingly necessary and urgent one. This strong conviction of the PCP is based upon three fundamental pillars. The first, a materialistic and dialectical conception of History, for whose scientific expression Marx and Engels brought decisive contributions and Lenin deepened during the times of imperialism. The second, the universal historic significance of the October Revolution, in the pioneering construction of a new society in the USSR and other historic experiences of socialism. Experiences that meant achievements and gains of great value, demonstrated and demonstrate the superiority of socialism, in spite of the great setbacks at the end of the century with the destruction of the USSR and the defeats of socialism in Eastern Europe, and whose reasons we should continue to study. The third, the PCP's conviction that at present socialism is increasingly necessary and urgent, is based upon the analysis of the capitalist system and its trends of current development, afflicted as it is by insurmountable contradictions. Capitalism is not only incapable of satisfying the interests and aspirations of the workers and the peoples, but endangers humanity itself. The contradiction between the huge potential of the achievements of science and technology and the terrible retrogressions affecting contemporary times - unemployment, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental catastrophes - themselves represent a violent accusation of the capitalist system and the confirmation that only socialism can answer the deepest aspirations of the workers and the peoples and save Humanity from the catastrophe announced by capital's greed. It is with this deep conviction that the PCP proclaims, to Portugal and the world, that socialism is a real possibility and the most solid prospect for Humanity's evolution. Comrades The unfolding of the country's economic, social and political situation, since our 17th.Congress is marked by a new phase, more intense and more global, of offensive by the right-wing forces, now led by the PS government. The formation of the government - a few months after our last Congress and the election of Cavaco Silva to the Presidency of the Republic, the first victory of a right-wing candidate to this institution - politically and institutionally signifies the affirmation and consolidation of a power bloc at the service of great economic and financial groups. The action of the PS government in these more than three and half years of governance, confirms not only the PS's expected intention of continuing the essential aspects of the right-wing policy carried out by PSD and CDS-PP, but also the deliberate purpose of aggravating them after gaining an absolute majority. The assumption by the PS government of the agenda of big capital and its objectives, driven by the election of Cavaco Silva and his "Strategic Cooperation", has thus meant a brutal worsening of the living conditions of the workers and the people, with increasing foreign dependence and subordination of the country and a worrying impoverishment of the democratic regime. Comrades The worsening of the country?s situation cannot be separated from the evolution of the European Union and the nefarious influence of its neoliberal policies, or from the processes that intervene in the configuration of the so-called "European integration". An evolution which during the last four years was marked, together with the pursuit and deepening of the policies at the service of big multinational corporations and great financial interests, by the rejection in 2005 of the "European Constitution" Treaty by the peoples of the Netherlands and France, and more recently by the Irish people, in the re-painted version called "Lisbon Treaty". The PCP, who vigorously fought against this project, reaffirms its firm determination to continue to fight for its rejection, coherently assuming its pledges to the Portuguese people. In these years that separate us from the 17th Congress, the materialization of the "Lisbon Strategy" and its Agenda continued intensely, aimed at liberalizing and privatizing public services and services in general, dismantling public administration and deregulating the labour market. In terms of agriculture and fisheries, the guidelines that have contributed to the destruction of these sectors in our country have continued and worsened . The community's financial framework for 2007-2013 has continued, like before, to penalize the economically lesser developed countries, and conditioning aids to acceptance of the "Lisbon Strategy". New steps were taken in the attack against the functions of sovereignty, by pursuing a common justice policy, while implementing a of immigration policy of a security-obsessed, selective and repressive nature. During this period, the militarization of the European Union went ahead with the strengthening and creation of new military capacities and the continuation of military missions. In view of this militarization, the PCP reaffirms its refusal of any solution that reinforces the federal nature of the European Union institutions and the neoliberal offensive against the social and civilizational rights of the workers and the peoples. The results of the referenda in the countries where the peoples had the possibility to voice their rejection of this "European integration" and the significant struggles that took place all over Europe emphasize the need to strengthen cooperation, namely among the left forces, and the convergence of all those who fight for a solution for Europe of an anti-capitalist social transformation. T he PCP will continue to assume as a priority the continuation and cooperation among communists and other left and progressive forces and remains deeply commited to the defence, consolidation, strong intervention and affirmation of the unitary, confederal and progressive nature of the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left of the European Parliament. The European Union with its present guidelines and objectives continues to be one of the main foundations of the class policy carried out in Portugal and one of the main defenders and excuses that question the project of a patriotic development set down in the Constitution of the Republic. Three vectors in the current community framework clash, in an increasingly determining way, with the national economy and the future of the country itself: the accent on a confederal configuration under the political and economic command of the great powers; the consolidation of the euro area and its management by the ECB, with the loss of monetary and exchange policies and limitations imposed on the budgetary policy; the prevalence of the neoliberal theses and guidelines supporting the Lisbon Strategy, which also include the WTO agenda and that of several bilateral trade agreements. All together, together with a growing structural foreign dependency, they represent strong drawbacks, limitations and hurdles to the economic development of the country. Comrades Portuguese society today has an economic and social structure dominated by the dictatorship of the monopolist economic groups associated to transnational capital. Although they already wield highly monopolized power over a number of strategic sectors and areas - both for the nation and the economy - these groups have been strengthening their monopolist nature. Portugal's economic growth has slowed down decade after decade, reaching its lowest figure in the 2000/2007 period. Contrary to what the government has tried to suggest, the worsening of the country's present economic situation is prior to the worsening of the international financial crisis. The result of years of right-wing policy has meant an economy characterized by the consolidation of a productive structure with low added value, based upon the exploitation of cheap and casual labour and the continuation of severe structural deficits, resulting from an insufficient production of material goods (food and industrial), energy, transport and logistics, and research and development. T he budgetary policy, aligned with the Growth and Stability Pact, has been seen as a basic instrument by successive governments in following the central objectives of a right-wing policy, among which reconfiguring the State along neoliberal lines. The policy of privatizations is banishing the State from the entrepreneurial sphere of production of material goods and of services, essential to the economic development of the country. The PS government has struck a new blow with its privatization program (PORTUCEL [paper pulp], EDP [energy], GALP [oil], Siderurgia [steel], EDA, ANA [airports], Estradas de Portugal [roads], E.P. , ?guas de Portugal [water supply], National Forests). Regarding the fiscal policy, while the weight of taxation on workers grows, the government maintains the real taxation rate for the financial sector ten or more percentage points below the nominal rate, and grants 2 thousand million euros in tax benefits to the Madeira [Islands] off-shore, thus supporting and financing the speculative banking and financial sector. The investment policy has for many years been below the quantity and quality needs of our economy. Since 1997, public investment has been losing its weight in total investment, and no longer holds a dynamizing role in the economy. The policies of successive governments have made foreign capital the central feature of the country's development Foreign capital has been occupying important and strategic areas in Portuguese economy, even absorbing a significant part of EU funds and public aids. Comrades The evolution of the situation at the social level has worsened extraordinarily in recent years. The action of the PS government and its parliamentary majority, has taken new and serious steps to destroy the rights gained by the workers and the Portuguese people. The Public Education System, Social Security and the National Health Service have suffered one of the greatest attacks during these past years. The changes in the Labour Code, now consummated, renouncing previous pledges made by PS during the previous the PSD/CDS-PP approval [of the LC], represents an unacceptable weakening of labour relations and creates conditions to increase exploitation, namely by legalizing labour casualness, making dismissals easier, eliminating the principle of favourable treatment to the worker, increasing work hours and liquidatiing of collective bargaining. In a coordinated and simultaneous way, Government is undertaking a very strong legislative attack against Public Administration workers, aimed at taking away rights and weakening labour relations. With the worsening of the policy that increased inequalities, around 18% of the Portuguese population lives below the poverty line, almost three million Portuguese live with less than 10 euros a day and over 230 thousand with less than 5 euros. While the cost of living and the housing costs have reached the highest figures of the past years, the wages are being downgraded and increasingly deviating from the European Union average, family debts have reached unsustainable levels, the living standard of most of the population is falling fast. The evolution of wages - in continuous downfall - of jobs and unemployment during the last years explains why Portugal remains one of the countries with the highest unbalances in the distribution of income. Unemployment rates have reached the highest figures of the past two decades and casualness has become State policy, affecting around one million two hundred thousand workers. With the PS government, unemployment protection has also been significantly reduced. The situation of the youth has particularly worsened with the action of the present government. The increase in casualness and unemployment and the low wages, the changes in education - with higher school fees and an elitization of education - and the housing policy, are some of the facts that jeopardize their future and the right to a dignified life. Regarding Social Security, the PS government with its counter-reform, has made great changes, overturning Social Security's public, universal and solidarity-based nature, with serious repercussions in the attack against the right to retirement and a dignified pension, with both an immediate and a long term diminution of the retirement and pension amounts. During this period, the levels of exploitation and systematic violation of the rights of working women continued to grow, namely those concerning pregnancy, maternity and family support, while degrading their wages, affected by great wage inequalities. The situation of disabled persons, specially vulnerable to situations of social marginalization, was made worse by the diminution of the disabled workers' rights and the turnbacks in labour casualty compensation payments. The last few years have seen an unprecedented attack against the National Health Service and the present government has worsened it in a violent way. It is an attack based upon a strategy to degrade the public offer of healthcare and closing of services, with a promiscuous alignment of PSD/CS-PP and PS governments with the great financial groups, who see a great business opportunity in health. The policy of avoiding State responsibilities is aimed at delegating healthcare to non-public bodies, by contracting out or privatizing services, and also by making families bear a growing part of healthcare costs. In education, continuing the right-wing policy, during the last four years new and qualitative steps were taken in the attack against free and high-quality Public Education for all, and in promoting private education, going against the Basic Law on Education and the Constitution of the Republic itself. In a context where education has already become a very new business opportunity for capital, the PS government closed down more than 3,000 Basic [elementary] schools, executed an indirect privatization of education, as for example in the so-called Activities of Curricular Enrichment. It is within the context of devaluing Public Schools that we can include the imposition of a new model of school management in pre-schooling, basic and secondary teaching establishments, the delegation of new competencies on local government in the area of basic schooling and the measures being implemented in special education, together with attacks against schools specializing in the teaching of arts. At the University level, the PS government does not hesitate in dismantling this important heritage of the Portuguese people, by imposing organization models based upon the Bologna Process, by stratifying into short cycles, by establishing a financing model that takes away responsibilities from the State with an unacceptable application of tuition fees. Regarding Science, Technology and Innovation, the situation remains marked by under financing. The cultural policy of the present government is also marked by the abandonment of public responsibility in the cultural policies, as witnessed in the continuing budgetary asphyxiation; in the privatization and handing over to the market of activities, equipment and property; in the elitization and use of "prestigious" initiatives. Comrades: A new and disturbing facet of the political situation is the growing number of curbs on freedoms and the gradual impoverishment of Portugal's democracy. The deterioration of political democracy is a result of the economic and social offensive. Its most serious expressions are: citizens' freedoms and safeguards placed under siege; strengthened repressive apparatus; attacks against democratic local government; blatant partisan usage of institutions, placing them at the service of the political party in power; the legislation on Political Parties and their financing. The current PS and PSD proposals also tend toward deterioration and impoverishment of the democratic regime. Using the recurrent excuse of the need for a so-called political system reform, the new draft election laws - favouring a two-party arrangement and less plurality - are a key element in achieving this. Concerning the curbs on essential rights and safeguards, they surface especially in the impediments placed on the exercise of trade-union rights and on the right to associate, in the limitations on the right to strike, in the growing coercion against free speech and the right to demonstrate and the curbs against the right to propaganda. With the PS government, the attack against local governments and their autonomy has had fresh negative developments, particularly with the adoption of a new financial framework and the abolition of the Tourism Regions. The Laws on Political Parties and their Financing are also being confirmed as key elements in the operation to gradually curb rights and impoverish democracy, with serious limitations being imposed on political parties' sovereign right to decide on their forms of operation and organization - in several cases these regulations are directed specifically against the PCP. A s the result of a long debasement process, political and democratic life has today been gradually reduced to just the formal aspects of contemporary bourgeois democracies, common to most capitalist countries and far removed from the democratic regime born of the [1974] Revolution and enshrined in the 1976 Constitution. Under the current government, the process to debase the State's role, as provided for in the Constitution, has been given a new boost. In the Domestic Security sphere, the PS government has embarked on a wide-ranging and dangerous restructuring and reorganization plan for this important State sector, with a view to concentrating and militarizing it, and to placing it under government control. The PS's judicial policy is also characterized by an unprecedented offensive to substantially change the judiciary system's nature, organization and operation. This reconfiguration of the whole current judicial setup seeks to governmentalize it and control it, placing curbs on the Minist?rio P?blico's [Public Attorney's] autonomy and on the judiciary's independence. In respect of National Defence and the Armed Forces, in these last four years, the basic tenets of right-wing policies followed by earlier governments have been strengthened, particularly as regards military doctrine, restructuring, military infra-structure and equipment renewal, legislation and personnel. The Government's draft Armed Forces reorganization proposal involves merely expanding the scope of the Defence Ministry's role, to the detriment of the three Forces' roles, standardizing our armed forces within a limited scope: using them in multinational forces - thus obeying the priorities set out in NATO's Strategic Concept and the European Union's militarization policy. Armed Forces personnel policy has been to maintain special duties while suppressing rights, and introducing new disturbing measures for the military, thus generating indignation and protests. The situation in the media sector has been one of growing control of big business over the mass media, thus continuing on a course that reduces quality and pluralism in information journalism, while journalists and other professions in the sector have had their rights, working conditions and autonomy eroded. This has contributed to an impoverishment in Portugal's culture and democracy. Comrades: The difficulties the country is undergoing, the continually worsening economic and social situation, social inequalities and injustices are not an unavoidable fact of life. They are the result of right-wing choices and policies. Portugal does not necessarily have to endure economic stagnation, a withering productive apparatus, persistent chronic energy and food deficits, a development model based on low salaries, or backwardness. There is another road, with other policies, to serve the people and the country. The alternative policies that the PCP stands for, are set out in the PCP's programme, "An Advanced Democracy on the threshold of the 21st century". Advanced democracy, with its four inseparable aspects - political, economic, social and cultural - involves five goals in which, together with a regime of freedom, with a democratic, representative, participative and modern State, a policy of cultural democratization and an independent and sovereign homeland, we stand for economic development based on a mixed, modern and dynamic economy and for a social policy capable of ensuring better living conditions for the people. The alternative policy that the PCP presents and proposes involves a real change of goals and content in national politics, a policy of effective trust in Portugal and the Portuguese people, a policy based on activating the economy and achieving sustained economic growth. Our draft Theses identify a number of key elements in the new economic and social policy we stand for, to respond to the problems being faced by the Portuguese people and by the country. Breaking with current policies and building new alternative policies implies determined struggle against the current PS government's policies, and steadfast resistance to its offensiveagainst social rights and gains. Central elements in this break with the right-wing policies, are breaking with: the domination of monopoly capitalism; the reconfiguration of the State as a tool to serve the accelerated accumulation of private capital; the "obsession" with the budget deficit; the devaluing of labour and of workers; the mutilation and subversion of social policies - education, health and social security; the granting of a strategic place in the country's economy to foreign capital; economic growth centered essentially on an export dynamic, with disdain and lack of protection for the domestic market; the European capitalist integration process; subordination of the land and seas that are under national sovereignty to a logic that is foreign to the country's interests; subversion of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic. The alternative policy which the PCP stands for, represents a broad assertion of national sovereignty. It provides answers for the great difficulties that the majority of our people face and opens up horizons and prospects of hope and confidence in a more fair and developed Portugal. Comrades, In these 4 years of a fierce offensive against the rights of the workers and the population and of attacks against the democratic regime and national sovereignty, the mass struggle, with particular prominence for the workers' struggle, was a determining factor in opposing and confronting this offensive, and has contributed to raise social and political awareness. With a PS absolute majority - in a context where capitalism appeared triumphant and as the ultimate stage of human societies; where the ruling classes imposed their values and dominant ideology, of the cult of the individual, of an end to the class struggle, of the end of the need for class-based political and social organizations; in a context where social-democracy surrendered to capital and where verbally radical and leftist forces became institutionalized, creating the illusion that the class struggle and workers' organizations were being replaced by concertation and organized "movementism", labeled as "citizenship" - the struggle of the working class and of the workers, but also of other non-monopolist strata and classes, its strength and size, its diversity and degree of convergence, its causes and goals, have confirmed the relevance and importance of the mass struggle, as a fundamental factor to halt right-wing policies and to assert and defend rights and transform society. The struggle was, and is, worthwhile. And it is no exaggeration to say that in these 4 years, the role of the Communists and their Party, the PCP, has confirmed its irreplaceable character, inspiring, mobilizing, instilling confidence and prospects to the mass struggle, in a dialectical relation with the Party's overall political and institutional work. Life itself has tested and confirmed our thesis that when you fight, you may not always win, but when you do not fight, you always lose. Developing the struggle, strengthening the mass movements and stepping up political activity requires a continual assessment of reality and its developments - in particular the alignment of class forces and the various aspects that relate to it. But the alignment of class forces is essential to assess class contradictions, the existing balance of forces, the social alliances, the prospects for the short- and medium-term struggle, to assess solutions for the existing situation and the prospects for a break with these right-wing policies. A key idea that must be stated is that the Government's policies are policies to serve big capital; that those policy decisions affect, not just workers' interests and rights, but also those of other strata and classes. The main fault line that separates and divides interests, and defines contradictions and confrontations, is the line between the big economic and financial capital, sections of the medium bourgeoisie and political clienteles on the one hand and, on the other hand, the overwhelming majority of the Portuguese population, workers, pensioners, retired people, young people, women, intellectuals and technical workers, farmers, fishermen, micro-, small and medium businesspeople. The contradictions and conflicts between these classes and strata do not disappear. But a break with these disastrous policies will become all the more achievable, the broader the convergence in the struggle. They may march in parallel, but it is possible to fight together. In a struggle where the driving force are the working class and the workers, as has happened in the 4 years since our 17th Congress. Our draft Political Resolution details the extraordinary scale of many of these struggles, from the company struggle to the general strike. From the struggle on the shop floor or at the doors of the Ministry, to the demonstration by 200 thousand workers in the streets of Lisbon, to the general strike of the Public Employees, of the private sector workers, to the impressive teachers' demonstrations. These are struggles that have developed around causes and demands which - incorporating general goals and widespread problems - raise the population's awareness and the fighting spirit and where the important role of broad unity movements has been confirmed. The dynamic that was created by [the Trades Union Central] CGTP-IN, by the trade union and workers' council movements, by other sectors, organizations and broad movements, such as the association of small and medium farmers and their confederation CNA, by the associations of micro-, small and medium businesspeople, the organizations of technical workers and intellectuals, the student unions, the youth, women's and peace movements, the organizations of pensioners and handicapped people, the associations of the military and trade-union associations of the security forces' members, the cultural and recreational clubs, the parents' associations and movements of users, specifically the Movements of Users of Public Services - all these have contributed to confront the right-wing policies, have expanded the protests and created a broad social front of struggle. This has not been enough to defeat the offensive. But it has hindered it, has created disarray and forced the PS Government to retreat in many areas where it thought it could implement its harmful policies and measures at will. Comrades, The working class and working people have shown and reaffirmed that they are the determining force in the social process of resistance, struggle and transformation. Crediting these factors with their due importance is all the more relevant if we consider the national and international context in which these struggles were waged, if we consider the heightened exploitation, the attacks against workers' rights and their class organizations. But it was in this context that the struggle - due to its size, intensity and extent - has been comparable to the most significant moments of struggle since the April Revolution. CGTP - Intersindical Nacional confirmed itself and asserted itself as the major trade union central of the Portuguese workers, based on its nature, principles and goals, with its roots among the workers, their interests and rights. From this Platform of the 18th Congress, we wish to greet this organized force of hundreds of thousands of workers, of thousands of trade union leaders, of tens of thousands of shop stewards, who are the fundamental resource and guarantee of the CGTP-IN's role and class independence. The concerted offensive by capital and the government - who encourage lines of division and diversion within the trade union movement - the international pressure, the adoption of harmful changes to the Labour Code, the intensification of the class struggle, all raise new and greater demands. The Communist militants who are elected by their fellow workers have special responsibilities in defending the CGTP-IN's nature and programmatic principles, in acting to defend the workers' rights and interests, in the strategic appraisal of trade union activity in the companies and shop floors. This greeting involves the hundreds of members of workers' councils, sub-councils and their coordinating structures - in defence of these structures as democratic instruments of the workers and their role of cooperation and convergence with the united trade union movement. We greet all the movements, associations and organizations, and their thousands of leaders, who fight and work for concrete causes and demands, in diverse ways, within this broad front of struggle, materializing their right to a participatory democracy. Comrades, The PS Government's offensive, whilst not new, is characterized by its global breadth and depth - in the political, economic, social, cultural areas and regarding national sovereignty. With a complacent right-wing, who is slightly envious of the fact that economic powers continue to view the PS as the most adequate saddle on which to ride, to further their interests and privileges - the PCP has shown that it is, in real terms, the most consistent, determined and capable force when it comes to fighting against these policies. It has done so with its feet on the ground, interpreting the problems and aspirations of workers and communities, supporting and encouraging the mass struggle, developing an outstanding mass and institutional political activity. In the Assembly of the Republic [Parliament], in the European Parliament, in the Madeira Regional Parliament and in local government, the PCP MPs have - as a rule and within the framework of the Party line - stood out for their ethical stands, for their liaison with the Party and the mass organizations, fulfilled their electoral pledges and carried out the mandates that they received from the people as a result of their participation in PCP and CDU lists. They have done so competently, respecting their ethical commitments towards their Party, defending the interests of the workers, the people, the youth and the country. Next year there will be three elections (European Parliament, Assembly of the Republic and Local Government). From the standpoint of our Programme, elections, both from the point of view of our participation and of our results, have an importance which, although not to be denied or neglected, also requires that they not be viewed as the one factor on which to assess the Party's influence. For the Parties of the bourgeoisie, elections are an end in themselves. For us, they are but a front of struggle and of activity which converges with the Party's overall goals and activity, from which the Party benefits and to which it contributes. Electoral participation is a valuable arena for political activity and contact with the masses, to assert our proposals and the PCP's project. An organizational strengthening of the Party is not always reflected in electoral support. But it creates better conditions to extend the basis of electoral support and influence. The 2009 electoral cycle will be a demanding process of political and organizational activity that will require a committed mobilization of the Party collective, which presupposes an integrated approach that can take into account the specific features of each election, whilst ensuring convergent action by the Party as whole. We have established a goal of not just preserving, but strengthening, our positions in terms of votes and mandates. And, as we did in the recent elections for the Legislative Assembly in the Azores Autonomous Region, we shall run within the framework of the CDU in the election for the European Parliament. And comrades, you will agree that, based on the valuable past example and democratic experience, we contact our friends in the Ecological Party - the Greens and in the Democratic Intervention, to consider an agreement for the General election and the Local Government elections, with a view to establishing a Coalition - the CDU, United Democratic Coalition. Further on, there will be Presidential elections. Much will happen in the meantime. But it is important to state that the PCP will take part in those elections in 2011 with the goal of asserting its position and its own ideas regarding the role and functions of the President of the Republic and contributing to ensure that the Presidency of the Republic be active in ensuring that the Fundamental Law [Constitution] is abided by and respected, freed from the interests and power-seeking of big capital. Comrades, The absolute majority was achieved by the PS, above all, by capitalizing on the widespread discontentment with the PSD-CDS/PP Governments. Decorated with a number of promises, counting on the support of the economic powers and, further down the road, on "strategic concertation" with the President of the Republic, the PS is more and more unequivocally emerging as a party with right-wing policies. If we look at reality, we see the PS increasingly tied to big business and to the big bourgeoisie's interests, and increasingly distant from a possible active participation in the democratic solution that the country requires. The PS's essential line, and in particular its policies in government, have led thousands of its voters and supporters to distance themselves. Many of them may potentially converge into the struggle for a political alternative. Some sections of the PS are seeking to portray themselves as being "on the left" within the party, and have been exhibiting some signs of activity. Undoubtedly this is a result of the growing isolation and discontentment, and of the contradictions which they generate. But by spreading illusions they are revealing their goal: to stop and prevent the possibility of a shift toward the PCP. These activities, which refuse to make a clean break with the key right-wing policies, and regardless of their goals - be they an attempt to prevent the PS's erosion, or the development of other political projects - will, in effect, tend to create conditions for the right-wing policies to survive. The PSD has been suffering major political instability following its electoral defeat in 2005. The PSD's biggest problem is the fact that the PS is implementing the polices that the PSD would like to implement itself. In everything that is politically strategic or structural, they [PS and PSD] are like siamese twins. But it would be wrong to underestimate the PSD's strength in local governments and in the State structure, as well as its role as the monopoly bourgeoisie's reserve force, in case of need to ensure alternation. The CDS - in spite of its efforts to recover and clean up its image, by declining their responsibilities in all the worst deeds of the Barroso and Santana Lopes governments - maintains its reactionary and anti-communist stances, in the hope of joining an alternation manoeuvre at some point, when the economic powers so decide. A few brief notes on the Left Block [Bloco de Esquerda]. The first difficulty is in establishing what it is and what it wants. It is ideologically undefined, in terms of class and project. It leans toward social-democracy, disguised with a veneer of verbal ultra-left radicalism inherited from the diaspora of political forces that originated it. It "plays by ear", benefiting from constant media attention. It has evolved into institutional work, becoming more representative, but opting to address secondary issues and to act after events have unfolded. Their obsession is the PCP, and they are always competing against the PCP, often slipping into anti-communism. As to the media attention they receive, it can fittingly be said that if the BE sneezes, a lot of journalists catch a cold. "The Greens" Ecological Party ("Os Verdes"), in spite of its increasingly active pro-environment work, of its political and institutional contribution - extending far beyond the CDU and capable of attracting and involving progressive and democratic sections of society - is systematically ignored in the mass media. Comrades : In this line-up of political forces, the two-party arrangement that has lasted over 30 years, as well as the machinations of the mass media that serves the ruling classes' ideology and strategy, have made it possible for the State institutions to be dominated by different political forces but all with one single policy. They only compete in trying to determine who will command and implement that single policy. This alternation and power-sharing between PS and PSD - with or without CDS participation - is the economic and financial groups' safest life insurance policy, allowing them to recover lost privileges, harshen the exploitation, injustices and inequalities that exist and are on the rise nationally. Events confirm that it is through the PCP's political work and through mass participation, organization and struggle that Portugal's workers and people as a whole have gained a greater awareness of the need for structural and strategic changes in society, of the need to break with this worn-out rotation of parties and with these policies that are leading the country into backwardness, injustice, indebtedness and dependence. The number, size and diversity of mass actions in these past two years have confirmed that a very broad and powerful social front is forming and in motion - encompassing anti-monopoly classes and strata, reducing the social support base for the PS government's right-wing policies, and opening up great potential to enhance the PCP's prestige and support. That is why - in the midst of all this current complex line-up of social and political forces - we persevere in the goal of turning the social opposition to right-wing policies into a political opposition, and turning this political opposition into a democratic choice, strengthening the PCP by decisively expanding its social, political and electoral influence, providing stronger backing to the demands for a break with current policies and for left-wing policies to serve the people and the country. It will be by strengthening the PCP and developing mass actions and struggles that the road to a political alternative can be opened. With whom? - we are asked. With all those who, based on their legitimate interests and rights - with the workers and the people, with the patriots and democrats - want a democratic Portugal where social justice, progress and peace can prevail, who feel the need to break with the current state of affairs. It will never be a one-off, nor will it result from spontaneous generation, or from artificial agreements reached thinking more about power than about policies. It will be a process. It will be all the more feasible and come all the sooner, the stronger the PCP becomes. Comrades: In this period between the 17th and 18th Congresses the PCP has grown, become stronger, increased its political and electoral influence, and asserted itself as the Party of the working class and of all working people. In a situation of social degradation where the class struggle is becoming more acute and there are growing limitations on freedom and democracy, the PCP has shown its importance and its role in Portugal's political life: in the struggle against changes to the labour laws and for pay rises; in defending rights and freedoms, the right to health care, to education, to justice, to public water, to transport, to security; in the struggle to prevent closure of public services; in defending the nation's productive apparatus and national production; in defending national sovereignty; in denouncing and opposing Portugal's involvement in imperialist wars of aggression and occupations. The PCP participated in important electoral battles, such as the general election, local government and presidential elections, with positive results and massively participated campaigns, like for example the rally during the presidential campaign, when over 25,000 people overflowed the Atlantico Pavillion, making it seem small. By coordinating and dialectically interconnecting mass actions, institutional work, and general political work, the Party has run major political campaigns based on propaganda and on special sales of "Avante!". Intensive work went into organizing political events, seminars, debates, rallies, meetings, public meetings, organizational assemblies. Celebrations were held for the Party and "Avante!" anniversaries. Major National Meetings were organized. We hosted the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in our country. Celebrations were held for the Communist Manifesto's 160th anniversary, the October Revolution's 90th anniversary, the April Revolution's 30th anniversary. Extremely important was the process of organizing the PCP's National Conference on Economic and Social Issues, whose conclusions are highly relevant to Portugal's current situation. Comrade ?lvaro Cunhal's funeral was a huge tribute to his role - to his political, ideological, cultural, and Party-building work - identifying with the values of April . In the midst of harsh class struggle - and confronted with offensives against freedoms and the democratic regime, and with an anti-democratic Law on Political parties and their Financing - the Freedom and Democracy March, with the participation of over 50,000 Party members and friends of the Party, was a great event where the Party asserted itself and gave a fighting response to the situation. Comrades: T he international and national situation, the struggles and wishes of workers and peoples confirm that our project is valid and relevant today, and that Communist Parties are necessary. The PCP is proud of its history in the struggle against fascism, for democracy and freedom. We reassert our determination in implementing the Party's humanistic liberation project, that is itself part and parcel of the Party's nature and identity. A strong PCP, and strengthening the PCP, is something that is in the interests of not just communists, but of all workers, of all the people, of all true democrats and patriots. The period between the 17th and 18th Congresses showed that "difficult" does not mean "impossible", that a stronger PCP is not only necessary, but also possible. The general movement to organizationally strengthen the Party launched by the 17th Congress with the slogan "Yes, it's possible: a stronger PCP!", established essential Party-strengthening directives and led to major advances in improving Party cohesiveness, collective work, structure and working capacity. We do not underestimate the existing shortcomings, difficulties and delays, but these do not annul the major importance of the steps already taken. The demanding task of updating the Party's membership files is yet to be completed. But among the feats that spur us on in this constant building and rebuilding effort to strengthen Party organization are that: 7,000 new members were recruited into the Party (the largest recruitment of the past 20 years); up to 2006 there was a drive to assign new responsibilities to cadres, resulting in 1,400 members receiving new responsibilities (712 of them under the age of 35); 630 organizational assemblies were held. This is, comrades, not mere proof of existance, it is proof of strength and of trust in the Party and its future. This 18th Congress must not rest on those laurels. It must push ahead with a general Party-strengthening drive. Forward, for a stronger PCP! This is, comrades, what most genuinely disproves what all the monsters hovering over the 17th Congress were pontificating about: that it would be impossible for us to round the cape of hope and conviction and that it would be impossible to have a stronger Party. In mentioning just some of the Party-strengthening directions and measures set out in our draft Political Resolution, we would like to highlight the following: improving leadership work by overcoming existing shortcomings, new structure-building measures, improvement of collective work and style of work, renewal of membership and assignment of responsibilities to new and valuable cadres. The proposal for the Central Committee to be elected by the 18th Congress maintains the same features as the outgoing one, particularly as regards its range of skills, while the number of members has been slightly reduced. Its membership embodies the criteria defined by the Party leadership: renewal, rejuvenation, a social majority of industrial workers and working people, Party cadres both full-timers and others, those responsible for major Party organizations, members from workplace organizations, members involved in mass movements, working in diverse social, economic, cultural, technical, intellectual and scientific fields, bringing with them diverse bodies of knowledge. All this strengthened by the participation of more young people and women. We are looking to a better cadre policy, training them, giving them more responsibilities - especially industrial workers, young people and women - fostering individual and collective thinking. We are looking to strengthen the organization, by continuing our policy of recruiting and organizing the Party wherever the masses are - and especially where class conflicts and the class struggle is waged -, where energies can be freed and consciences can form and evolve: the workplace. We are looking to improve our ideological work, creating closer links between research, debate, initiative and definition of priority topics relevant to the Party's practical work, tasks and experience - thus opening up channels for the Party's thinking to communicate and expand. We are looking to improve the Party's information, propaganda and press: by making the best use of existing material and human resources; in publicizing and distributing "Avante!", particularly through militant sales, to make the Party's central paper more visible and more effective; ensuring that "O Militante" is more closely integrated into the Party's work and experiences; better coordinating our information, propaganda, press, publications and relations with the mass media. We are looking to improve our financial policy which must have militancy and the Party members' dedication at its root, must raise income, limit expenses, have greater initiative; improve financial control, maintain and make the best use of our facilities to ensure normal Party work; prepare the Party to be able to always preserve its independence from capital and from the State, whatever the circumstances that may arise. Comrades: It is only by being the Party that we are - and not the one that our opponents would like us to be - can the PCP successfully defend the workers, the people and the country, be the essential force working for democracy and national independence, and be the most determined and consistent force in the struggle for alternative policies and for a political alternative. The Party's identity is the strongest and most secure foundation for our ability to intervene in national life. In establishing this identity's essential features, we do not turn to abstraction, to merely theoretical, timeless or immovable concepts - we improve it with collective thinking, turning to real life, to our own experiences in our many struggles and the many lessons we learned in them and from our members' dedicated and courageous work, to our connection to workers' and the masses' problems, aspirations and struggles, and to the Party's own ability to creatively develop principles, concepts and practices. The Party is also its class nature - the very reason of our struggle -, its goal of building a new society where capitalism's exploitation, oppression and injustices can be banished - a socialist society, with its revolutionary, materialist, dialectical, creative theory, contrary to dogmatism and fossilization and also to revision of fundamental principles, a theory that emerges from real life and has to provide real-life answers, with organizational principles such as a single political line, a single central leadership, a thoroughly-embedded democracy, close ties to the working class, to all working people, to the masses of the people, with patriotism and internationalism. This is the Party that we have, this is the Party that we are. The Congress's will is sovereign. But we are deeply convinced and confident that we have been, are, and will be a Communist Party worthy of its name, that we do not give in to pressure or threats, that we do not fear the truth, courage and honesty. We will emerge from this 18th Congress with renewed strength to continue our struggle. Long live Portugal's workers and people! Long live internationalist solidarity! Long live the PCP! in http://www.international.pcp.pt/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=272 From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Tue Dec 2 18:50:10 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:50:10 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Does Mr O Know? In-Reply-To: <49351883.8080009@ashisuto.co.jp> References: <49351883.8080009@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: <4935E5D2.7060105@gmail.com> Does Mr O know that world oil discovery has fallen to insignificant levels after peaking long ago in the 1960s? Does he know we are finding no more super-giant oil fields on the scale of Arabia's Ghawar or Mexico's Cantarell, First, the Cantarell field was a dud. It's already pretty much tapped out. Second... Obama probably knows, not that he'll act on that basis, but why should he? Even here on this list, there are those who think it's simply a conspiracy between the oil companies to not explore and drill to keep crude prices up, when any moron knows that price stability IS their main goal ( NOT maximizing profits like some idiot [LBO] following daytrader), overweening consideration, and the reason the Neocons damn near destabilized the whole middle East, because they thought they could do a better job of price control, in an overall genocidal attempt to control OPEC. Leigh Bill Totten wrote: > Clusterfuck Nation > > by Jim Kunstler > > Comment on current events by the author of > The Long Emergency (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2005) > > www.kunstler.com (December 01 2008) > > > A lot of readers are twanging on me for refraining to castigate > President-elect Obama for deeds yet undone. They're discouraged by the > advisors and cabinet secretaries he's picked, ostensibly because the > crew coming in are Washington "insiders", meaning they can't possibly > see or do things differently. > > My own starting point for this is the belief that in the years just > ahead any sociopolitical entity organized at the giant scale will > flounder - this includes everything from the federal government to > global corporations to factory farms to centralized high schools to > national retail chains. So even expecting Mr Obama's government to act > effectively may be asking too much in a situation that will require > mostly local action. > > The meta-situation will be the overall decline of energy resources and > the necessary downscaling of our activities. We are obviously in a > transitional period between the old profligate energy economy and the > new economy of relative scarcity. We have no idea how disorderly this > transition will be, but there is certainly potential for tremendous > instability in daily life. > > For a while, perhaps, the federal government may retain some ability to > affect the way things go, or give the appearance of doing so. This > raises the issue of what Mr Obama and his team really know about our > energy predicament. The president-elect has made some noises - recently > on the 60 Minutes show - that he understands something about the current > price dislocations in the oil markets resulting from the larger > financial turmoil. He alluded to the public's erroneous notion that > current low-ish oil prices mean the oil problem is over. But does the > incoming president know some of the following details? > > For instance, does Mr O know that global oil production appears to have > peaked at around 85 million barrels a day, with poor prospects of ever > getting beyond that? This single naked fact has broad ramifications, > above all whether we can continue to think in terms of industrial > "growth" as the benchmark for economic health. There are many > interpretations of the current financial fiasco. Some of them are based > on long-term technical wave theories. A more down-to-earth view suggests > the shock of peak oil - though it doesn't exclude wave theories. > > Does Mr O know that world oil discovery has fallen to insignificant > levels after peaking long ago in the 1960s? Does he know we are finding > no more super-giant oil fields on the scale of Arabia's Ghawar or > Mexico's Cantarell, which have supplied most of the world's oil for the > past forty years and are now running down? Does he know that you can't > produce oil that hasn't been discovered? Does Mr O know that virtually > all the oil-producing nations have entered production decline. Surely > someone has whispered in his ear about the IEA's projection that global > oil production would fall 9.1 percent in the coming year. > > Does Mr O know that oil exports have been trending to decline at a > steeper rate than oil depletion? That is, the exporting nations are > losing their ability to send oil to the importers (like us) at a rate > mathematically greater than the run-down in their production.They are > using more of their own oil even while their production is going down. > For example, Mexico is depleting overall at more than nine percent a > year (with the Cantarell field alone running down at more than fifteen > percent annually). Does he know Mexico's net exports are crashing? > Mexico has been our number three leading source of imports. In a very > few years they will not be able to send us any oil. A deluded American > public has no idea that this is happening. Will Mr O explain it to them? > > Does Mr O know that the "old major" oil companies (Exxon-Mobil, Texaco, > Shell, et al) produce less than ten percent of the world's oil now - the > other ninety percent coming from the foreign nationals - and that > blaming them for the situation is a waste of time. The foreign national > companies are changing the landscape of the oil markets. They're making > special contracts with "favored customers" rather than just putting > their oil up for auction on the futures markets. One thing you can infer > from this is that we're entering a period of national oil hoarding based > on coming scarcity. The futures markets were based on relative > abundance, and they will not operate very well in a climate of scarcity. > Consider that the USA will probably not be among the "favored customers" > for several oil producing nations. Figure that in with the coming loss > of imports from Mexico (and Venezuela and Nigeria). > > Does Mr O know that the current drop in oil prices (due to massive > financial deleveraging) has resulted in the cancellation or postponment > of the very oil production projects that were hoped to offset the coming > depletions? It's not worth it for an oil enterprise (private or foreign) > to drill in deepwater or venture into arctic regions when oil is priced > at $50-a-barrel - if it costs $80 to get the stuff out of the ground. > It's not worth digging up tar sands in Canada at that price. This halt > in activity is going to boomerang back on the US in a year or so, with > depletions ongoing everywhere and no new oil to take its place. Does Mr > O know that we're just as likely to see shortages as a resuming rise in > oil prices here in the US during his coming term? > > Does Mr O know that the current re-inflation program being run by the > Treasury and the Federal Reserve is so egregious that it may lead to > loss of the dollar's legitimacy, to the renunciation of dollar holdings > by other nations, to the down-rating of US Treasury debt instruments, > and finally to an inability of the US to purchase foreign oil - which > comprises two-thirds of all the oil we use every day? > > Does Mr O know that we are not going to run the US automobile and truck > fleet on any combination of alt.fuels? Continuing it by other means is a > fantasy that will only disappoint us. The motoring era is coming to an > end. Heroic investments in highway infrastructure to create jobs will be > a tragic waste of our dwindling capital. The pressure for Mr O to make > these misinvestments will be enormous, perhaps insurmountable. There are > probably not a thousand people in the US who agree with what I am saying > - meaning the consensus to keep the cars running at all costs overwhelms > reality at the moment. Does Mr O's concept of "change" include the > possibility that we may have to live very differently in this society? > > Chances are, if Mr O knows any of these things he might be crucified in > the polls and the media by acknowledging them. The only "change" that > America really wants to hear about is evicting George Bush from the > White House. They're sick of him and all the disturbance he has caused > in their financial affairs. But beyond that, the American public is > deathly afraid of the kind of changes we actually face - such as, the > end of consumer culture, the gross loss of value in suburban real estate > (which forms the bulk of the middle class's private wealth), the > prospect of food and fuel scarcities, the need to re-localize our lives, > the need to physically shape up to stop the costly and unnecessary drain > on our medical resources, to grow more of our own food, to work harder > at things that actually matter, and to save whatever we can for a > difficult future. > > If Mr O introduces any of these themes into the national discourse, the > public and the media and the bloggers will all dump on him for failing > to prop up the wild party that American life became in recent decades. > _____ > > My new novel of the post-oil future, World Made By Hand, is available at > all booksellers. > > http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2008/12/does-mr-o-know.html > > > http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com > http://www.ashisuto.co.jp > > > > > From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Tue Dec 2 20:49:24 2008 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:49:24 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The Anti-Empire Report Message-ID: <493601C4.3030907@ashisuto.co.jp> by William Blum www.killinghope.org (December 01 2008) Vote First. Ask Questions Later. Okay, let's get the obvious out of the way. It was historic. I choked up a number of times, tears came to my eyes, even though I didn't vote for him. I voted for Ralph Nader for the fourth time in a row. During the past eight years when I've listened to news programs on the radio each day I've made sure to be within a few feet of the radio so I could quickly change the station when that preposterous man or one of his disciples came on; I'm not a masochist, I suffer fools very poorly, and I get bored easily. Sad to say, I'm already turning the radio off sometimes when Obama comes on. He doesn't say anything, or not enough, or not often enough. Platitudes, clich?s, promises without substance, "hope and change", almost everything without sufficient substance, "change and hope", without specifics, designed not to offend. What exactly are the man's principles? He never questions the premises of the empire. Never questions the premises of the "War on Terror". I'm glad he won for two reasons only: John McCain and Sarah Palin, and I deeply resent the fact that the American system forces me to squeeze out a drop of pleasure from something so far removed from my ideals. Obama's votes came at least as much from people desperate for relief from neo-conservative suffocation as from people who genuinely believed in him. It's a form of extortion - Vote for Obama or you get more of the same. Those are your only choices. Is there reason to be happy that the insufferably religious George W is soon to be history? "I believe that Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis." That was said by someone named Barack Obama {1}. The United States turns out religious fanatics like the Japanese turn out cars. Let's pray for an end to this. As I've mentioned before, if you're one of those who would like to believe that Obama has to present center-right foreign policy views to be elected, but once he's in the White House we can forget that he misled us repeatedly and the true, progressive man of peace and international law and human rights will emerge ... keep in mind that as a US Senate candidate in 2004 he threatened missile strikes against Iran {2}, and winning that election apparently did not put him in touch with his inner peacenik. He's been threatening Iran ever since. The world is in terrible shape. I don't think I have to elucidate on that remark. How nice, how marvelously nice it would be to have an American president who was infused with progressive values and political courage. Just imagine what could be done. Like a quick and complete exit from Iraq. You can paint the picture as well as I can. With his popularity Obama could get away with almost anything, but he'll probably continue to play it safe. Or what may be more precise, he'll continue to be himself; which, apparently, is a committed centrist. He's not really against the war. Not like you and I are. During Obama's first four years in the White House, the United States will not leave Iraq. I doubt that he'd allow a complete withdrawal even in a second term. Has he ever unequivocally called the war illegal and immoral? A crime against humanity? Why is he so close to Colin Powell? Does he not know of Powell's despicable role in the war? And retaining George W Bush's Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, a man against whom it would not be difficult to draw up charges of war crimes? Will he also find a place for Rumsfeld? And Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, a supporter of the war, to run the Homeland Security department? And General James Jones, a former NATO commander (sic), who wants to "win" in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who backed John McCain, as his National Security Adviser? Jones is on the Board of Directors of the Boeing Corporation and Chevron Oil. Out of what dark corner of Obama's soul does all this come? As Noam Chomsky recently pointed out, the election of an indigenous person (Evo Morales) in Bolivia and a progressive person (Jean-Bertrand Aristide) in Haiti were more historic than the election of Barack Obama. He's not really against torture either. Not like you and I are. No one will be punished for using or ordering torture. No one will be impeached because of torture. Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, says that prosecuting Bush officials is necessary to set future anti-torture policy. "The only way to prevent this from happening again is to make sure that those who were responsible for the torture program pay the price for it. I don't see how we regain our moral stature by allowing those who were intimately involved in the torture programs to simply walk off the stage and lead lives where they are not held accountable." {3} As president, Obama cannot remain silent and do nothing; otherwise he will inherit the war crimes of Bush and Cheney and become a war criminal himself. Closing the Guantanamo hell-hole means nothing at all if the prisoners are simply moved to other torture dungeons. If Obama is truly against torture, why does he not declare that after closing Guantanamo the inmates will be tried in civilian courts in the US or resettled in countries where they clearly face no risk of torture? And simply affirm that his administration will faithfully abide by the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, of which the United States is a signatory, and which states: "The term 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession ... inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or any other person acting in an official capacity". The convention affirms that: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture". Instead, Obama has appointed former CIA official John O Brennan as an adviser on intelligence matters and co-leader of his intelligence transition team. Brennan has called "rendition" - the kidnap-and-torture program carried out under the Clinton and Bush administrations - a "vital tool", and praised the CIA's interrogation techniques for providing "lifesaving" intelligence. {4} Obama may prove to be as big a disappointment as Nelson Mandela, who did painfully little to improve the lot of the masses of South Africa while turning the country over to the international forces of globalization. I make this comparison not because both men are black, but because both produced such great expectations in their home country and throughout the world. Mandela was freed from prison on the assumption of the Apartheid leaders that he would become president and pacify the restless black population while ruling as a non-radical, free-market centrist without undue threat to white privilege. It's perhaps significant that in his autobiography he declines to blame the CIA for his capture in 1962 even though the evidence to support this is compelling {5}. It appears that Barack Obama made a similar impression upon the American power elite who vetted him in many fundraising and other meetings and smoothed the way for his highly unlikely ascendancy from obscure state senator to the presidency in four years. The financial support from the corporate world to sell "Brand Obama" was extraordinary. Another comparison might be with Tony Blair. The Tories could never have brought in university fees or endless brutal wars, but New Labour did. The Republicans would have had a very difficult time bringing back the draft, but I can see Obama reinstating it, accompanied by a suitable slogan, some variation of "Yes, we can!". I do hope I'm wrong, about his past and about how he'll rule as president. I hope I'm very wrong. Many people are calling for progressives to intensely lobby the Obama administration, to exert pressure to bring out the "good Obama", force him to commit himself, hold him accountable. The bold reforms of Roosevelt's New Deal were spurred by widespread labor strikes and other militant actions soon after the honeymoon period was over. At the moment I have nothing better to offer than that. God help us. The future as we used to know it has ceased to exist. And other happy thoughts. Reading the accounts of the terrorist horror in Mumbai has left me as pessimistic as a dinosaur contemplating the future of his grandchildren. How could they do that? ... destroying all those lives, people they didn't even know, people enjoying themselves on vacation ... whatever could be their motivation? Well, they did sort of know some of their victims; they knew they were Indians, or Americans, or British, or Zionists, or some other kind of infidel; so it wasn't completely mindless, not totally random. Does that help to understand? Can it ease the weltschmerz? You can even make use of it. The next time you encounter a defender of American foreign policy, someone insisting that something like Mumbai justifies Washington's rhetorical and military attacks against Islam, you might want to point out that the United States does the same on a regular basis. For seven years in Afghanistan, almost six in Iraq, to give only the two most obvious examples ... breaking down doors and machine-gunning strangers, infidels, traumatizing children for life, firing missiles into occupied houses, exploding bombs all over the place, pausing to torture ... every few days dropping bombs on Pakistan or Afghanistan, and still Iraq, claiming they've killed members of al-Qaeda, just as bad as Zionists, bombing wedding parties, one after another, twenty or thirty or seventy killed, all terrorists of course, often including top al-Qaeda leaders, the number one or number two man, so we're told; so not completely mindless, not totally random; the survivors say it was a wedding party, their brother or their nephew or their friend, mostly women and children dead; the US military pays people to tell them where so-and-so number-one bad guy is going to be; and the US military believes what they're told, so Bombs Away! ... Does any of that depress you like Mumbai? Sometimes they bomb Syria instead, or kill people in Iran or Somalia, all bad guys ... "US helicopter-borne troops have carried out a raid inside Syria along the Iraqi border, killing eight people including a woman, Syrian authorities say" reports the BBC {6} ... "The United States military since 2004 has used broad, secret authority to carry out nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks against Al Qaeda and other militants in Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere, according to senior American officials ... The secret order gave the military new authority to attack the Qaeda terrorist network anywhere in the world, and a more sweeping mandate to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United States", the New York Times informs us {7}. So it's all nice and legal, not an attack upon civilization by a bunch of escaped mental patients. Maybe the Mumbai terrorists also have a piece of paper, from some authority, saying that it's okay what they did ... I'm feeling better already. The mythology of the War on Terrorism On November 8, three men were executed by the government of Indonesia for terrorist attacks on two night clubs in Bali in 2002 that took the lives of 202 people, more than half of whom were Australians, Britons and Americans. The Associated Press {8} reported that "the three men never expressed remorse, saying the suicide bombings were meant to punish the United States and its Western allies for alleged atrocities in Afghanistan and elsewhere". During the recent US election campaign, John McCain and his followers repeated a sentiment that has become a commonplace - that the War on Terrorism has been a success because there hasn't been a terrorist attack against the United States since September 11 2001; as if terrorists killing Americans is acceptable if it's done abroad. Since the first American strike on Afghanistan in October 2001 there have been literally scores of terrorist attacks against American institutions in the Middle East, South Asia and the Pacific, more than a dozen in Pakistan alone: military, civilian, Christian, and other targets associated with the United States. The year following the Bali bombings saw the heavy bombing of the US-managed Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia, the site of diplomatic receptions and 4th of July celebrations held by the American Embassy. The Marriott Hotel in Pakistan was the scene of a major terrorist bombing just two months ago. All of these attacks have been in addition to the thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan against US occupation, which Washington officially labels an integral part of the War on Terrorism. Yet American lovers of military force insist that the War on Terrorism has kept the United States safe. Even the claim that the War on Terrorism has kept Americans safe at home is questionable. There was no terrorist attack in the United States during the 6 1/2 years prior to the one in September 2001; not since the April 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. It would thus appear that the absence of terrorist attacks in the United States is the norm. An even more insidious myth of the War on Terrorism has been the notion that terrorist acts against the United States can be explained, largely, if not entirely, by irrational hatred or envy of American social, economic, or religious values, and not by what the United States does to the world; ie, US foreign policy. Many Americans are mightily reluctant to abandon this idea. Without it the whole paradigm - that we are the innocent good guys and they are the crazy, fanatic, bloodthirsty bastards who cannot be talked to but only bombed, tortured and killed - falls apart. Statements like the one above from the Bali bombers blaming American policies for their actions are numerous, coming routinely from Osama bin Laden and those under him. {9} Terrorism is an act of political propaganda, a bloody form of making the world hear one's outrage against a perceived oppressor, graffiti written on the wall in some grim, desolate alley. It follows that if the perpetrators of a terrorist act declare what their motivation was, their statement should carry credibility, no matter what one thinks of their cause or the method used to achieve it. Just put down that stereotype and no one gets hurt. Sarah Palin and her American supporters resent what they see as the East Coast elite, the intellectuals, the cultural snobs, the politically correct, the pacifists and peaceniks, the agnostics and atheists, the environmentalists, the fanatic animal protectors, the food police, the health gestapo, the socialists, and other such leftist and liberal types who think of themselves as morally superior to Joe Sixpack, Joe the Plumber, National Rifle Association devot?es, rednecks, and all the Bush supporters who have relished the idea of having a president no smarter than themselves. It's stereotyping gone wild. So in the interest of bringing some balance and historical perspective to the issue, allow me to remind you of some forgotten, or never known, factoids which confound the stereotypes. * Josef Stalin studied for the priesthood. * Adolf Hitler once hoped to become a Catholic priest or monk; he was a vegetarian and was anti-smoking. * Hermann Goering, while his Luftwaffe rained death upon Europe, kept a sign in his office that read: "He who tortures animals wounds the feelings of the German people". * Adolf Eichmann was cultured, read deeply, played the violin. * Benito Mussolini also played the violin. * Some Nazi concentration camp commanders listened to Mozart to drown out the cries of the inmates. * Charles Manson was a staunch anti-vivisectionist. * Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb leader, charged with war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, had been a psychiatrist specializing in depression; the author of a published book of poetry as well as children's books, often with themes of nature; and a practitioner of alternative medicine. I'm not really certain to what use you might put this information to advance toward our cherished national goal of becoming a civilized society, but I feel a need to disseminate it. If you know of any other examples of the same type, I'd appreciate your sending them to me. The examples above are all of "bad guys" doing "good" things. There are of course many more instances of "good guys" doing "bad" things. Notes 1. Washington Post, August 17 2008 2. Chicago Tribune, September 25 2004 3. Associated Press, November 17 2008 4. New York Times, October 03 2008 5. Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom (1994), page 278; William Blum, Rogue State, chapter 23, "How the CIA sent Nelson Mandela to prison for 28 years" 6. BBC, October 26 2008 7. New York Times, November 09 2008 8. Associated Press, November 09 2008 9. See my article at: http://www.killinghope.org/superogue/terintro.htm William Blum is the author of:- Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War Two (Common Courage Press, 1995) Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower (Zed Books, 2002) West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir (Soft Skull Press, 2002) Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire (Common Courage Press, 2004) Portions of the books can be read, and copies purchased, at http://www.killinghope.org and previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website. To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to bblum6 at aol.com with "add" in the subject line. I'd like your name and city in the message, but that's optional. I ask for your city only in case I'll be speaking in your area. Or put "remove" in the subject line to do the opposite. Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission. I'd appreciate it if the website were mentioned. http://www.killinghope.org/bblum6/aer64.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Mon Dec 1 03:10:04 2008 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:10:04 +1100 Subject: [A-List] Venezuela: The significance of the election results and the new struggles | Links Message-ID: <4933B7FC.3040105@greenleft.org.au> By *Federico Fuentes*, Caracas November 29, 2008 -- Supporters and opponents of Venezuela?s Bolivarian revolution have come out with differing assessments post the November 23 regional elections, which Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez had defined as the most important electoral contest yet for the process of change. Full article at http://links.org.au/node/768 Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 From noreply at coha.org Tue Dec 2 13:34:26 2008 From: noreply at coha.org (Council on Hemispheric Affairs) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:34:26 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Memorandum to the Press: Breaking News and Analyses from COHA Message-ID: <20081202203333.C5B5B3E47ED@mx-out2.daemonmail.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5290 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081202/80cea6e4/attachment.txt From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Tue Dec 2 19:07:28 2008 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:07:28 +1100 Subject: [A-List] What's new at Links: Elections in Venezuela; Mumbai; Arabic; economic crisis and the poor; Thailand; France; environment; Comintern Message-ID: <4935E9E0.9050101@greenleft.org.au> Subscribe free to Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 Visit and bookmark http://links.org.au and add it to your RSS feed (http://links.org.au/rss.xml). If you would like us to consider an article, please send it to links at dsp.org.au *Please pass on to anybody you think will be interested in Links. * * * Venezuela: US-backed right wing murders unionists, attacks revolutionary gains A statement from the Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network November 28, 2008 -- In the aftermath of the November 23 regional elections, Venezuela's right-wing opposition has launched, in the states it won, an all-out assault on grassroots community organisations... In the days following the elections, grassroots activists in Caracas, Miranda and Tachira have reported that the public community health clinics (part of Barrio Adentro, the free universal healthcare program), communal councils and other centres where social programs operate are being shut down or attacked by opposition party, despite the public assurances of at least one right-wing govenor-elect that the legal frameworks would be respected. * Read more Venezuela: After the regional elections, the workers propose a clean out and more revolution By Stalin Perez Borges, translated by Kiraz Janicke and Federico Fuentes for Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal November 25, 2008 -- I want to give some preliminary and personal impressions, in the heat of the moment, where many comrades are very preoccupied by the significance of the [Chavista movement's] loss of the Mayor of Greater Caracas and of some important or key governorships in the country. * Read more Venezuela's regional elections: Another vote for the revolution and Chavez (now with video, audio) Statement by the Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network November 25, 2008 -- The results of the elections for local mayors and state governors held in Venezuela on November 23 underlined the continuing mass support for the Bolivarian revolution led by President Hugo Chavez. In a clear vote of confidence in the project to build socialism of the 21st century in Venezuela, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) -- formed just six months ago with Chavez as its president -- won 17 of the 22 states in which governors were elected. The United States-backed right-wing opposition won five states with a total of about 4 million votes, compared to the 5.5 million votes for the PSUV candidates. The elections were also a victory for democracy in Venezuela. * Read more Indian communists condemn Mumbai terror attack By Dipankar Bhattacharya, General Secretary, Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation November 27, 2008 -- The CPI (ML) strongly condemns the attacks and offers deep condolences to the families of all those killed. * Read more The Flame, November 2008 - Green Left Weekly's Arabic supplement With the help of Socialist Alliance members in the growing Sudanese community in Australia, Green Left Weekly -- Australia's leading socialist newspaper -- is publishing a regular Arabic language supplement. The Flame will cover news from the Arabic-speaking world as well as news and issues from within Australia. The editor-in-chief will be Soubhi Iskander, a comrade who has endured years of imprisonment and torture at the hands of the repressive government in Sudan. * Read more David Harvey on the `Enigma of capital' and the current capitalist economic crisis A lecture by Professor David Harvey City University of New York Graduate Center November 14, 2008 1 hour 2 minutes * Read more Thailand: PAD thugs close Bangkok airport By Giles Ji Ungpakorn November 26, 2008 -- Bangkok International Airport has now been closed by fascist thugs from the anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD). The PAD is demanding that the elected government of Thailand resigns. This is despite the fact that the government has the backing of the majority of the Thai population and even the majority of Bangkok citizens. This backing has been proven by repeated elections. The PAD want a dictatorship to replace democracy because it deems the majority of the Thai electorate to be too ignorant to deserve the right to vote. * Read more France's New Anti-Capitalist Party: An exchange between Alex Callinicos (British SWP) and Fran?ois Sabado (LCR) Below are two articles which first appeared in Critique Communiste, and in English in the November issue of International Viewpoint, the magazine of the Fourth International. The first is by Alex Callinicos, a leader of the British Socialist Workers Party. The second, "The NPA, a new experience of building an anti-capitalist party", is a reply by Fran?ois Sabado, a leader of the Revolutionary Communist League (LCR). * Read more Making the world's poor pay: The economic crisis and the Global South [This article is available in Spanish: `Que paguen los pobres del mundo La crisis econ?mica y del Sur del glob' .] By Adam Hanieh November 22, 2008 -- The current global economic crisis has all the earmarks of an epoch-defining event. Mainstream economists - not usually known for their exaggerated language - now openly employ phrases like ``systemic meltdown'' and ``peering into the abyss''. On October 29, for example, Martin Wolf, one of the top financial commentators of the Financial Times, warned that the crisis portends "mass bankruptcy", "soaring unemployment" and a "catastrophe" that threatens "the legitimacy of the open market economy itself... the danger remains huge and time is short". * Read more Sydney, April 10-13 (Easter), 2009: World At a Crossroads - Fighting for Socialism in the 21st Century World At a Crossroads: Fighting for Socialism in the 21st Century * Read more Rifts and shifts and Marx -- Getting to the root of environmental crises By Brett Clark and Richard York Humans depend on functioning ecosystems to sustain themselves and their actions affect those same ecosystems. As a result, there is a necessary "metabolic interaction" between humans and the earth, which influences both natural and social history. Increasingly, the state of nature is being defined by the operations of the capitalist system, as anthropogenic forces are altering the global environment on a scale that is unprecedented. * Read more Proceedings of Fourth Congress of the Communist International to be published In October, John Riddell, co-editor of Socialist Voice, completed a draft translation of the proceedings of the Fourth Congress of the Communist International. This ambitious effort (more than 500,000 words) will make all of the resolutions, speeches, and debates from that important 1922 meeting, together with full explanatory annotation, available in English for the first time. The work, which Riddell is preparing in collaboration with the London-based journal Historical Materialism, is planned for publication in 2010. The British newspaper Socialist Worker interviewed John Riddell (below) about this project for its November 22, 2008, issue. * Read more * * * Links seeks to promote the international exchange of information, experience of struggle, theoretical analysis and views of political strategy and tactics within the international left. It is a forum for open and constructive dialogue between active socialists coming from different political traditions. It seeks to bring together those in the international left who are opposed to neoliberal economic and social policies. It aims to promote the renewal of the socialist movement in the wake of the collapse of the bureaucratic model of "actually existing socialism" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. ATTENTION: Sign up for regular ``what's new'' announcement emails at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 15084 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081203/5118187c/attachment.txt From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Dec 3 12:53:55 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:53:55 -0500 Subject: [A-List] fail to bail Message-ID: <49369D8D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> observations from my kin From: Dan A sibling works in a bank. He often makes salient observations that stop me in my tracks. Here's a few. A couple of weeks ago CitiBank was competing to buy Wachovia. Now CitiBank is broke and being bailed out. What were they going to use to buy Wachovia? "Loan to own" is an analog to "fail to bail". Predation at two levels. Of course the price of gas is going down as Bush leaves office. They're covering their tracks, hiding the greatest profit rip-off in the history of mankind -- that of the oil companies during Bush's tenure. Who's covering it? Nobody. Want to restructure your house mortgage? Screw the bank, literally. Don't make your mortgage payments for a few months. The bank will tell you say put and wait for the bailout. They'll rewrite your loan and downsize both the principal and the interest rate. The banks can only help you if you screw them. That's how it works today. If you're a good citizen and abandon your home, the bank will have to come out and board it up, maintain it, secure it, etc. -- and they will have lost the ability to rewrite your loan. Screw 'em. That's what they want and need. The guvmint raised FDIC insurance to $250,000, good only until December 2009. What happens then? If you have a million dollars, you'll have to put it in 10 different banks. But there will only be four banks by then. Go figure. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Dec 3 13:18:37 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:18:37 -0500 Subject: [A-List] VI. DIVISION OF THE WORLD AMONG THE GREAT POWERS Message-ID: <4936A356.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> VI. DIVISION OF THE WORLD AMONG THE GREAT POWERS In his book, on ?the territorial development of the European colonies?, A. Supan, [1] the geographer, gives the following brief summary of this development at the end of the nineteenth century: PERCENTAGE OF TERRITORY BELONGING TO THE EUROPEAN COLONIAL POWERS (Including the United States) 1876 1900 Increase or decrease Africa.......... 10.8 90.4 +79.6 Polynesia.... 56.8 98.9 +42.1 Asia............ 51.5 56.6 +5.1 Australia..... 100.0 100.0 ? America...... 27.5 27.2 -0.3 ?The characteristic feature of this period,? he concludes, ?is, therefore, the division of Africa and Polynesia.? As there are no unoccupied territories?that is, territories that do not belong to any state in Asia and America, it is necessary to amplify Supan?s conclusion and say that the characteristic feature of the period under review is the final partitioning of the globe?final, not in the sense that repartition is impossible; on the contrary, repartitions are possible and inevitable?but in the sense that the colonial policy of the capitalist countries has completed the seizure of the unoccupied territories on our planet. For the first time the world is completely divided up, so that in the future only redivision is possible, i.e., territories can only pass from one ?owner? to another, instead of passing as ownerless territory to an owner Hence, we are living in a peculiar epoch of world colonial policy, which is most closely connected with the ?latest stage in the development of capitalism?, with finance capital. For this reason, it is essential first of all to deal in greater detail with the facts, in order to ascertain as exactly as possible what distinguishes this epoch from those preceding it, and what the present situation is. In the first place, two questions of fact arise here: is an intensification of colonial policy, a sharpening of the struggle for colonies, observed precisely in the epoch of finance capital? And how, in this respect, is the world divided at the present time? The American writer, Morris, in his book on the history of colonisation, [2] made an attempt to sum up the data on the colonial possessions of Great Britain, France and Germany during different periods of the nineteenth century. The following is a brief summary of the results he has obtained: COLONIAL POSSESSIONS Year Great Britain France Germany Area (000,000 sq. m.) Pop. (000,000) Area (000,000 sq. m.) Pop. (000,000) Area (000,000 sq. m.) Pop. (000,000) 1815-30 ? 126.4 0.02 0.5 ? ? 1860 2.5 145.1 0.2 3.4 ? ? 1880 7.7 267.9 0.7 7.5 ? ? 1899 9.3 309.0 3.7 56.4 1.0 14.7 For Great Britain, the period of the enormous expansion of colonial conquests was that between 1860 and 1880, and it was also very considerable in the last twenty years of the nineteenth century. For France and Germany this period falls precisely in these twenty years. We saw above that the development of premonopoly capitalism, of capitalism in which free competition was predominant, reached its limit in the 1860s and 1870s. We now see that it is precisely after that period that the tremendous ?boom? in colonial conquests begins, and that the struggle for the territorial division of the world becomes extraordinarily sharp. It is beyond doubt, therefore, that capitalism?s transition to the stage of monopoly capitalism, to finance capital, is connected with the intensification of the struggle for the partitioning of the world. Hobson, in his work on imperialism, marks the years 1884-1900 as the epoch of intensified ?expansion? of the chief European states. According to his estimate, Great Britain during these years acquired 3,700,000 square miles of territory with 57,000,000 inhabitants; France, 3,600,000 square miles with 36,500,000; Germany, 1,000,000 square miles with 14,700,000; Belgium, 900,000 square miles with 30,000,000; Portugal, 800,000 square miles with 9,000,000 inhabitants. The scramble for colonies by all the capitalist states at the end of the nineteenth century and particularly since the 1880s is a commonly known fact in the history of diplomacy and of foreign policy. In the most flourishing period of free competition in Great Britain, i.e., between 1840 and 1860, the leading British bourgeois politicians were opposed to colonial policy and were of the opinion that the liberation of the colonies, their complete separation from Britain, was inevitable and desirable. M. Beer, in an article, ?Modern British Imperialism?, [3] published in 1898, shows that in 1852, Disraeli, a statesman who was generally inclined towards imperialism, declared: ?The colonies are millstones round our necks.? But at the end of the nineteenth century the British heroes of the hour were Cecil Rhodes and Joseph Chamberlain, who openly advocated imperialism and applied the imperialist policy in the most cynical manner! It is not without interest to observe that even then these leading British bourgeois politicians saw the connection between what might be called the purely economic and the socio-political roots of modern imperialism. Chamberlain advocated imperialism as a ?true, wise and economical policy?, and pointed particularly to the German, American and Belgian competition which Great Britain was encountering in the world market. Salvation lies in monopoly, said the capitalists as they formed cartels, syndicates and trusts. Salvation lies in monopoly, echoed the political leaders of the bourgeoisie, hastening to appropriate the parts of the world not yet shared out. And Cecil Rhodes, we are informed by his intimate friend, the journalist Stead, expressed his imperialist views to him in 1895 in the following terms: ?I was in the East End of London (a working-class quarter) yesterday and attended a meeting of the unemployed. I listened to the wild speeches, which were just a cry for ?bread! bread!? and on my way home I pondered over the scene and I became more than ever convinced of the importance of imperialism.... My cherished idea is a solution for the social problem, i.e., in order to save the 40,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesmen must acquire new lands to settle the surplus population, to provide new markets for the goods produced in the factories and mines. The Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question. If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialists. [4] That was said in 1895 by Cecil Rhodes, millionaire, a king of finance, the man who was mainly responsible for the Anglo-Boer War. True, his defence of imperialism is crude and cynical, but in substance it does not differ from the ?theory? advocated by Messrs. Maslov, S?dekum, Potresov, David, the founder of Russian Marxism and others. Cecil Rhodes was a somewhat more honest social-chauvinist.... To present as precise a picture as possible of the territorial division of the world and of the changes which have occurred during the last decades in this respect, I shall utilise the data furnished by Supan in the work already quoted on the colonial possessions of all the powers of the world. Supan takes the years 1876 and 1900; I shall take the year 1876?a year very aptly selected, for it is precisely by that time that the pre-monopolist stage of development of West-European capitalism can be said to have been, in the main, completed?and the year 1914, and instead of Supan?s figures I shall quote the more recent statistics of H?bner?s Geographical and Statistical Tables. Supan gives figures only for colonies; I think it useful, in order to present a complete picture of the division of the world, to add brief data on non-colonial and semi-colonial countries, in which category I place Persia, China and Turkey: the first of these countries is already almost completely a colony, the second and third are becoming such. We thus get the following result: COLONIAL POSSESSIONS OF THE GREAT POWERS (000,000 square kilometers and 000,000 inhabitants) Colonies Metropolitan countries Total 1876 1914 1914 1914 Area Pop. Area Pop. Area Pop. Area Pop. Great Britain 22.5 251.9 33.5 393.5 0.3 46.5 33.8 444.0 Russia 17.0 15.9 17.4 33.2 5.4 136.2 22.8 169.4 France 0.9 6.0 10.6 55.5 0.5 39.6 11.1 95.1 Germany ? ? 2.9 12.3 0.5 64.9 3.4 77.2 United States ? ? 0.3 9.7 9.4 97.0 9.7 106.7 Japan ? ? 0.3 19.2 0.4 53.0 0.7 72.2 Total for 6 Great Powers 40.4 273.8 65.0 523.4 16.5 437.2 81.5 960.6 Colonies of other powers (Belgium, Holland, etc.) 9.9 45.3 Semi-colonial countries (Persia, China, Turkey) 14.5 361.2 Other countries 28.0 289.9 Total for the world 133.9 1,657.0 We clearly see from these figures how ?complete? was the partition of the world at the turn of the twentieth century. After 1876 colonial possessions increased to enormous dimensions, by more than fifty per cent, from 40,000,000 to 65,000,000 square kilometres for the six biggest powers; the increase amounts to 25,000,000 square kilometres, fifty per cent more than the area of the metropolitan countries (16,500,000 square kilometres). In 1876 three powers had no colonies, and a fourth, France, had scarcely any. By 1914 these four powers had acquired colonies with an area of 14,100,000 square kilometres, i.e., about half as much again as the area of Europe, with a population of nearly 100,000,000. The unevenness in the rate of expansion of colonial possessions is very great. If, for instance, we compare France, Germany and Japan, which do not differ very much in area and population, we see that the first has acquired almost three times as much colonial territory as the other two combined. In regard to finance capital, France, at the beginning of the period we are considering, was also, perhaps, several times richer than Germany and Japan put together. In addition to, and on the basis of, purely economic conditions, geographical and other conditions also affect the dimensions of colonial possessions. However strong the process of levelling the world, of levelling the economic and living conditions in different countries, may have been in the past decades as a result of the pressure of large-scale industry, exchange and finance capital, considerable differences still remain; and among the six countries mentioned we see, firstly, young capitalist countries (America, Germany, Japan) whose progress has been extraordinarily rapid; secondly, countries with an old capitalist development (France and Great Britain), whose progress lately has been much slower than that of the previously mentioned countries, and thirdly, a country most backward economically (Russia), where modern capitalist imperialism is enmeshed, so to speak, in a particularly close network of pre-capitalist relations. Alongside the colonial possessions of the Great Powers, we have placed the small colonies of the small states, which are, so to speak, the next objects of a possible and probable ?redivision? of colonies. These small states mostly retain their colonies only because the big powers are torn by conflicting interests, friction, etc., which prevent them from coming to an agreement on the division of the spoils. As to the ?semi-colonial? states, they provide an example of the transitional forms which are to be found in all spheres of nature and society. Finance capital is such a great, such a decisive, you might say, force in all economic and in all international relations, that it is capable of subjecting, and actually does subject, to itself even states enjoying the fullest political independence; we shall shortly see examples of this. Of course, finance capital finds most ?convenient?, and derives the greatest profit from, a form of subjection which involves the loss of the political independence of the subjected countries and peoples. In this respect, the semi-colonial countries provide a typical example of the ?middle stage?. It is natural that the struggle for these semidependent countries should have become particularly bitter in the epoch of finance capital, when the rest of the world has already been divided up. Colonial policy and imperialism existed before the latest stage of capitalism, and even before capitalism. Rome, founded on slavery, pursued a colonial policy and practised imperialism. But ?general? disquisitions on imperialism, which ignore, or put into the background, the fundamental difference between socio-economic formations, inevitably turn into the most vapid banality or bragging, like the comparison: ?Greater Rome and Greater Britain.? [5] Even the capitalist colonial policy of previous stages of capitalism is essentially different from the colonial policy of finance capital. The principal feature of the latest stage of capitalism is the domination of monopolist associations of big employers. These monopolies are most firmly established when all the sources of raw materials are captured by one group, and we have seen with what zeal the international capitalist associations exert every effort to deprive their rivals of all opportunity of competing, to buy up, for example, ironfields, oilfields, etc. Colonial possession alone gives the monopolies complete guarantee against all contingencies in the struggle against competitors, including the case of the adversary wanting to be protected by a law establishing a state monopoly. The more capitalism is developed, the more strongly the shortage of raw materials is felt, the more intense the competition and the hunt for sources of raw materials throughout the whole world, the more desperate the struggle for the acquisition of colonies. ?It may be asserted,? writes Schilder, ?although it may sound paradoxical to some, that in the more or less foreseeable future the growth of the urban and industrial population is more likely to be hindered by a shortage of raw materials for industry than by a shortage of food.? For example, there is a growing shortage of timber?the price of which is steadily rising?of leather, and of raw materials for the textile industry. ?Associations of manufacturers are making efforts to create an equilibrium between agriculture and industry in the whole of world economy; as an example of this we might mention the International Federation of Cotton Spinners? Associations in several of the most important industrial countries, founded in 1904, and the European Federation of Flax Spinners? Associations, founded on the same model in 1910.? [6] Of course, the bourgeois reformists, and among them particularly the present-day adherents of Kautsky, try to belittle the importance of facts of this kind by arguing that raw materials ?could be? obtained in the open market without a ?costly and dangerous? colonial policy; and that the supply of raw materials ?could be? increased enormously by ?simply? improving conditions in agriculture in general. But such arguments become an apology for imperialism, an attempt to paint it in bright colours, because they ignore the principal feature of the latest stage of capitalism: monopolies. The free market is becoming more and more a thing of the past; monopolist syndicates and trusts are restricting it with every passing day, and ?simply? improving conditions in agriculture means improving the conditions of the masses, raising wages and reducing profits. Where, except in the imagination of sentimental reformists, are there any trusts capable of concerning themselves with the condition of the masses instead of the conquest of colonies? Finance capital is interested not only in the already discovered sources of raw materials but also in potential sources, because present-day technical development is extremely rapid, and land which is useless today may be improved tomorrow if new methods are devised (to this end a big bank can equip a special expedition of engineers, agricultural experts, etc.), and if large amounts of capital are invested. This also applies to prospecting for minerals, to new methods of processing up and utilising raw materials, etc., etc. Hence, the inevitable striving of finance capital to enlarge its spheres of influence and even its actual territory. In the same way that the trusts capitalise their property at two or three times its value, taking into account its ?potential? (and not actual) profits and the further results of monopoly, so finance capital in general strives to seize the largest possible amount of land of all kinds in all places, and by every means, taking into account potential sources of raw materials and fearing to be left behind in the fierce struggle for the last remnants of independent territory, or for the repartition of those territories that have been already divided. The British capitalists are exerting every effort to develop cotton growing in their colony, Egypt (in 1904, out of 2,300,000 hectares of land under cultivation, 600,000, or more than one-fourth, were under cotton); the Russians are doing the same in their colony, Turkestan, because in this way they will be in a better position to defeat their foreign competitors, to monopolise the sources of raw materials and form a more economical and profitable textile trust in which all the processes of cotton production and manufacturing will be ?combined? and concentrated in the hands of one set of owners. The interests pursued in exporting capital also give an impetus to the conquest of colonies, for in the colonial market it is easier to employ monopoly methods (and sometimes they are the only methods that can be employed) to eliminate competition, to ensure supplies, to secure the necessary ?connections?, etc. The non-economic superstructure which grows up on the basis of finance capital, its politics and its ideology, stimulates the striving for colonial conquest. ?Finance capital does not want liberty, it wants domination,? as Hilferding very truly says. And a French bourgeois writer, developing and supplementing, as it were, the ideas of Cecil Rhodes quoted above,[7] writes that social causes should be added to the economic causes of modern colonial policy: ?Owing to the growing complexities of life and the difficulties which weigh not only on the masses of the workers, but also on the middle classes, ?impatience, irritation and hatred are accumulating in all the countries of the old civilisation and are becoming a menace to public order; the energy which is being hurled out of the definite class channel must be given employment abroad in order to avert an explosion at home?.? [8] Since we are speaking of colonial policy in the epoch of capitalist imperialism, it must be observed that finance capital and its foreign policy, which is the struggle of the great powers for the economic and political division of the world, give rise to a number of transitional forms of state dependence. Not only are the two main groups of countries, those owning colonies, and the colonies themselves, but also the diverse forms of dependent countries which, politically, are formally independent, but in fact, are enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence, typical of this epoch. We have already referred to one form of dependence?the semi-colony. An example of another is provided by Argentina. ?South America, and especially Argentina,? writes Schulze-Gaevernitz in his work on British imperialism, ?is so dependent financially on London that it ought to be described as almost a British commercial colony.? [9] Basing himself on the reports of the Austro-Hungarian Consul at Buenos Aires for 1909, Schilder estimated the amount of British capital invested in Argentina at 8,750 million francs. It is not difficult to imagine what strong connections British finance capital (and its faithful ?friend?, diplomacy) thereby acquires with the Argentine bourgeoisie, with the circles that control the whole of that country?s economic and political life. A somewhat different form of financial and diplomatic dependence, accompanied by political independence, is presented by Portugal. Portugal is an independent sovereign state, but actually, for more than two hundred years, since the war of the Spanish Succession (1701-14), it has been a British protectorate. Great Britain has protected Portugal and her colonies in order to fortify her own positions in the fight against her rivals, Spain and France. In return Great Britain has received commercial privileges, preferential conditions for importing goods and especially capital into Portugal and the Portuguese colonies, the right to use the ports and islands of Portugal, her telegraph cables, etc., etc. [10] Relations of this kind have always existed between big and little states, but in the epoch of capitalist imperialism they become a general system, they form part of the sum total of ?divide the world? relations and become links in the chain of operations of world finance capital. In order to finish with the question of the division of the world, I must make the following additional observation. This question was raised quite openly and definitely not only in American literature after the Spanish-American War, and in English literature after the Anglo-Boer War, at the very end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth; not only has German literature, which has ?most jealously? watched ?British imperialism?, systematically given its appraisal of this fact. This question has also been raised in French bourgeois literature as definitely and broadly as is thinkable from the bourgeois point of view. Let me quote Driault, the historian, who, in his book, Political and Social Problems at the End of the Nineteenth Century, in the chapter ?The Great Powers and the Division of the World?, wrote the following: ?During the past few years, all the free territory of the globe, with the exception of China, has been occupied by the powers of Europe and North America. This has already brought about several conflicts and shifts of spheres of influence, and these foreshadow more terrible upheavals in the near future. For it is necessary to make haste. The nations which have not yet made provision for themselves run the risk of never receiving their share and never participating in the tremendous exploitation of the globe which will be one of the most essential features of the next century (i.e., the twentieth). That is why all Europe and America have lately been afflicted with the fever of colonial expansion, of ?imperialism?, that most noteworthy feature of the end of the nineteenth century.? And the author added: ?In this partition of the world, in this furious hunt for the treasures and the big markets of the globe, the relative strength of the empires founded in this nineteenth century is totally out of proportion to the place occupied in Europe by the nations which founded them. The dominant powers in Europe, the arbiters of her destiny, are not equally preponderant in the whole world. And, as colonial might, the hope of controlling as yet unassessed wealth, will evidently react upon the relative strength of the European powers, the colonial question??imperialism?, if you will?which has already modified the political conditions of Europe itself, will modify them more and more.? [11] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes [1] A. Supan, Die territoriale Entwicklung der europ?ischen Kolonien, 1906, S. 254. ?Lenin [2] Henry C. Morris, The History of Colonisation, New York, 1900, Vol. II, p. 88; Vol. 1, p. 419; Vol. 11, p. 304. ?Lenin [3] Die Neue Zeit, XVI, 1, 1898, S. 302. ?Lenin [4] Ibid., S. 304. ?Lenin [5] C. P. Lucas, Greater Rome and Greater Britain, Oxford, 1912, or the Earl of Cromer?s Ancient and Modern Imperialism, London, 1910. ?Lenin [6] Schilder, op. cit., S. 38-42. ?Lenin [7] See pp. 256?57 of this volume.?Ed. [8] Wahl, La France aux colonies quoted by Henri Russier, Le Partage de l?Oc?anie, Paris, 1905, p. 165. ?Lenin [9] Schulze-Gaevernitz, Britischer Imperialismus und englischer Freihandel zu Beginn des 20-ten Jahrhunderts, Leipzig, 1906, S. 318. Sartorius v. Waltershausen says the same in Das volkswirtschaftliche System der Kapitalanlage im Auslande, Berlin, 1907, S. 46. ?Lenin [10] Schilder, op. cit., Vol. I, S. 160-61. ?Lenin [11] J. E. Driault, Probl?mes politiques et sociaux, Paris, 1900, p. 299. ?Lenin This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 13:24:53 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:24:53 -0800 Subject: [A-List] fail to bail In-Reply-To: <49369D8D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <49369D8D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <4936EB15.1040208@gmail.com> Charles Brown's kin wrote: "But there will only be four banks by then. Go figure." I figure it qualifies as economic FASCISM. > observations from my kin > From: Dan > A sibling works in a bank. He often makes salient observations that stop me in my tracks. Here's a few. > > A couple of weeks ago CitiBank was competing to buy Wachovia. Now CitiBank is broke and being bailed out. What were they going to use to buy Wachovia? "Loan to own" is an analog to "fail to bail". Predation at two levels. > > Of course the price of gas is going down as Bush leaves office. They're covering their tracks, hiding the greatest profit rip-off in the history of mankind -- that of the oil companies during Bush's tenure. Who's covering it? Nobody. > > Want to restructure your house mortgage? Screw the bank, literally. Don't make your mortgage payments for a few months. The bank will tell you say put and wait for the bailout. They'll rewrite your loan and downsize both the principal and the interest rate. The banks can only help you if you screw them. That's how it works today. If you're a good citizen and abandon your home, the bank will have to come out and board it up, maintain it, secure it, etc. -- and they will have lost the ability to rewrite your loan. Screw 'em. That's what they want and need. > > The guvmint raised FDIC insurance to $250,000, good only until December 2009. What happens then? If you have a million dollars, you'll have to put it in 10 different banks. But there will only be four banks by then. Go figure. > > > > > > > > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com > > > From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Dec 3 14:11:29 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:11:29 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Response to sour left Message-ID: <4936AFBB.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> G. writes, "What dismays me is that a Volcker appointment was even possible." Perhaps the attitude is different here about presidential appointments versus cabinet choices in Oz. Most people don't know or care who Volcker is or what he did before. Moreover, Obama's cabinet is being projected as a "team of adversaries" or some such thing, where the president will get a range of contradictory opinions and no individual appointment or collection of them is being presented or viewed as being particularly notable or significant in terms of the direction of policy, except by a few radicals and liberals who are now quite likely reading too much into his appointments just as before they were reading too much into his promises. Especially when dealing with the tons of appointments a new administration makes, singling out a Volcker or a Clinton or a what-his-name from the New York Fed or even a Gates to mount a campaign against just wouldn't make sense to people here. For one thing, it is the president that sets policy, EVERYONE in the executive branch at that level serves at his pleasure, and Obama is not yet the president and hasn't done anything. You say "we should be on the attack," but just what do you propose to attack? All the tea leaves point to the centerpiece of the new President's agenda being a more-or-less comprehensive package of measures to deal with the deepening economic downturn and the financial panic that set it off. What that package will look like will be determined by what the economy looks like in January and some political calculations about what he might be able to get through Congress. When he unveils that package shortly after the inauguration we will see. Even then, the strong tendency among regular people will be to let the new guy try out his approach before condemning him. Insofar as there is a left capacity for agitation/mobilization, and it is extremely limited, I think it should be focused on the impact of the crisis on working people, especially foreclosures and evictions, rather than on Obama and his choices. Joaquin This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 14:46:35 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:46:35 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Response to sour left In-Reply-To: <4936AFBB.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <4936AFBB.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <4936FE3B.5090701@gmail.com> "For one thing, it is the president that sets policy," ROTFLMMFAO It is the president that STATES policy! ...and Obama's policy IS more of EXACTLY the same, especially in foreign (war) policy except that he apparently likes 'A' (as in Afghanistan) better than 'I' (As in a now completely destroyed Iraq...). Stand by For an 'H', an 'O', and an 'A' (as in Horn of Africa)as well, because he has ABSOLUTELY no problem committing 'Fratricide' either. Get an Internationalist perspective. Read the boilerplate you've been posting in lieu of any original thoughts on your part ie: VI. DIVISION OF THE WORLD AMONG THE GREAT POWERS, and honestly, I STILL don't think you'll 'get it'. Charles Brown wrote: > G. writes, "What dismays me is that a Volcker appointment was even > possible." > > Perhaps the attitude is different here about presidential appointments > versus cabinet choices in Oz. Most people don't know or care who Volcker is > or what he did before. Moreover, Obama's cabinet is being projected as a > "team of adversaries" or some such thing, where the president will get a > range of contradictory opinions and no individual appointment or collection > of them is being presented or viewed as being particularly notable or > significant in terms of the direction of policy, except by a few radicals > and liberals who are now quite likely reading too much into his appointments > just as before they were reading too much into his promises. > > Especially when dealing with the tons of appointments a new administration > makes, singling out a Volcker or a Clinton or a what-his-name from the New > York Fed or even a Gates to mount a campaign against just wouldn't make > sense to people here. For one thing, it is the president that sets policy, > EVERYONE in the executive branch at that level serves at his pleasure, and > Obama is not yet the president and hasn't done anything. You say "we should > be on the attack," but just what do you propose to attack? > > All the tea leaves point to the centerpiece of the new President's agenda > being a more-or-less comprehensive package of measures to deal with the > deepening economic downturn and the financial panic that set it off. What > that package will look like will be determined by what the economy looks > like in January and some political calculations about what he might be able > to get through Congress. > > When he unveils that package shortly after the inauguration we will see. > Even then, the strong tendency among regular people will be to let the new > guy try out his approach before condemning him. > > Insofar as there is a left capacity for agitation/mobilization, and it is > extremely limited, I think it should be focused on the impact of the crisis > on working people, especially foreclosures and evictions, rather than on > Obama and his choices. > > Joaquin > > > > > > > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com > > > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 15:23:03 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:23:03 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Drowning Out The Song of Whales While Killing Them With Oil Drilling Message-ID: <493706C7.9000009@gmail.com> ROME ? The songs that whales and dolphins use to communicate, orient themselves and find mates are being drowned out by human-made noises in the world's oceans, U.N. officials and environmental groups said Wednesday. . . . Several species of cetaceans are already listed as endangered or critically endangered from other causes, including hunting, chemical pollution, collisions with boats and entanglements with fishing equipment. Though it is not yet known precisely how many animals are affected, sound pollution is increasingly being recognized as a serious factor, the experts said. In full: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081203/ap_on_re_eu/eu_un_noisy_seas Charles Brown (in particular) should also read up on the planned EXTINCTION of North Pacific Right Whale. Oil Drilling to Hit Heart of Right Whale Habitat in Bering Sea http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2008/north-pacific-right-whale-04-08-2008.html This benefits his buddies in the UAW who MIGHT get to keep their jobs if we keep pumping oil out of the earth until it's crust collapses on itself like this sinkhole in Texas (8 May 2008) that swallowed a bunch of vehicles and oil field equipment. From tboyle at rosehill.net Wed Dec 3 20:34:50 2008 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:34:50 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Reminder - Dec. 6 forum: A Marxist Looks at Capitalism's Meltdown Message-ID: >From: "New Freeway Hall" >X-Filter: "CloudMark Filter:Flag" (FLAG SPAMASSASSIN CONTAINS 10.0) >To: "FSPseattle" >Subject: [SPAM] Reminder - Dec. 6 forum: A >Marxist Looks at Capitalism's Meltdown >Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:08:01 -0800 > >Hope you can make it! > > > >Public Forum"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> > >Saturday, December 6, 7:30pm > > > >A Marxist Looks at Capitalism?s Meltdown > >? Origins of today?s world financial chaos > >? Why foreclosures, layoffs, bailouts & >budget cuts only deepen the crisis > >? Labor vs. Wall Street: How can workers win? > >? A planned economy: the sensible, socialist solution > >Speaker: Megan Cornish > >Journalist and economic analyst, co-author of Viva La Raza, > >and pioneer tradeswoman in the electrical field > > > >There will be plenty of time for discussion, so bring your >questions and ideas. > > > > > >Hearty Proletarian Pot Roast Dinner served at 6:00pm > >Vegetarian option available > >Door donation $3.00 ? Buffet donation $9.00 >Sliding scale & work exchanges available > > > >New Freeway Hall, 5018 Rainier Ave. S., Seattle > >On the #7 bus line at Hudson St. stop. Wheelchair accessible. > > > >Sponsored by the Freedom Socialist Party >For info or childcare, call 206-722-2453, >email FSPseattle at mindspring.com or go > >to www.socialism.com > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2874 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081203/c67cf8e6/attachment.txt From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Dec 4 09:08:37 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:08:37 -0500 Subject: [A-List] VII. IMPERIALISM AS A SPECIAL STAGE OF CAPITALISM Message-ID: <4937BA36.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm VII. IMPERIALISM AS A SPECIAL STAGE OF CAPITALISM We must now try to sum up, to draw together the threads of what has been said above on the subject of imperialism. Imperialism emerged as the development and direct continuation of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism in general. But capitalism only became capitalist imperialism at a definite and very high stage of its development, when certain of its fundamental characteristics began to change into their opposites, when the features of the epoch of transition from capitalism to a higher social and economic system had taken shape and revealed themselves in all spheres. Economically, the main thing in this process is the displacement of capitalist free competition by capitalist monopoly. Free competition is the basic feature of capitalism, and of commodity production generally; monopoly is the exact opposite of free competition, but we have seen the latter being transformed into monopoly before our eyes, creating large-scale industry and forcing out small industry, replacing large-scale by still larger-scale industry, and carrying concentration of production and capital to the point where out of it has grown and is growing monopoly: cartels, syndicates and trusts, and merging with them, the capital of a dozen or so banks, which manipulate thousands of millions. At the same time the monopolies, which have grown out of free competition, do not eliminate the latter, but exist above it and alongside it, and thereby give rise to a number of very acute, intense antagonisms, frictions and conflicts. Monopoly is the transition from capitalism to a higher system. If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. Such a definition would include what is most important, for, on the one hand, finance capital is the bank capital of a few very big monopolist banks, merged with the capital of the monopolist associations of industrialists; and, on the other hand, the division of the world is the transition from a colonial policy which has extended without hindrance to territories unseized by any capitalist power, to a colonial policy of monopolist possession of the territory of the world, which has been completely divided up. But very brief definitions, although convenient, for they sum up the main points, are nevertheless inadequate, since we have to deduce from them some especially important features of the phenomenon that has to be defined. And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features: (1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this ?finance capital?, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed. We shall see later that imperialism can and must be defined differently if we bear in mind not only the basic, purely economic concepts?to which the above definition is limited?but also the historical place of this stage of capitalism in relation to capitalism in general, or the relation between imperialism and the two main trends in the working-class movement. The thing to be noted at this point is that imperialism, as interpreted above, undoubtedly represents a special stage in the development of capitalism. To enable the reader to obtain the most wellgrounded idea of imperialism, I deliberately tried to quote as extensively as possible bourgeois economists who have to admit the particularly incontrovertible facts concerning the latest stage of capitalist economy. With the same object in view, I have quoted detailed statistics which enable one to see to what degree bank capital, etc., has grown, in what precisely the transformation of quantity into quality, of developed capitalism into imperialism, was expressed. Needless to say, of course, all boundaries in nature and in society are conventional and changeable, and it would be absurd to argue, for example, about the particular year or decade in which imperialism ?definitely? became established. In the matter of defining imperialism, however, we have to enter into controversy, primarily, with Karl Kautsky, the principal Marxist theoretician of the epoch of the so-called Second International?that is, of the twenty-five years between 1889 and 1914. The fundamental ideas expressed in our definition of imperialism were very resolutely attacked by Kautsky in 1915, and even in November 1914, when he said that imperialism must not be regarded as a ?phase? or stage of economy, but as a policy, a definite policy ?preferred? by finance capital; that imperialism must not be ?identified? with ?present-day capitalism?; that if imperialism is to be understood to mean ?all the phenomena of present-day capitalism??cartels, protection, the domination of the financiers, and colonial policy?then the question as to whether imperialism is necessary to capitalism becomes reduced to the ?flattest tautology?, because, in that case, ?imperialism is naturally a vital necessity for capitalism?, and so on. The best way to present Kautsky?s idea is to quote his own definition of imperialism, which is diametrically opposed to the substance of the ideas which I have set forth (for the objections coming from the camp of the German Marxists, who have been advocating similar ideas for many years already, have been long known to Kautsky as the objections of a definite trend in Marxism). Kautsky?s definition is as follows: ?Imperialism is a product of highly developed industrial capitalism. It consists in the striving of every industrial capitalist nation to bring under its control or to annex all large areas of agrarian [Kautsky?s italics] territory, irrespective of what nations inhabit it.? [1] This definition is of no use at all because it one-sidedly, i.e., arbitrarily, singles out only the national question (although the latter is extremely important in itself as well as in its relation to imperialism), it arbitrarily and inaccurately connects this question only with industrial capital in the countries which annex other nations, and in an equally arbitrary and inaccurate manner pushes into the forefront the annexation of agrarian regions. Imperialism is a striving for annexations?this is what the political part of Kautsky?s definition amounts to. It is correct, but very incomplete, for politically, imperialism is, in general, a striving towards violence and reaction. For the moment, however, we are interested in the economic aspect of the question, which Kautsky himself introduced into his definition. The inaccuracies in Kautsky?s definition are glaring. The characteristic feature of imperialism is not industrial but finance capital. It is not an accident that in France it was precisely the extraordinarily rapid development of finance capital, and the weakening of industrial capital, that from the eighties onwards gave rise to the extreme intensification of annexationist (colonial) policy. The characteristic feature of imperialism is precisely that it strives to annex not only agrarian territories, but even most highly industrialised regions (German appetite for Belgium; French appetite for Lorraine), because (1) the fact that the world is already partitioned obliges those contemplating a redivision to reach out for every kind of territory, and (2) an essential feature of imperialism is the rivalry between several great powers in the striving for hegemony, i.e., for the conquest of territory, not so much directly for themselves as to weaken the adversary and undermine his hegemony. (Belgium is particularly important for Germany as a base for operations against Britain; Britain needs Baghdad as a base for operations against Germany, etc.) Kautsky refers especially?and repeatedly?to English writers who, lie alleges, have given a purely political meaning to the word ?imperialism? in the sense that he, Kautsky, understands it. We take up the work by the English writer Hobson, Imperialism, which appeared in 1902, and there we read: ?The new imperialism differs from the older, first, in substituting for the ambition of a single growing empire the theory and the practice of competing empires, each motivated by similar lusts of political aggrandisement and commercial gain; secondly, in the dominance of financial or investing over mercantile interests.? [2] We see that Kautsky is absolutely wrong in referring to English writers generally (unless lie meant the vulgar English imperialists, or the avowed apologists for imperialism). We see that Kautsky, while claiming that he continues to advocate Marxism, as a matter of fact takes a step backward compared with the social-liberal Hobson, who more correctly takes into account two ?historically concrete? (Kautsky?s definition is a mockery of historical concreteness!) features of modern imperialism: (1) the competition between several imperialisms, and (2) the predominance of the financier over the merchant. If it is chiefly a question of the annexation of agrarian countries by industrial countries, then the role of the merchant is put in the forefront. Kautsky?s definition is not only wrong and un-Marxist. It serves as a basis for a whole system of views which signify a rupture with Marxist theory and Marxist practice all along the line. I shall refer to this later. The argument about words which Kautsky raises as to whether the latest stage of capitalism should be called imperialism or the stage of finance capital is not worth serious attention. Call it what you will, it makes no difference. The essence of the matter is that Kautsky detaches the politics of imperialism from its economics, speaks of annexations as being a policy ?preferred? by finance capital, and opposes to it another bourgeois policy which, he alleges, is possible on this very same basis of finance capital. It follows, then, that monopolies in the economy are compatible with non-monopolistic, non-violent, non-annexationist methods in politics. It follows, then, that the territorial division of the world, which was completed during this very epoch of finance capital, and which constitutes the basis of the present peculiar forms of rivalry between the biggest capitalist states, is compatible with a non-imperialist policy. The result is a slurring-over and a blunting of the most profound contradictions of the latest stage of capitalism, instead of an exposure of their depth; the result is bourgeois reformism instead of Marxism. Kautsky enters into controversy with the German apologist of imperialism and annexations, Cunow, who clumsily and cynically argues that imperialism is present-day capitalism; the development of capitalism is inevitable and progressive; therefore imperialism is progressive; therefore, we should grovel before it and glorify it! This is something like the caricature of the Russian Marxists which the Narodniks drew in 1894-95. They argued: if the Marxists believe that capitalism is inevitable in Russia, that it is progressive, then they ought to open a tavern and begin to implant capitalism! Kautsky?s reply to Cunow is as follows: imperialism is not present-day capitalism; it is only one of the forms of the policy of present-day capitalism. This policy we can and should fight, fight imperialism, annexations, etc. The reply seems quite plausible, but in effect it is a more subtle and more disguised (and therefore more dangerous) advocacy of conciliation with imperialism, because a ?fight? against the policy of the trusts and banks that does not affect the economic basis of the trusts and banks is mere bourgeois reformism and pacifism, the benevolent and innocent expression of pious wishes. Evasion of existing contradictions, forgetting the most important of them, instead of revealing their full depth?such is Kautsky?s theory, which has nothing in common with Marxism. Naturally, such a ?theory? can only serve the purpose of advocating unity with the Cunows! ?From the purely economic point of view,? writes Kautsky, ?it is not impossible that capitalism will yet go through a new phase, that of the extension of the policy of the cartels to foreign policy, the phase of ultra-imperialism,? [3] i.e., of a superimperialism, of a union of the imperialisms of the whole world and not struggles among them, a phase when wars shall cease under capitalism, a phase of ?the joint exploitation of the world by internationally united finance capital?. [4] We shall have to deal with this ?theory of ultra-imperialism? later on in order to show in detail how decisively and completely it breaks with Marxism. At present, in keeping with the general plan of the present work, we must examine the exact economic data on this question. ?From the purely economic point of view?, is ?ultra-imperialism? possible, or is it ultra-nonsense? If the purely economic point of view is meant to be a ?pure? abstraction, then all that can be said reduces itself to the following proposition: development is proceeding towards monopolies, hence, towards a single world monopoly, towards a single world trust. This is indisputable, but it is also as completely meaningless as is the statement that ?development is proceeding? towards the manufacture of foodstuffs in laboratories. In this sense the ?theory? of ultra-imperialism is no less absurd than a ?theory of ultra-agriculture? would be. If, however, we are discussing the ?purely economic? conditions of the epoch of finance capital as a historically concrete epoch which began at the turn of the twentieth century, then the best reply that one can make to the lifeless abstractions of ?ultraimperialism? (which serve exclusively a most reactionary aim: that of diverting attention from the depth of existing antagonisms) is to contrast them with the concrete economic realities of the present-day world economy. Kautsky?s utterly meaningless talk about ultra-imperialism encourages, among other things, that profoundly mistaken idea which only brings grist to the mill of the apologists of imperialism, i.e., that the rule of finance capital lessens the unevenness and contradictions inherent in the world economy, whereas in reality it increases them. R. Calwer, in his little book, An Introduction to the World Economy, [5] made an attempt to summarise the main, purely economic, data that enable one to obtain a concrete picture of the internal relations of the world economy at the turn of the twentieth century. He divides the world into five ?main economic areas?, as follows: (1) Central Europe (the whole of Europe with the exception of Russia and Great Britain); (2) Great Britain; (3) Russia; (4) Eastern Asia; (5) America; he includes the colonies in the ?areas? of the states to which they belong and ?leaves aside? a few countries not distributed according to areas, such as Persia, Afghanistan, and Arabia in Asia, Morocco and Abyssinia in Africa, etc. Here is a brief summary of the economic data he quotes on these regions. Principal economic areas Area Pop. Transport Trade Industry Million sq. miles Millions Railways (thou. km) Mercantile fleet (mill- ions tons) Imports, exports (thous-million marks) Output Of coal (mill. tons) Of pig iron (mill. tons) Number of cotton spindles (millions) 1) Central Europe 27.6 (23.6) 388 (146) 204 8 41 251 15 26 2) Britain 28.9 (28.6) 398 (355) 140 11 25 249 9 51 3) Russia 22 131 63 1 3 16 3 7 4) Eastern Asia 12 389 8 1 2 8 0.02 2 5) America 30 148 379 6 14 245 14 19 NOTE: The figures in parentheses show the area and population of the colonies. We see three areas of highly developed capitalism (high development of means of transport, of trade and of industry): the Central European, the British and the American areas. Among these are three states which dominate the world: Germany, Great Britain, and the United States. Imperialist rivalry and the struggle between these countries have become extremely keen because Germany has only an insignificant area and few colonies; the creation of ?Central Europe? is still a matter for the future, it is being born in the midst of a desperate struggle. For the moment the distinctive feature of the whole of Europe is political disunity. In the British and American areas, on the other hand, political concentration is very highly developed, but there is a vast disparity between the immense colonies of the one and the insignificant colonies of the other. In the colonies, however, capitalism is only beginning to develop. The struggle for South America is becoming more and more acute. There are two areas where capitalism is little developed: Russia and Eastern Asia. In the former, the population is extremely sparse, in the latter it is extremely dense; in the former political concentration is high, in the latter it does not exist. The partitioning of China is only just beginning, and the struggle for it between Japan, the U.S., etc., is continually gaining in intensity. Compare this reality?the vast diversity of economic and political conditions, the extreme disparity in the rate of development of the various countries, etc., and the violent struggles among the imperialist states?with Kautsky?s silly little fable about ?peaceful? ultra-imperialism. Is this not the reactionary attempt of a frightened philistine to hide from stern reality? Are not the international cartels which Kautsky imagines are the embryos of ?ultra-imperialism? (in the same way as one ?can? describe the manufacture of tablets in a laboratory as ultra-agriculture in embryo) an example of the division and the redivision of the world, the transition from peaceful division to non-peaceful division and vice versa? Is not American and other finance capital, which divided the whole world peacefully with Germany?s participation in, for example, the international rail syndicate, or in the international mercantile shipping trust, now engaged in redividing the world on the basis of a new relation of forces that is being changed by methods anything but peaceful? Finance capital and the trusts do not diminish but increase the differences in the rate of growth of the various parts of the world economy. Once the relation of forces is changed, what other solution of the contradictions can be found under capitalism than that of force? Railway statistics [6] provide remarkably exact data on the different rates of growth of capitalism and finance capital in world economy. In the last decades of imperialist development, the total length of railways has changed as follows: Railways (000 kilometers) 1890 1913 + Europe 224 346 +122 U.S. 268 411 +143 All colonies 82 125 210 347 +128 +222 Independent and semi-independent states of Asia and America 43 137 +94 Total 617 1,104 Thus, the development of railways has been most rapid in the colonies and in the independent (and semi-independent) states of Asia and America. Here, as we know, the finance capital of the four or five biggest capitalist states holds undisputed sway. Two hundred thousand kilometres of new railways in the colonies and in the other countries of Asia and America represent a capital of more than 40,000 million marks newly invested on particularly advantageous terms, with special guarantees of a good return and with profitable orders for steel works, etc., etc. Capitalism is growing with the greatest rapidity in the colonies and in overseas countries. Among the latter, new imperialist powers are emerging (e.g., Japan). The struggle among the world imperialisms is becoming more acute. The tribute levied by finance capital on the most profitable colonial and overseas enterprises is increasing. In the division of this ?booty?, an exceptionally large part goes to countries which do not always stand at the top of the list in the rapidity of the development of their productive forces. In the case of the biggest countries, together with their colonies, the total length of railways was as follows: (000 kilometres) 1890 1913 U.S. 268 413 +145 British Empire 107 208 +101 Russia 32 78 +46 Germany 43 68 +25 France 41 63 +22 Total 491 830 +339 Thus, about 80 per cent of the total existing railways are concentrated in the hands of the five biggest powers. But the concentration of the ownership of these railways, the concentration of finance capital, is immeasurably greater since the French and British millionaires, for example, own an enormous amount of shares and bonds in American, Russian and other railways. Thanks to her colonies, Great Britain has increased the length of ?her? railways by 100,000 kilometres, four times as much as Germany. And yet, it is well known that the development of productive forces in Germany, and especially the development of the coal and iron industries, has been incomparably more rapid during this period than in Britain?not to speak of France and Russia. In 1892, Germany produced 4,900,000 tons of pig-iron and Great Britain produced 6,800,000 tons; in 1912, Germany produced 17,600,000 tons and Great Britain, 9,000,000 tons. Germany, therefore, had an overwhelming superiority over Britain in this respect. [7] The question is: what means other than war could there be under capitalism to overcome the disparity between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the one side, and the division of colonies and spheres of influence for finance capital on the other? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes [1] Die Neue Zeit, 1914, 2 (B. 32), S. 909, Sept. 11, 1914; cf. 1915, 2, S. 107 et seq. ?Lenin [2] Hobson, Imperialism, London, 1902, p. 324. ?Lenin [3] Die Neue Zeit, 1914, 2 (B. 32), S. 921, Sept. 11, 1914. Cf. 1915, 2, S. 107 et seq. ?Lenin [4] Ibid., 1915, 1, S. 144, April 30, 1915. ?Lenin [5] R. Calwer, Einf? hrung in die Weltwirtschaft, Berlin, 1906. ?Lenin [6] Statistisches Jahrbuch f?r das deutsche Reich, 1915; Archiv f?r Eisenbahnwesen, 1892. Minor details for the distribution of railways among the colonies of the various countries in 1890 had to be estimated approximately. ?Lenin [7] Cf. also Edgar Crammond, ?The Economic Relations of the British and German Empires? in The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, July 1914, p. 777 et seq. ?Lenin This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Dec 4 09:14:34 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:14:34 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Layaway Message-ID: <4937BB9B.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Layaway -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" Layaway is back. What's next? Victory-in-the-war-on-terror bonds and gardens? -- Yoshie ^^^ CB: Soup kitchens and unemployment councils. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Dec 4 09:17:16 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:17:16 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Layaway Message-ID: <4937BC3D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Layaway Layaway, also referred to as lay-by in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Great Britain, is a way to purchase an item without paying the entire cost at once. However, rather than taking the item home and then repaying the debt on a regular schedule, as in most installment plans or hire purchases, the layaway customer does not receive the item until it is completely paid for. There is sometimes a fee associated with a layaway purchase, since the seller must "lay" the item "away" in storage until the payments are completed. In the event the customer did not pay the amount due, the item would be returned to stock and any subsequent payments that were processed or are pending would be returned to the customer. Layaway was once more common than it is now, since the ubiquity of credit cards has decreased its utility. Wal-Mart announced on September 14, 2006 that it would discontinue layaway service in all its stores by the end of the year, citing the decrease in demand and a rise in cost of implementation.[1] Layaway remains popular at many Kmart stores and once again is being promoted through marketing outlets.[2][3] Electronic layaway is layaway through the internet. It allows consumers to purchase items through scheduled deductions from a checking account.[4] [5] [edit] Layaway in 2008 Due to economic concerns and the approaching holiday season, some retailers have begun to re-offer layaway after discontinuing the service in prior years, presenting it as a more financially sensible alternative to using a credit card. Kmart has featured their layaway service in Christmas shopping ads, as has Sears.[6] [edit] External links eLayaway [edit] References This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Dec 4 10:36:51 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:36:51 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Russia's Medvedev to visit India on December 4-6 Message-ID: <4937CEE4.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081202/118643660.html Novosti Russia's Medvedev to visit India on December 4-6 14:44 | 02/ 12/ 2008 MOSCOW, December 2 (RIA Novosti) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will pay an official visit to India on December 4-6, the Kremlin said on Tuesday. Medvedev and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh are to meet in New Delhi to discuss anti-terrorism cooperation. The leaders stressed their intention to step up cooperation in the field after last week's terrorist attacks on Mumbai. India said Pakistan could have been involved in the attacks on India's financial capital, which left at least 183 people dead. It also demanded that Pakistan hand over some 20 terrorist leaders suspected of involvement of attacks on Indian territory. Russia has said militants active in its North Caucasus republics have links to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The visit is also expected to see the signing of a series of agreements, including on nuclear cooperation. Russia could help build another four reactors at India's Kudankulam nuclear power plant to add to the two that already exist. Russia and India have seen a growth in bilateral trade this year, which increased in the first nine months of 2008 by 41.6% to $3.8 billion year-on-year. The last Russian-Indian summit was held in November 2007, when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Russia. Medvedev will also attend an event to mark the end of the Year of Russia in India cultural program on Friday. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Dec 4 10:38:19 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:38:19 -0500 Subject: [A-List] UNTOLD STORY OF ELECTION 2008: THE DEATH OF THE NRA Message-ID: <4937CF3C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> December 4th, 2008 http://www.alternet.org ___________________________________________________________ UNTOLD STORY OF ELECTION 2008: THE DEATH OF THE NRA By Alexander Zaitchik, AlterNet Among the big losers in November were the NRA and the myth of the once-feared "NRA Voter." Reform of our gun laws is on the way. http://www.alternet.org/rights/109841/ This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Dec 4 10:41:27 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:41:27 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Monopoly competition Message-ID: <4937CFF8.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> At the same time the monopolies, which have grown out of free competition, do not eliminate the latter, but exist above it and alongside it, and thereby give rise to a number of very acute, intense antagonisms, frictions and conflicts. Monopoly is the transition from capitalism to a higher system. ^^^^ CB: Monopoly capital doesn't eliminate competition but gives rise to monopoly competition. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Dec 4 11:00:02 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:00:02 -0500 Subject: [A-List] A Call to Action Message-ID: <4937D453.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> A Call to Action Statement of the National Committee of the Communist Party USA at its November 15-16th 2008 meeting in New York -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The National Committee of the Communist Party USA calls on all of those concerned about the economic crisis that has gripped our country and the world to unite and fight for the election mandate. We hail the tens of millions who came to the polls and registered an historic defeat of the ultra right. These voters saw through the direct and indirect appeals to racism and voted for Obama. We salute those who rejected the Republican anti-communist, anti-immigrant attacks and numerous other slanders and voted their hopes and not their fears. Their votes represent the highest expression of patriotism. Our party has a proud history in the fight against racism, for unity and equality. We fully appreciate what this election represents in terms of the ongoing freedom struggle. The election of Barack Obama was indeed historic. While many of the pundits and other candidates rejected the idea, it was clear that the majority of voters were ready to elect our nation?s first African American President. The over 66 million votes cast for Obama represent a major blow against racism. Obama?s grassroots election tactics created a new model of election campaigns, which will change; forever the way elections are run. The extraordinarily innovative use of the Internet helped build a powerful movement of millions and created a very effective ground operation. While the Republicans ridiculed Obama?s background as a community organizer, it was those skills that made it possible to build a movement with thousands of dedicated volunteers, raise record amounts of money, draw record crowds and ultimately win the election. In order to win the Obama campaign had to battle racism and promote racial unity, and they did. The great strength of his campaign was its ability to unite people of all races and nationalities. Organized labor made an historic contribution to this effort. A quarter million workers trekked door to door, in state after state, convincing their fellow workers to ?do the right thing,? including put aside racial prejudice, and elect a pro-labor president. This was very effective and will have long-term effects on the entire workingclass movement. The Communist Party has always been confident that racial divisions, though entrenched, can be overcome when real class interests are understood -- and that?s what happened in this historic election. We also want to emphasis the role of the African American vote, which made a massive move to the Obama camp after his primary victory in predominantly white Iowa. African Americans voted against the Republicans in the high ninety percent ? in some areas, the vote was almost unanimous for Obama and the Democrats. This was historic, as was the massive majority support of youth. The huge Latino vote took on new political significance, and women came forward in large numbers. This broad electoral coalition included many independents and anti-Bush Republicans. This election shows that our country may have never been a center-right country and is in fact moving towards politics that are far more progressive. It was a landslide victory that is realigning our nation politically. President-elect Obama faces enormous challenges both domestically and internationally. There is much speculation as to what he will do. We believe that the key to success lies in Obama?s ongoing relationship with the magnificent coalition that won the day on November 4th and with continuing to expand that coalition. That movement is still intact and will be present in massive numbers at the inauguration. Throughout the campaign at his record-breaking rallies, Sen. Obama constantly emphasized that his all-people?s movement was built from the bottom up. We are very mindful of what the President-elect said in his acceptance speech, ?This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change.? As one union supporter said just days after the election, ?Now is the time to roll up our sleeves and get to work. There is legislation to be drafted, there is organizing to be done. Obama can?t do it by himself.? It?s time for post-election action to guarantee that the American people?s ?great expectations? become reality. Again, the movement approach is needed, aimed at winning the grass roots and moving the labor and peoples movement to the next level. There is still a tough fight ahead. The ultra right is down -- but not out. With the sharpening economic crisis wreaking havoc, emergency measures are needed to help Main Street. With millions losing their homes and jobs, it is time for action. A Chance to Make Change Millions of people have responded to the Obama campaign?s request for input on what the priorities of the new administration should be. Labor, the women?s movement, and other people?s organizations are already making proposals that include the following: -- A stimulus package of a half trillion dollars or more, to create millions of jobs, including a public works program. -- Emergency help for the jobless and the victims of the sub prime mortgage crisis. -- Passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, so more workers can have unions. -- A concrete timetable for pulling out our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan as rapidly as possible. -- Step up the campaign for universal healthcare through such means as passing HR676; preserve and improve Medicare and Medicaid; extend children?s health care plans and unemployment compensation. -- Emergency aid to cities and states. In addition, there are calls to review and where necessary repeal Bush?s executive orders, as well as the Patriot Act. United action is called for, against California?s Proposition 8 (gay marriage ban), against racist violence and to end the ICE raids and deportations of immigrant workers, and for comprehensive, democratic immigration reform including a path towards citizenship. While we participate in all of these struggles, we must take part in the important conversations on the future of our country, including the socialist alternative. Building the Communist Party is something positive and necessary; history shows that a large Communist contingent in the people?s movement, and a wide circulation of our press, contribute substantially to advancing the cause of democracy and social progress. It is a new day. Great changes are possible. Yes, it?s time for action. On January 20th, big history will be made in our country. The mobilization by the labor and people?s movement for a People?s Inauguration will put the fight for the mandate on the mark and ready to go. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 11:02:10 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:02:10 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Auto Industry Bailout? The Senate/House Just Doesn't Have The Time Or Rationale Message-ID: <49381B22.5020101@gmail.com> [December 04 2008] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Time To Wash The Blackboard, Clean The Erasers, And Put Out New Chalk In Washington Anyway - The Auto Industry Bailout SUCKS? The Senate/House Knows It, And Honestly? They Just Don?t Have The Time Or Rationale My site: http://leighm.net/wp/2008/12/04/tth_081204/ ArchiveDotOrg: http://www.archive.org/details/tth_081204 Special edition of the commentary for [A-List] subscribers. http://www.leighm.net/sounds/archive/travus/02_tth_081205_full.m3u Music in full @ the end of the commentary (Under 10 minutes including music) Pat Humphries has a car to sell you, and she ain't no Johnny Cash. In "Other" News: Senator Harry Reid says the Congressional Visitor Center will keep him from having to, umn, ??smell the tourists?, and it?s a center of ?pork? too! Originally budgeted at $71 million dollars, it?s current cost is (?wait for it?) $671 million. The cost over-runs are largely due to DHS security state practices. California is the ONLY state in the US that achieved higher than an ?F? for ?affordability of higher education?? It passed with a ?C?. The extensive community college system made it so (but in Da? Buffalo?s observance, and participation in that system, it seems to be an extension of High School for those who were MIA there, UC and SUC (State U) students garnering the MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE basic credits, and the other part? ?Career Training?) Toxic Culture? [IMAGE] ?Toxic Toys - Be aware that 1/3 of ALL TOYS being sold this Xmas contain toxic or flammable substances, and 50% of children?s toy jewelry contains excessive lead. --30-- From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 13:08:10 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:08:10 -0800 Subject: [A-List] J-Cole on a roll - (Funding) State Universities versus State Prisons... (One Solution) Message-ID: <493838AA.5040907@gmail.com> State Universities versus State Prisons; And Marijuana Legalization as a Solution http://www.juancole.com/2008/12/state-universities-versus-state-prisons.html Similarly, Travus T. Hipp: [December 03 2008] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: How To ?Mellow Out? California?s Budget Crunch - Releasing All The ?Pot Heads? From California Prisons And Jails Would Be A Good Place To Start My site: http://leighm.net/wp/2008/12/03/tth_081203/ ArchiveDotOrg: http://www.archive.org/details/tth_081203 In the "Other" 'Cabale News' yesterday: The ?Nixon Years? tapes have been released, and he was one NASTY M/F (But you knew that?). More. After the news, Hunter S. Thompson has a short chat with Dick in an airport bathroom somewhere on the ?72 presidential campaign trail. From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 13:19:13 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:19:13 -0800 Subject: [A-List] A Call to Action In-Reply-To: <4937D453.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <4937D453.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <49383B41.1030805@gmail.com> "This election shows that our country may have never been a center-right country and is in fact moving towards politics that are far more progressive. It was a landslide victory that is realigning our nation politically. " Historically myopic, if not amnesiac, and goes far to prove how absolutely irrelevant the CPUSA actually is, except as a codependent (parasitic, if you would) entity. All hail Marx and Lennon! http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/237/1041/1600/HCYBI2PAOWYNAAA.jpg (Hint: They attended Commie Martyrs High School...) Charles Brown wrote: > A Call to Action > > Statement of the National Committee of the Communist Party USA at its > November 15-16th 2008 meeting in New York > > > > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 13:19:13 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:19:13 -0800 Subject: [A-List] A Call to Action In-Reply-To: <4937D453.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <4937D453.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <49383B41.1030805@gmail.com> "This election shows that our country may have never been a center-right country and is in fact moving towards politics that are far more progressive. It was a landslide victory that is realigning our nation politically. " Historically myopic, if not amnesiac, and goes far to prove how absolutely irrelevant the CPUSA actually is, except as a codependent (parasitic, if you would) entity. All hail Marx and Lennon! http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/237/1041/1600/HCYBI2PAOWYNAAA.jpg (Hint: They attended Commie Martyrs High School...) Charles Brown wrote: > A Call to Action > > Statement of the National Committee of the Communist Party USA at its > November 15-16th 2008 meeting in New York > > > > From pwright at prisonlegalnews.org Thu Dec 4 15:04:05 2008 From: pwright at prisonlegalnews.org (Paul Wright) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:04:05 -0500 Subject: [A-List] UNTOLD STORY OF ELECTION 2008: THE DEATH OF THE NRA In-Reply-To: <4937CF3C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <4937CF3C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: Since the democrats lost control of congress in 1994 as a result of the gun control portion of Clinton's massive crime bill, no one has been pushing for gun control. Likewise, it was his anti gun stance that is credited for Al Gore's loss in 2000 (i.e., he was unable to even carry his home state which is unusual in presidential elections). In the last few elections gun control has been noticabely absent from political discussions. As a practical matter, "gun control" is generally the code for keeping guns out of the hands of poor people, especially poor people of color and dates back to the Jim Crow era that forbade former slaves from owning any type of military weapons (i.e., swords and daggers) not just guns. I have broken several stories on how the NRA bankrolled 3 strikes laws and even "hard time for armed crime" laws in other states as part of this project. The NRA will most likely see its membership and donations swell in the next few years just as the liberals saw their coffers and member lists increase under Bush. Paul Wright, Editor Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 pwright at prisonlegalnews.org www.prisonlegalnews.org ? Seattle Office: 2400 NW 80th St. # 148 Seattle, WA 98117 206-246-1022 -----Original Message----- From: a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu [mailto:a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Charles Brown Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 12:38 PM To: a-list at lists.econ.utah.edu; marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: [A-List] UNTOLD STORY OF ELECTION 2008: THE DEATH OF THE NRA December 4th, 2008 http://www.alternet.org ___________________________________________________________ UNTOLD STORY OF ELECTION 2008: THE DEATH OF THE NRA By Alexander Zaitchik, AlterNet Among the big losers in November were the NRA and the myth of the once-feared "NRA Voter." Reform of our gun laws is on the way. http://www.alternet.org/rights/109841/ This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 18:45:48 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:45:48 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Means On Obama Message-ID: <493887CC.7090505@gmail.com> WEEKEND UPDATE WITH RUSSELL MEANS: Russell comments on the "house of cards"that IS the U.S. economy, the coming economic depression, the Mumbai terrorist attack and President Obama's most significant initiative; the institution of a 16 team college football playoff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwBpbSopM4I (9:46 minutes) From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Thu Dec 4 19:33:53 2008 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:33:53 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Whistling in the Wind Message-ID: <49389311.7090705@ashisuto.co.jp> The new climate change report falls miles short of what we need. Here are some of the emergency measures it should have contained. by George Monbiot Published in the Guardian (December 02 2008) Lord Turner has two jobs. The first, as chair of the Financial Services Authority, is to save capitalism. The second, as chair of the Committee on Climate Change, is to save the biosphere from the impacts of capitalism. I have no idea how well he is discharging the first task, but if his approach to the second one is anything to go by, you should dump your shares and buy gold. His climate change report, published yesterday, is long, detailed and impressive {1}. It has the admirable objective of trying to cap global warming at two degrees or a little more. This, it says, means that greenhouse gas pollution in the UK should fall by 80% by 2050 and by 31% by 2020. But there's a problem. There is no longer any likely relationship between an 80% cut and two degrees of warming. This gets a little complicated, but please bear with me while I explain why Turner's proposal is about as likely to stop runaway climate change as the Maginot Line was to hold back the Luftwaffe. The 80% cut he recommends for the UK more or less matches a global target of 50% by 2050. A 50% global cut, the report says, would make roughly two degrees of warming a "central expectation" and would reduce the probability of four degrees (which it calls "extremely dangerous climate change") to less than one per cent {2}. Turner claims that to keep the temperature rise close to two degrees, the world's greenhouse gas emissions must peak in 2016 then fall by either three or four per cent a year. A 3% rate of decline is most likely to deliver a temperature rise of 2.2 degrees this century; a 4% annual cut would produce about 2.1% {3}. That's more or less consistent with his 2050 targets. So far so good. But a recent paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, using the same sources, comes to completely different conclusions {4}. It agrees that to deliver a reasonable chance of preventing more than two degrees of warming, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere need to stabilise at a maximum of 450 parts per million, carbon dioxide equivalent (ppmCO2e). But it shows that to achieve this, global emissions of greenhouse gases from the parts of the system we can control need to peak by 2015, then fall by six to eight per cent a year between 2020 and 2040, leading to "full decarbonization sometime soon after 2050". Even this, it shows, relies on an optimistic reading of the current data. Turner's suggested cuts are more likely to produce four degrees of warming than two degrees. The difference between the two reports comes down to this: Turner assumes that greenhouse gases can rise to 500 ppmCO2e before falling back to 450 {5}. The other paper shows that this is a dangerous assumption. Not only does this mean that the cut comes too late, but far from falling back, the enhanced levels in the atmosphere are likely to trigger more emissions, as the biosphere starts producing more greenhouse gases than it absorbs. We cannot afford to overshoot {6}. Last week a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters produced what could be the first hard evidence that runaway global feedback has begun {7}. In 2007, methane levels in the atmosphere, which had previously levelled off, began rising again. The most likely reason is that the Siberian permafrost is melting, as a result of the runaway warming of the Arctic. This wasn't supposed to happen for another eighty years. The great global meltdown appears to have started, yet Turner proposes that we carry on with the old plan as if nothing has changed. We're still digging trenches, even as the sky fills with bomber planes. My reading of the new projections suggests that to play its part in preventing two degrees of global warming, the UK needs to cut greenhouse gases by roughly 25% from current levels by the end of 2012 - a quarter in four years. But how the heck could this be done? Here is a list of measures which could be enacted almost immediately. They require no economic or technological miracles; but they do demand that the government is brave enough to govern. 1. Immediately renegotiate the European Emissions Trading Scheme, imposing a lower cap on carbon pollution and the mandatory sale of all emissions permits to the industries covered by the scheme (at the moment over 90% are given away) {8}. 2. Use the money this raises for: a. A crash programme for training builders. As the major component of a green new deal, delivering jobs as well as carbon cuts, the government will immediately launch training schemes for tens of thousands of specialist builders, insulators, window-fitters, plasterers and decorators. b. A home improvement scheme like Germany's, but twice as fast. Every year between January 2010 and 2020, 10% of homes will be fully insulated and fitted with good windows or secondary glazing, at state expense. Landlords will have a legal obligation to join or lose their right to take tenants. Announce that when the scheme is complete, gas and electricity bills will be subject to an escalating tariff: the more you use, the more you will have to pay for every unit. 3. Announce that incandescent lightbulbs will no longer be sold in the United Kingdom by next April. Announce that no fridge or freezer with an energy rating below grade A++ and no other appliance rated below grade A will be sold from July. 4. Increase vehicle excise duty for the most polluting cars to GBP 3000 a year (from the current GBP 400). Use the money this raises to: a. Start closing key urban streets to private cars and dedicating them to public transport and cycling. b. Increase the public subsidy for bus and train journeys. Oblige the bus companies to sign contracts providing a wider range of services. Give us the integrated low-carbon transport we have long been promised, in which buses are scheduled to meet trains, trains and buses carry bicycles and safe cycle lanes connect with each other across entire cities. c. Train thousands of new coach drivers and public transport operators. Create coach lanes on all the motorways and start moving coach stations from the city centres to the motorway junctions, to enable coach travel to become as fast and efficient as car travel. Link them to city centres with dedicated bus lanes {9}. d. Scrap the airport expansion programme. Set a cap on the number of landing slots, which will fall every year until it reaches 5% of current capacity. 5. Stop the burning of moorland: because this exposes and oxidises peat, grouse shoots (which are mostly responsible) produce a staggering proportion of the UK's emissions {10}. 6. Stop all opencast coal mining and rescind planning permission for new works. Impose stonking taxes on the extraction of all fossil fuels. Is this enough? No. But it puts us on the right track. It's all a gamble from now on: the only reliable advice is that we shouldn't start from here. But two decades of procrastination ensure that only emergency measures now have a chance of preventing a climate disaster. What Turner's report - polite, measured and impressive as it is - proposes is more procrastination. www.monbiot.com References: 1. Committee on Climate Change, December 2008. Building a Low Carbon Economy: the UK's contribution to tackling climate change. http://hmccc.s3.amazonaws.com/pdfs/TSO-ClimateChange.pdf 2. Page xiv. 3. Page 21. 4. Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows, 2008. Reframing the climate change challenge in light of post-2000 emission trends. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. Published online. doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0138 http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/journal_papers/fulltext.pdf 5. Page xiv. 6. A forthcoming paper in Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences also suggests that, above a certain level in the atmosphere, CO2 could take much longer to be absorbed than most studies assume, as the global sinks become saturated. See: Geoffrey Lean, 30th November 2008. Greenhouse gases will heat up planet 'for ever'. The Independent. 7. M Rigby et al, 2008. Renewed growth of atmospheric methane. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 35, L22805, doi:10.1029/2008GL036037. 8. Nature, 26th November 2008. United Kingdom auctions carbon emissions permits. Nature 456, 435. doi:10.1038/456435d 9. There's more on this proposal (and some of the others here) in George Monbiot, 2007. Heat: how to stop the planet burning. Penguin, London. 10. See Fred Pearce, 12th August 2006. Grouse-shooting popularity boosts global warming. New Scientist. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/12/02/whistling-in-the-wind/ http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 00:19:47 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 02:19:47 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Grand Theft Nautical Message-ID: Now, finally a voice of capitalist reason in the Western media regarding Somalia. -- Yoshie December 5, 2008 Op-Ed Contributor Grand Theft Nautical By JOHN S. BURNETT TO the horror of many and the fascination of most, the Sirius Star, an enormous tanker transporting two million barrels of crude oil to the United States, was captured by pirates far off the African coast on Nov. 15. The tanker, owned by Aramco, the Saudi oil company, was carrying enough crude to supply New England with fuel oil for 10 days ? in the winter. It is seven times the size of the Titanic and longer than the Chrysler Building is tall. How, then, could a dozen pirates in two puny boats armed with rifles and a grenade launcher board a ship this size? Quite easily ? as I found out after spending weeks on a nearly identical ship on a passage from Saudi Arabia to Singapore five years ago. From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 00:25:06 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 02:25:06 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Russian Warship to Pass through Panama Canal Message-ID: Russian warship to pass through Panama Canal: embassy 44 minutes ago WASHINGTON (AFP) ? A Russian warship was set Friday to sail through the Panama Canal for the first time since World War II in a symbolic challenge to US influence in the region. The large anti-submarine ship Admiral Chabanenko is scheduled to traverse the waterway from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean sometime between Friday night and Saturday morning, the Russian embassy in Panama said. "The only time such an event took place was in 1944 during the Second World War, when four Russian submarines passed through" the canal, said the embassy in a statement. At that time, when the waterway was under US control, both Russia and the United States were allied in the anti-Nazi coalition, the embassy added. The scheduled passage through the canel comes after Russian warships on Tuesday wrapped up two days of joint exercises with Venezuelan navy vessels. The arrival of the Russian ships at the invitation of Venezuela's fiercely anti-US president Hugo Chavez has been seen as a challenge to US power in Latin America, often described as America's "backyard. Russia has denied the exercises were aimed at any "third countries." Moscow announced the exercises after US President George W. Bush sent navy vessels to Georgia during the Russian-Georgian conflict in August, angering the Kremlin. Washington said the warships were delivering humanitarian aid. After passing through the canal the Russian ship and its 451 crew members will remain in Panama until December 11 at a former US naval base. "The main purpose (of the visit to Panama) is for the soldiers to rest and to replenish (ship) supplies," said the embassy. During its stay the Russian crew will also take part in soccer and volleyball competitions with the Panamanian navy. "The Russian vessel's friendly visit further raises Panama's international prestige as a great naval power and the Panama Canal as a truly neutral waterway," said the embassy. Panama's foreign minister Samuel Lewis Navarro said Thursday that "as we all know, the Panama Canal is open to all ships in the world," noting the canal's permanent Neutrality Treaty. The 169-meter (554-foot) Admiral Chabanenko, which carries out operations against piracy and international terrorism, belongs to Russia's Northern Fleet. It was part a flotilla of Russian warships, based in the Arctic port of Murmansk, that participated in joint exercises with the Venezuelan Navy that concluded on Tuesday. Located at the Pacific entrance to the Panama Canal, Chabanenko's temporary home the Rodman Naval Base hosted US military personnel until 1999 when it was given to Panama as part of the handover of the Panama Canal Zone. From spalmer999 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 5 02:05:21 2008 From: spalmer999 at yahoo.com (Steve Palmer) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 01:05:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [A-List] splatter gore should learn to read Re: Fidel Castro adhere to the paranoid nuts club In-Reply-To: <492DA901.9030803@email.it> Message-ID: <497357.30112.qm@web81903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> You didn't actually read what he actually wrote, did you? If you actually took the trouble to read what Fidel wrote, not what someone else said that Fidel wrote, then you would realize that those are not his words, but quoting from somebody else's book. --- On Wed, 11/26/08, splatter gore wrote: > From: splatter gore > Subject: [A-List] Fidel Castro adhere to the paranoid nuts club > To: "The A-List" > Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 11:52 AM > Fidel Castro: "Al-Qaeda terrorists engineered in order > to advance Bush > administration?s agenda " > > Fidel Castro: "Al-Qaeda terrorists engineered in order > to advance Bush > administration?s agenda " > > Global Research, November 25, 2008 Press TV - 2008-11-24 > > Former Cuban president Fidel Castro says al-Qaeda > terrorists have been > engineered in order to advance the Bush administration?s > agenda. > > In an essay published on Sunday, Castro said the terrorist > group "was > born from the empire?s own entrails", using the term > "empire" to refer > to the United States. > > After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration vowed > to capture > al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who has reportedly taken > responsibility > for the deadly attacks on US soils. > > "[Al-Qaeda] is a typical example of an enemy that the > hegemonic power > dangles in a place of its choosing where it needs to > justify its > actions, as it has done throughout its history, fabricating > enemies and > attacks destined to strengthen its plans of > domination," the former > Cuban leader argued. > > According to Castro, the American public has been misled by > the US > government about the real extent of the terrorist attacks > in 2001. > Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has also suggested that > Washington > could have been somehow involved in the planning of the > attacks. > > In the aftermath of the attacks, the White House launched > the ?War on > Terror? in a bid to disband al-Qaeda. While many > civilians have been > killed since the 2001 invasions of Afghanistan, followed by > the 2003 > invasion of Iraq, the US has failed to achieve its > objectives in the region. > > A Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) program called > "Operation Cyclone" > is reportedly responsible for the creation of the terrorist > group, when > the CIA funded native Afghan militants in the conflict with > the Soviet > Union. > > The al-Qaeda leader is reportedly planning a new terror > attack against > the US as President-elect Barack Obama takes office from > the incumbent > president, George W. Bush. > > Earlier this month, a source close to the group claimed > that Bin Laden > is supervising preparations for another attack which will > be far greater > than those of 9/11. > > US Vice President-elect Joe Biden had warned in October > that Obama would > face an international crisis early in his presidency. > > http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11137* > * > > > -- > Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: > http://www.email.it/f > > Sponsor: > Pensa oggi al tuo domani, con EurizonVita puoi avere un > check up gratuito per conoscere come sar? la tua pensione > Clicca qui: > http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=8422&d=26-11 From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Dec 5 09:27:26 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:27:26 -0500 Subject: [A-List] A Bridge Loan for America's Auto Industry References: Message-ID: <4939101D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Dear Iris, (http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/8pad1M11Nq-r/) Our economy is in crisis, and now we are on the brink of losing our U.S. auto industry. If GM, Ford and Chrysler collapse, the effects will be felt everywhere. From machinists at parts manufacturers to beauty salons in auto plant towns, millions of jobs would be lost-deepening the impact of the current recession for all. The stakes couldn?t be higher, and our lawmakers need to take decisive action now to avoid unthinkable consequences. _Urge Congress to offer a "bridge loan" to our automakers and help get our economy moving again_ (http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/8pad1M11Nq-r/) . An emergency bridge loan, enabling domestic automakers to keep the production lines moving, is a necessary step to revitalize the U.S. auto industry, protect American jobs and begin rebuilding our economy. The automakers have submitted plans to cut costs and strengthen products, and the UAW has announced that workers will do their part, too. But this is not enough. The automakers need additional financial resources to weather this unprecedented economic downturn. _Contact lawmakers and demand they support an immediate bridge loan to GM, Ford and Chrysler_ (http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/8pad1M11Nq-r/) . The bridge loan requested by the automakers and endorsed by the UAW is not a blank check like the ones Henry Paulson has handed out to Wall Street banks. All three automakers have provided detailed roadmaps to Congress for how they will utilize these loans to revitalize their companies. Time is running out, and we need Congress to act now. Hearings are being held this week with the automakers, and Congress is expected to vote on the rescue plan next week. Your voice can make the difference for workers across the country. _Contact your lawmakers now and encourage them to support an immediate bridge loan to GM, Ford and Chrysler_ (http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/8pad1M11Nq-r/) . Thank you for all you do. Together, we can save good union jobs and help rebuild America?s middle class. In solidarity, Marc Laitin AFL-CIO Online Mobilization Coordinator This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Dec 5 09:47:12 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:47:12 -0500 Subject: [A-List] What form would nationalization take ? Message-ID: <493914BF.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Former New Jersey Governor was on tv finance show this morn calling for a "restructuring" of the auto companies: lets restructure the property relations. MICHAEL MOORE: SAVE THE AUTO INDUSTRY AND KICK ITS CEOS TO THE CURB By Michael Moore, MichaelMoore.com These auto execs don't deserve a dime. Fire all of them, and take over the industry for the good of the workers, the country and the planet. http://www.alternet.org/workplace/110051/ This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 09:57:10 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:57:10 -0800 Subject: [A-List] A Bridge Loan (I have a 'bridge' to sell you...) In-Reply-To: <4939101D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <4939101D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <49395D66.8080304@gmail.com> I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218 There IS NO US "auto industry'. It is an overused worn out cliche. If you're talking about people going jobless, homeless, hungry... There's plenty of that in America. > The unemployment reaper doesn?t rest for Xmas - 533,000 Americans > found themselves out of work (and perhaps sh*t out of luck) last week. > The unemployment rate is the highest since Gerald Ford took the helm > from the impeached Richard Milhous Nixon in 74. The rate, for numbers > crunchers is 6.7% or one out of every 15 American workers. (That > number most likely doesn?t include the number of American workers who > gave up trying to find a job. > > More from Bloomberg: http://www.archive.org/details/tth_081205 You know Charles... there ALWAYS has been. But to waste America's time and money rebuilding an industry that essentially DIED A NATURAL DEATH is FUCKING MORONIC. Re-training and retooling (and the decapitation of their corporate structures/parasitic executive elements) is the order of the day, not reviving a LONG DEFUNCT US industry (fed by LONG DEFUNCT steel mills) and giving their executives BILLIONS OF DOLLARS (Which WON'T go to insuring the retention or development of one single fucking blue collar job) for their ignorant behavior. So stop fucking around with the miserable help me rap. You're wasting time attempting to flog a dead industry back to life. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218 The only reason it's still standing on the perch is because it's NAILED THERE. Charles Brown wrote: > Dear Iris, (http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/8pad1M11Nq-r/) > Our economy is in crisis, and now we are on the brink of losing our > U.S. > auto industry. If GM, Ford and Chrysler collapse, the effects will be > felt > everywhere. From machinists at parts manufacturers to beauty salons in > auto plant > towns, millions of jobs would be lost-deepening the impact of the > current > recession for all. > The stakes couldn?t be higher, and our lawmakers need to take > decisive > action now to avoid unthinkable consequences. > _Urge Congress to offer a "bridge loan" to our automakers and help get > our > economy moving again_ (http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/8pad1M11Nq-r/) . > > An emergency bridge loan, enabling domestic automakers to keep the > production lines moving, is a necessary step to revitalize the U.S. > auto industry, > protect American jobs and begin rebuilding our economy. The automakers > have > submitted plans to cut costs and strengthen products, and the UAW has > announced > that workers will do their part, too. > But this is not enough. The automakers need additional financial > resources > to weather this unprecedented economic downturn. > _Contact lawmakers and demand they support an immediate bridge loan to > GM, > Ford and Chrysler_ (http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/8pad1M11Nq-r/) . > The bridge loan requested by the automakers and endorsed by the UAW is > not a > blank check like the ones Henry Paulson has handed out to Wall Street > banks. > All three automakers have provided detailed roadmaps to Congress for > how > they will utilize these loans to revitalize their companies. > Time is running out, and we need Congress to act now. Hearings are > being > held this week with the automakers, and Congress is expected to vote > on the > rescue plan next week. Your voice can make the difference for workers > across the > country. > _Contact your lawmakers now and encourage them to support an immediate > > bridge loan to GM, Ford and Chrysler_ > (http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/8pad1M11Nq-r/) > . > Thank you for all you do. Together, we can save good union jobs and > help > rebuild America?s middle class. > In solidarity, > Marc Laitin > AFL-CIO Online Mobilization Coordinator > > > > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com > > > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 10:22:56 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:22:56 -0800 Subject: [A-List] splatter gore should learn to read Re: Fidel Castro adhere to the paranoid nuts club In-Reply-To: <497357.30112.qm@web81903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <497357.30112.qm@web81903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49396370.8010609@gmail.com> Steve Palmer wrote: > >> >> A Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) program called >> "Operation Cyclone" >> is reportedly responsible for the creation of the terrorist >> group, when >> the CIA funded native Afghan militants in the conflict with >> the Soviet >> Union. >> Besides.... even if it WAS his own words, he wouldn't be paranoid... He'd be correct. "It all goes back to the clandestine war the United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan fought together against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-1989). The coalition?s secret weapon: Islam and the cult of jihad. In the early stages of the Soviet invasion and occupation, many of the Soviet troops were drawn from the Muslim republics of the Soviet Union. It was a colonial configuration: brown faces with white officers. The anti-Soviet resistance, funded by the United States and Saudi Arabia to the tune of $1 billion a year (which was real money in those days), flooded towns occupied by the Soviets with Korans and pamphlets declaring jihad, or holy war, against the Russian occupier..." http://www.upi.com/Emerging_Threats/2008/12/03/Commentary_Unholy_war_culture/UPI-68891228319196/ From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 10:57:55 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:57:55 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Because He Likes 'A's not "I"s Message-ID: <49396BA3.8070302@gmail.com> http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+public+statements+afghanistan "There are currently 32,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan..." (with 640 KNOWN dead. Not counting all the fresh-faced gung-ho 20 year old SOG kids who 'just disappear' into some shallow grave in the hinterlands, 'searching for Osama'... who isn't there. The Pentagon will not confirm nor deny their existence, or their passing. // lcm) US preparing for troop buildup in Afghanistan By LOLITA C. BALDOR Associated Press Writer Lolita C. Baldor, WASHINGTON ? The military is beginning a big building effort in Afghanistan to house the roughly 20,000 additional troops who are expected to begin pouring in early next year, a top military officer said Friday. Maj. Gen. Michael Tucker, deputy commander for operations for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, told Pentagon reporters that military leaders are anticipating a "very active winter" of insurgency attacks. And while he provided few details, he said there is a "very huge building campaign that has already begun. We're pushing dirt as we speak to prepare for the arrival of these forces." He could not quantify the number of buildings or contractors involved, but said the military has done several in-depth studies over the past month and a half to determine exactly how many buildings, helicopter pads, dining facilities and even latrines will be needed. U.S. defense officials have said they will build up the number of forces in Afghanistan as soon as they are able to free up troop commitments in Iraq. Commanders in Afghanistan have said they need four more combat brigades, along with thousands of other support forces, including intelligence, surveillance, aviation and logistics personnel. One combat brigade is expected to arrive in Afghanistan in January, but the other three have not yet been identified. According to defense officials, the 4th Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, based in Hawaii, is expected to go to Afghanistan early next summer, but that unit will replace one that is already there and is scheduled to leave. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the final orders have not yet been signed. Tucker said at least some of those extra forces will be Marines, but he would not say how many or when they might arrive. Officials balk at likening the impending troop escalation in Afghanistan to the surge in Iraq that is credited in part for the decline in violence there. But some of the goals are the same. Military leaders say they need to improve security and tamp down the stubborn insurgency in the more rural regions of the country, so they can reach out to the populations there. That strategy mirrors the counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq, where troops pushed into difficult neighborhoods to clear out militants, and maintained the security long enough for governance to take hold and reconstruction and repairs to begin. In Afghanistan, however, the population if more far-flung, in rural communities that stretch up into the rugged mountains ? where passage in the winter is sometimes impossible. More troops are needed in order to get to some of those more remote locations, Tucker said. He also repeated assertions that U.S. and NATO forces are prepared to fight on aggressively through the winter ? a time when insurgent activity has historically slowed due to the harsh weather. This year, military leaders have said they cannot relax and allow the enemy to rebuild during the cold months. "We anticipate a very active, a very active winter," said Tucker, adding that forces will press to attack the insurgency in its safe havens ? largely in the mountain border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. "We see no change in our operation. And if he wants to continue to fight through the winter, we'll be here to fight him." He added that the U.S. and NATO troops have already stepped up their counter-narcotics operations ? an agreement that was reached by allied defense ministers at a meeting in Budapest earlier this year. Some allies, he acknowledged, are reluctant to participate in more aggressive operations, but are contributing in other ways, such as helicopter transportation, medical evacuations and intelligence gathering. There are currently 32,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, including 14,000 with the NATO-led coalition and 18,000 training the Afghan security forces and fighting insurgents. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081205/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_afghanistan From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 11:19:40 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:19:40 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Grand Theft Nautical In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <493970BC.2080109@gmail.com> No one wants to contemplate the effects of an exploding tanker laden with 300,000 tons of crude oil. To place this ship in some perspective, the Exxon Valdez, which ran aground in the Gulf of Alaska in 1989, carried 53 million gallons of crude oil. The Sirius is carrying nearly 84 million gallons. If that amount of crude were to escape, the environmental damage to the Indian Ocean and the East African coast, upon which millions earn their living, would be catastrophic. A very good finish to this article, however, a good capitalist knows that the EXXON Valdez's voyage was the most lucrative oil tanker voyage ever. The same would be true if an explosive accident, OR eco-terrorism happened due to 'piracy'. To wit, Marilyn Waring on Lies and Global Economics (at about 3:20 minutes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbcWUoIqX6g&feature=related Eco-terrorism would undoubtedly be more lucrative. I put the word 'piracy' in quotes earlier because that is EXACTLY the reason the US Navy was founded. To collect revenue from ships at sea... and most governments HATE competition when it comes to thievery. [November 20 2008] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: A ?Hipp? History - One Man?s Pirate Is Another Man?s Tax Collector - Piracy As A Means Of Taxing The ?Transit Trade? Is NOT New http://leighm.net/wp/2008/11/20/tth_081120/ Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > Now, finally a voice of capitalist reason in the Western media > regarding Somalia. -- Yoshie > > > December 5, 2008 > Op-Ed Contributor > Grand Theft Nautical > By JOHN S. BURNETT > > TO the horror of many and the fascination of most, the Sirius Star, an > enormous tanker transporting two million barrels of crude oil to the > United States, was captured by pirates far off the African coast on > Nov. 15. > > The tanker, owned by Aramco, the Saudi oil company, was carrying > enough crude to supply New England with fuel oil for 10 days ? in the > winter. It is seven times the size of the Titanic and longer than the > Chrysler Building is tall. How, then, could a dozen pirates in two > puny boats armed with rifles and a grenade launcher board a ship this > size? > > Quite easily ? as I found out after spending weeks on a nearly > identical ship on a passage from Saudi Arabia to Singapore five years > ago. > > >From the bridge nine stories above the sea, there was a feeling of > absolute invincibility. I remember the captain of the ship telling me > that it was inconceivable that pirates could board his vessel. I > imagine he feels differently today. > > The Sirius Star was plodding at service speed ? 15 knots ? about 480 > miles off the East African coast. This is far away from known pirate > waters, so the 25 crewmen aboard were probably working their regular > watches, performing duties during a normal day at sea. > > The Sirius was on autopilot; the proximity alarm on the radar ? the > collision avoidance system ? had been set, and a young third officer > was most likely alone on the bridge reading a magazine or sending > e-mail messages to his family and occasionally glancing at the myriad > dials and gauges embedded in the instrument panel. He may have seen a > small blip on the radar screen; this far offshore, it was likely a > fishing trawler. But the mysterious vessel was watching him; it then > launched its boats for the attack. > > The aft deck of a fully laden crude carrier is only 10 to 13 feet > above the surface of the sea. Motoring up to the giant ship, the > pirates hooked grapnels connected to ropes and fastened to aluminum > ladders onto the railings above, scaled the hull, rushed the bridge > and commandeered the ship. It was probably over in minutes. > > The Sirius was just a target of opportunity. Pirates had no idea that > they were about to capture a potential floating bomb. It is not the > crude oil that is volatile. You can douse a cigarette in the stuff. It > is the vapor from the cargo that is vented into the air that is > explosive. For this reason, no one is allowed on deck with a camera, > flashlight, cellphone or a plastic cigarette lighter in his pocket. > One can imagine the captain of the Sirius Star pleading with his > captors not to shoot their guns on deck. > > No one wants to contemplate the effects of an exploding tanker laden > with 300,000 tons of crude oil. To place this ship in some > perspective, the Exxon Valdez, which ran aground in the Gulf of Alaska > in 1989, carried 53 million gallons of crude oil. The Sirius is > carrying nearly 84 million gallons. If that amount of crude were to > escape, the environmental damage to the Indian Ocean and the East > African coast, upon which millions earn their living, would be > catastrophic. > > So what can be done? > > Given the failure to stop the pirates, shipping companies are now > diverting their fleets ? instead of sailing through the Suez Canal and > the Gulf of Arden, tankers and other merchant vessels are forced to > travel around the tip of South Africa to get from the Middle East to > Europe and the United States, all of which adds weeks to the passage > and increases the cost of delivery. > > But this is merely a short-term solution. The only long-term fix has > to take place on shore, in Somalia. Somalia has not had a recognized > functioning government since 1991. Law is dispensed through the barrel > of a gun. > > There was some semblance of law and order in 2006, when the Islamic > Courts Union, loosely linked with Al Qaeda, took over much of the > country and imposed Shariah law. Though there were cruel tradeoffs, > the Islamists virtually eradicated piracy. (The crime was a capital > offense punishable by beheading.) > > When Ethiopian forces, supported by the United States, replaced the > Islamists with an ineffective transitional government in 2006, piracy > returned with an intensity not seen since the 17th century. > > It is evident that no nation can impose its will on Somalia; the > colonial British and Italians learned the hard way. And certainly no > nation can force Somalis to stop the best business in town. But if the > West really hopes to eliminate the scourge of piracy in these > strategic shipping lanes, then it should consider involving the courts > union, the only entity that has proved it could govern the country, > and its militant wing, Al Shabaab, in a new government. > > If there is movement to talk to the Taliban in Afghanistan, then there > should be some effort to talk to the fundamentalists in Somalia. If > the Islamists were permitted to form a viable, functioning and > effective government, this shattered land might be able to return to > the community of nations ? and supertankers will be able to deliver > oil to the United States without fear of getting hijacked. > > John S. Burnett, the author of "Dangerous Waters: Modern Piracy and > Terror on the High Seas," is working on a book about the hijackings > off the Somali coast. > > > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 11:55:13 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:55:13 -0800 Subject: [A-List] "I'm talking about more than just research & development. I'm talking about everything you do." Message-ID: <49397911.8050204@gmail.com> As I said: "Re-training and retooling (and the decapitation of their corporate structures/parasitic executive elements) is the order of the day, not reviving a LONG DEFUNCT US industry (fed by LONG DEFUNCT steel mills) and giving their executives BILLIONS OF DOLLARS (Which WON'T go to insuring the retention or development of one single fucking blue collar job) for their ignorant behavior. " Scoop News New Zealand on the US auto 'bailout' (Wash. DC) The CEO's of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler were in the Capitol Thursday asking for $34 billion dollars to stay in business for the next few months. The three companies are now at the top of the corporate "dead pool," with a bankruptcy for GM possible by the end of the year. They appeared before the Senate Committee o Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Senator Sherrod Brown (D, OH) provided one of the most telling moments when he asked the three chiefs to commit to continued purchasing from United States automotive suppliers at the same or increased levels in return for federal bailout funds. Suppliers for GM, Ford and Chrysler are located across the country. A GM bankruptcy would resonate through the aftermarket, original equipment (for new cars), and heavy duty parts suppliers creating broad based economic hardship. The following transcription shows clearly that both GM and Ford failed to commit in any way to Brown's goal - a firm commitment to buy American if they receive taxpayer funds. http://www.opednews.com/articles/GM-Ford--Won-t-Pledge-to-by-Michael-Collins-081205-334.html From rasherrs at eircom.net Fri Dec 5 12:16:02 2008 From: rasherrs at eircom.net (Paddy Hackett) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 19:16:02 -0000 Subject: [A-List] Hillel Ticktin In-Reply-To: <49396BA3.8070302@gmail.com> References: <49396BA3.8070302@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000101c9570d$ea007660$be016320$@net> Hi Anybody tell me where I can download some articles from earlier issues of Critique concerning finance capital. Towards a Theory of Finance Capital; Critique 17. The Transitional Epoch, Finance Capital and Britain; Critique 16. Socialism, The Market and the State; No. 3. They were written by Hillel Ticktin and are now apparently out of print. Paddy Hackett From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 16:13:20 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:13:20 -0800 Subject: [A-List] The OTHER October Surprise (1968) Message-ID: <4939B590.8060207@gmail.com> AUSTIN , Texas, Dec. 5 (UPI) -- Prior to the 1968 U.S. presidential election, President Lyndon Johnson suspected his eventual successor, Richard Nixon, of treason, LBJ tapes reveal. Johnson suspected that Republican Nixon, running against Hubert Humphrey, Johnson's vice president, was interfering in the Vietnam war to sway the election, a move he classified as political sabotage or more to his view, treason, the recordings say. The tapes, released Thursday, had been kept secret until now. Johnson and his aides, trying to arrange peace talks between North and South Vietnam on the eve of election, were told that Nixon allies had asked South Vietnam to avoid peace talks until after the election, the tapes reveal. Johnson and his advisers, Humphrey included, kept their concerns secret at the time, the Austin American-Statesman said. Nixon defeated Humphrey by just 500,000 votes out of 73 million cast. The LBJ Library made the conversations public with the release of 42 hours of recordings made from May 1968 until the Johnson family left the White House in January 1969. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/05/Tapes_say_LBJ_suspected_Nixon_of_treason/UPI-73301228490027/ From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Fri Dec 5 16:31:33 2008 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:31:33 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Is There Such A Thing As Society? Message-ID: <4939B9D5.3070404@ashisuto.co.jp> by Aseem Shrivastava Countercurrents.org (November 12 2008) The question is far from rhetorical. Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister during the 1980s, and one of the chief architects of the economic policies that lie discredited on the heap of economic history today, once dared to say that "there is no such thing as society". She added: "there are individual men and women and there are families". That's all. We live in a world of Robinson Crusoes, each maximizing private gains for themselves and their separate families. The sad part about such a view is its potential for becoming a self-fulfilling belief, especially when held widely by men and women in positions of power. It lacks the humility to leave the door open for the possibility that we may be consigning ourselves to the shallows of human nature in believing in our selfishness alone. The fact that there is such a thing as society is an obvious truth for most people in India and other poor countries, where bonds of community life still prevail in significant measure. Where such community living survives, our emotions tell us of the folly of the Thatcherite view. But for "developed" countries which have been outrun by capitalism for a century and more, the market has subjugated society itself. So it is hardly surprising that the British Prime Minister could say such a thing without fear of ridicule (which incidentally she did not escape from certain quarters). What's more, here in India for at least half a generation now, we have come to live in a world where a good many would nod in approval at the Thatcherite view without fear of ridicule either. What's to be ashamed of in something like self-interest, so much a part of our nature, after all. The world has obviously changed here too. And if that is indeed the essence of our true nature, there's nothing like a well-functioning free market capitalist economy to maximize each one's happiness. Social welfare, on this view, is little more than the sum total of the welfare of each. So, it is claimed, said the great grandfather of modern economics, Adam Smith himself. There's no such thing as a free market If only one lesson is to be drawn from the grave financial and economic crises sweeping the globe today it is this: there is such a thing as society, after all, well beyond families and individuals. The rise of market society had convinced many experts, especially economists that only individuals and their economic transactions with each other matter. What lay beyond the pale of such relationships were consigned to exceptional cases referred to in the jargon as "externalities" (where third parties are affected by what happens between two individuals) or "public goods" (whereby a good or service cannot be transacted without making it possible for third parties to avail of them, for instance, clean air). Who dares to see any truth in such a world-view after "the great financial crisis" of 2008? The cookie of free-market capitalism is crumbling rapidly precisely because externalities and public goods, far from being the exception, are actually the rule - even (especially?) in the realm of the economy. There is a systematic pattern here. In a capitalist economy what is individually rational is all too often socially irrational. Consider the latest example. The great financial crisis has forced each bank into a situation whereby it has to sell many of its assets in order to rescue a battered balance sheet. But the more the number of banks that do this, the faster is the decline in asset prices. And this only accelerates each bank's need to sell assets: as they see the value of their holdings decline sharply, they prefer to hold cash, contributing further to the vicious cycle of asset price deflation, apart from contributing to the massive credit squeeze by increasing the overall reluctance to lend. By acting in narrow self-interest fund managers could maximize short-term profits for their firm's shareholders for a while, but the damage that they caused to the system as a whole is so large in the long run that (almost) everyone is ending up on the losing side. The (global financial) system itself is a "public good" of sorts, whose survival everyone takes for granted, until the day of reckoning arrives and the pirates realize that they have all been milking a generous cow, which is now exhausted from their depredations. "You don't know what you've got, till it's gone", sang Joni Mitchell. The failure of "confidence", "trust" and other vanishing intangibles are being diagnosed as among the primary causes of the "systemic risk" which has all but overwhelmed the world's financial system. These are the forces which are making every important graph stoop. The numbers don't matter any more. They were always consequences and it's never more obvious than today. The ground reality is that no one is willing to lend, because trust has evaporated from all transactions involving credit and the future. Grain and raw materials are piling up at international ports awaiting letters of credit which fail to arrive. And with the vanishing of trust, hope - the other immeasurable intangible - is rapidly dying too. We all need a future, after all, to look forward to. Or else destructive despair sets in. When asked what determined investment in a capitalist economy, John Maynard Keynes had answered "animal spirits". Calculations and numbers are secondary. What we are looking at today is the enormous failure of an obstinate belief, widely held over the past generation among those who control the levers of economic policy in the citadels of global power: society (and hence government) is irrelevant, free markets are all that matter for prosperity. And it will come one day to one and all, if only "we" brave the pain in between and stay the course. Now we know, once again, that hubris never escapes nemesis. What is society? The question begs to be asked yet again. A moment's reflection would reveal that even the most famous and powerful of this world ultimately get to know at first hand at most just a few thousand people, some of whose names they might be able to recall on their death-beds. In other words, the human condition is such that our ordinary ignorance of the existence of others is almost infinite. What this means is that the vast majority of transactions and relationships one has in life is with people we do not know, or even do not see. A society, one might say, can be judged by the quality of its anonymous relationships. If there is good faith and trust, society lives well. If they are absent, it may not even survive in the long run. There is obviously such a thing as society, to be understood in terms of the quality of relationships we form, not just with our "loved ones", but also with those we meet only occasionally, or anonymously, or with those who live far away from us and who we may never meet. If globalization has changed human society in one profound respect it is this: we can no longer ignore how our words, actions and ways of living affect those who are not visible to us on an everyday basis. The victory of "free markets" has proved to be a pyrrhic one. In the very realm they were supposed to bring "efficiency" and "optimality", in finance, they have destroyed themselves. It is precisely the unregulated inner workings of free (unregulated) financial markets which are now threatening human society itself. Greed was "good", till just yesterday. So said Michael Douglas in the film Wall Street, back in the early 1990s, when this present age of financial buccaneers had just taken off. Today we are rapidly being sobered back to the ancient wisdom, which every Indian child has heard during childhood: lalach buri bala hai (greed is a bad habit). Money does not grow on trees any more, no matter how high the ladder one might take to them. Sometimes insiders reach important truths, having sipped some of the poison on offer. A decade ago, one of the world's richest financiers, George Soros had acknowledged publicly that "people increasingly rely on money as the criterion of value. What is more expensive is considered better ... What used to be a medium of exchange has usurped the place of fundamental values ... What used to be professions have turned into businesses ... The cult of success has replaced a belief in principles. Society has lost its anchor". Soros added: "The doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism holds that the common good is best served by the uninhibited pursuit of self-interest. Unless it is tempered by the recognition of a common interest that ought to take precedence over particular interests, our present system - which, however imperfect, qualifies as an open society - is liable to break down." This is now happening, and in a far more severe manner for men of Soros' tastes. We are seeing the rapid unravelling of the "greed is good" age and one hears desperate talk involving recycled concepts like "capitalism 2.0", "sustainable capitalism" et cetera. Intellectual despair has set in because a whole generation has been taught to ignore the evidence, or to massage the facts before examining them. Can we? The enormous crowd that felicitated President-Elect Barack Obama on his monumental victory the other evening roared "Yes we can!" The challenges that beset humanity today are of a nature, and of an order that require something fundamentally different from the mere positiveness implied in such an incredible statement of collective determination, delivered in an epoch-making moment. The rhetoric of "progress" has accustomed almost everyone to the language of "moving forward". But how do you move forward when you are approaching a steep environmental precipice under the business-as-usual scenario? The question is not so much "what is to be done?" as "what is to be undone?" The financial sector is busy "deleveraging". The consumers are reducing consumption and are worrying about how to pay their debts. As they rapidly lose markets - and loans - the corporations are also pruning their ambitions severely, restructuring and often just shutting down or going bankrupt. Cruel as it may sound to the millions being laid off by the month (a comment on the capitalist system), perhaps all this is a blessing in very thick disguise. It is one way that carbon emissions will be controlled. The excesses of the past have to be paid for, after all. Our era, like no other age in history perhaps, has the enormous obligation to undo most of its (mis)deeds just in order to enable the planet to remain inhabitable for our progeny. Their living standards are obviously going to be lower than ours. The future we had been trying to live off is now at the door. Life is not just about getting more and more rich. All science knows that life is given to humanity under certain very specific, delicately balanced, environmental and biological conditions. What has grown with the economic growth of recent decades are also crises which will ultimately destroy the conditions of human existence. We should read the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 as a shadow of the far more real ecological crisis which is lying in wait to overwhelm us. The facts are in. We are being asked to fundamentally change our way of life. Half-measures will not do. The great economic anthropologist Karl Polanyi in his famous book The Great Transformation had concluded back in 1944: "A market economy can exist only in a market society ... A market economy must comprise all elements of industry, including labor, land, and money. But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself to the laws of the market." We have become so used to the abiding realities of the day that we fail to notice that we are all victims of them. The latest financial episodes show that unrestrained capitalism is not even good for capitalists themselves. They are all suffering from unbearable stress and depression, and many of them from the onset of fatal diseases. The West has given us valuable notions of individual liberties, but none of collective freedoms. Social problems, however, do not have individual solutions. If society has allowed itself to be subjugated by the market an individual acting alone has little choice about following the rules of competitive survival in urban (or rural) jungles. But acting collectively, it is possible to decide whether we are going to continue being a society that serves the market, or whether we will finally make the market serve society. For markets are known, as we are learning every day, to be good slaves, but terrible masters. These are strange times indeed, when the high priests of the day, the economists, are eager to quote prophetic poets like WB Yeats, The Second Coming (1929), fearing an apocalypse, which has already happened a few times in the recent history of "modern" civilization. But they fear, perhaps rightly, that what may arrive may be something unimaginably worse than all catastrophes seen hitherto. Let us not just hope that they are wrong, let us live and act in ways which makes it so. Yes we can. But just you and I cannot. If we remember that our grandchildren may still have a chance. _____ Aseem Shrivastava is an independent writer. He can be reached at aseem62 at yahoo.com. http://www.countercurrents.org/aseem121108.htm http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 18:37:09 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:37:09 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Fidel Castro wants Obama meeting Message-ID: <4939D745.8060209@gmail.com> HAVANA, Dec. 5 (UPI) -- Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro has offered to meet with President-elect Barack Obama, the communist island's state media reported. "With Obama, talks could happen anywhere he wants," wrote Castro in a statement published in Granma newspaper Friday and reported by the Times of London. Current Cuban leader Raul Castro, Fidel Castro's younger brother, has also offered to meet with Obama to discuss ending the decades-long U.S. trade embargo against Cuba. Obama said during his campaign he would like to sit down with leaders like Raul Castro, a remark that drew criticism from opponents of the Castro government. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/05/Cubas_Fidel_Castro_wants_Obama_meeting/UPI-36401228525165/ From ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com Fri Dec 5 16:57:26 2008 From: ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com (Mohawk Nation News) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:57:26 -0500 Subject: [A-List] MNN Bye Bye Canada! It wasn't nice knowing ya! Message-ID: <01df421d$39787$0ccd7898843981@xnote> BYE, BYE, CANADA! IT WASN?T NICE KNOWING YA! MNN. Dec. 3, 2008. The vermin have come out of the woodwork. Now that Canada?s Parliament has been suspended, it should now be obvious to everyone, Canada is not a democracy. It never was. It is a colony that has a single person, the Queen, sitting on top as the head of state. It?s been run for the benefit of a few business interests. It only pretends to protect the people. Canada has no land base as Ongwehonwe never gave up anything. Turtle Island and its resources belong to us. On December 4th 2008 Canada?s Parliament was ?prorogued?. In other words, the pretense of representative government of the colony was dissolved. Prime Minister, Stephen Harper presented a bogus budget to Parliament. He wanted to cut corporate taxes, slash social, education and health programs. He even wanted to cut off the election subsidies to the parties. It was outrageous. He knew it would be rejected. His party was outnumbered. Next Monday, December 8th, he would have had to face a vote of ?non-confidence?, lose and then step down. Then another election would have been called with just about the same result as the last one. Harper would have had another minority government. Canadians have spoken. They don?t him to have too much power. The other parties, the Liberals, New Democratic and Bloc Quebec, decided to form a coalition, which was legal according to their colonial structure. It made sense. It followed Canadian cultural precedent. It has to have been anticipated by Harper and whoever pulls his strings. What was the real plan? The Governor General of Canada, Michaele Jean, had been sent to Europe to be near whoever pulls the strings of her boss, Queen Elizabeth. The Governor General was called back ?suddenly? to fulfill this colonial metaphor about being a single head of state, the ?maharajah? who reigns over her subjects in Canada. Harper asked the Governor General to discontinue Parliament for eight weeks [or more]. ?Prorogue? means to discontinue meetings of parliament without dissolving it. In other words, it?s a dictatorship. The Prime Minister can indefinitely extend his term of office if he can create the ?need? for it. It was a measure meant to take care of emergencies ? like war. It was not meant to allow a prime minister to assume dictatorial power, or to do an end run around the discussions that should take place when people living in widely separate places with different needs have to work together. Canada?s chaotic state is a sign that differences are coming out and their system cannot deal with it. During this time Harper does either as he?s told or as he pleases according to the secret clique that?s pushing him. In the meantime, Harper has set up meetings across Canada to rile up the people into a frenzy of anger, pitting everybody against each other. His remarks about the people in Quebec have been particularly offensive and meant to start fights. Is he trying to break up Canada? Or is he just trying to create a ?pretext? for martial law? Is it a coincidence that the military conducted exercises to prepare for this eventuality just two weeks ago? Why have there been so many problems lately with the police who are freely killing, shooting and assaulting innocent people? This has been happening everywhere involving city police, provincial police, RCMP, CBSA and CSIS [secret service]. Are they trying to normalize violence? It?s been called an ?economic crisis?. Then what?s the excuse for setting up a totalitarian regime? Unless the time has come for someone to cash in! Should Harper and his ?counsel of foreign advisors? decide that the situation has gotten ?out of hand?, he could maintain martial law indefinitely. This would give him time to bring everybody and everything under control. His backers can then ?take the money and run?. As it stands Harper can be sent around the world to make deals to sell off our resources, and then pocket the money. Who can stop him? It?s time for people to do some serious thinking about the real meaning of ?democracy?. There has to be some real consultation with the people, which he doesn?t want. Canada?s ?pseudo democracy? is dangerous. It lets a single person take dictatorial control to sell off resources without regard for the welfare of the people. We would like to suggest to Canadians that it is time for them to take a serious look at the Great Law of Peace, a tried and proven model that shows how people can work together without having a leader or head of state. It shows how differences of opinion are turned into strengths that contribute to a solution that benefits everyone. Today Canadians are groping to be saved. It is totally absurd that someone in England can rule Onowaregeh, Turtle Island, through their nominee, the ?prime minister?. Equality failed for the colonists because in their hierarchical system they want a ?prime? minister, governor general, queen or a Don to sit on top and dictate to everybody. In the beginning the colonists looked at our Great Law constitution and tried to create a model with some of the principles of equality and everyone having a voice. It did not work because of their refusing to create a balance of power. The colonizers have no choice but to see the land our way if they want to save themselves. Today there is no caretaking as access to our resources is being dictated by outsiders who represent the colonizers, who want to dig out everything and cart it away, leaving us to cope with the toxic waste. Colonizers will not find balance as long as they have imperial thinking that uses a single person as ?head of state? or a CEO to run the corporation. The megalomaniacs think they can control the world and do anything they please with impunity. It?s based on mathematical formulas where only a few people are in control and get the benefits. The psychotics separate themselves from the people and the natural environment. This cannibalistic structure is being shaken. It is supposedly the international position that everyone is a custodian of the land. What is the reality? The whole economy of Canada and the U.S. has been based on greed and expansion for the business viability for a few. New technology pushes this idea along. In the long run this can?t work because we are not looking after our mother as one earth where we all have to stay rooted. So it?s coming to an end. We have lots of challenges. We have to learn how to achieve balance and a way of life that respects us, our land and everything on it. The bosses of the colonizers must be forced to let go of their greed. Is this possible? As it looks, the Queen and the oligarchs have no further use for their colonists here in their present state. They used their natural energies and labor to build something false for themselves. They controlled their minds. In fact, they enslaved them and took all the products for themselves. Now they are taking them to a new level of bondage. Canada has expired as they thought they knew it. We Ongwehonwe were spared because we always resisted. So all they got from us was our resources. We still have our minds and our basic relations with the land and with each other. Stephen Harper can do whatever he pleases because he is being protected by?- the ?mob?? It?s obvious he does not care about the decaying infrastructure or crumbling programs that are falling apart. They were always meant to be short term until they finished taking what they wanted. The squabbling colonists and their puppeteers have to get off our backs. They have to go back to the original relationship with us as the owners of the land and the colonizers as our ?visitors?. The North American Union NAU is the next totalitarian step. The oligarchs are going to amalgamate the land of the Indigenous people of the colonial entities of Mexico, U.S. and Canada. They want a free flow of commerce to benefit a few capitalists. They want to tighten their grip on the people and get rid of human rights. Everybody has to resist this potential slavery. We demand that they leave their destructive and grasping schemes behind and move toward a proper and legal relationship with us. To save yourselves, Canadians, you have to take on our basic principles of equality, everybody having a voice, taking care of the land, living peacefully and respecting us and each other. Karakwine & MNN Staff www.mohawknationnews.com Mohawk Nation News Katenies20 at yahoo.com kahentinetha2 at yahoo.com Note: Your financial help is needed and appreciated. Please send your donations to PayPal at www.mohawknationnews.com, or by check or money order to ?MNN Mohawk Nation News?, Box 991, Kahnawake [Quebec, Canada] J0L 1B0. Nia:wen thank you very much. Go to MNN ?Canada? category for more stories; New MNN Books Available now! Purchase t-shirts, mugs and more at our CafePressStore http://www.cafepress.com/mohawknews; Subscribe to MNN for breaking news updates http://.mohawknationnews.com/news/subscription.php; Sign Women Title Holders petition! http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Iroquois From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sat Dec 6 01:53:23 2008 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:53:23 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Taking Evolution Seriously Message-ID: <493A3D83.6080409@ashisuto.co.jp> by John Michael Greer The Archdruid Report (December 03 2008) Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial society Back in 1904, sociologist Max Weber proposed that the modern period was witnessing "the disenchantment of the world" - a process which traditional mythic ideas that wove meaning into human experience were being replaced by the alienating and dehumanizing worldview of materialist science. There's some truth to Weber's thesis, but I'm not sure he anticipated the inevitable backlash: the Procrustean stretching and lopping of scientific ideas in the popular imagination that has turned many of them into substitute myths. One example that has been much on my mind of late is the way the theory of evolution has been manhandled into a surrogate mythology. The reason it's been on my mind is simple enough: whenever I discuss peak oil at a lecture, book signing, or some other public setting, it's a safe bet that someone will raise a hand and ask what I think about the possibility that the approaching crisis is part of our transition to a new evolutionary level. I am always left wondering what to say in response, because this sort of question is almost always rooted in the notion that evolution is a linear movement that leads onward and upward through a series of distinct stages or levels - and this notion is a pretty fair misstatement of the way evolution takes place in nature. Few things in the history of ideas are quite so interesting as the way that new discoveries get harnessed in the service of old obsessions. When X-rays were first detected in 1895, for example, one of the first results was panic over the possibility that the new rays might make it possible to see through clothing; the New Jersey state legislature actually debated a bill to ban the use of X-rays in opera glasses. Wildly inaccurate as it was, this notion was rooted in profound fears about sexuality, and so it took many decades to dispel - when I was a child, ads in comic books still claimed to sell "X-ray glasses" that would let you see people naked. Something not that different happened to the theory of evolution, and thus nearly all of today's popular notions about evolution are shrapnel from the head-on collision between Darwin's theory and the obsessions of the era in which that theory emerged. Social class rather than sex was the driving force here; as religious justifications for the English caste system faltered, the manufacture of scientific justifications for social hierarchy became a growth industry, and by the time the ink was dry on the first copies of The Origin of Species (1859), evolution was already being drafted into service in this dubious cause. The resulting belief system was very nearly a parody of George Orwell's Animal Farm (1945) in advance - all living things evolve, but some are more evolved than others. Now of course this is nonsense. A human being, a gecko, a dandelion, and a single-celled blue-green alga are all equally evolved - that is, they have all been shaped to the same degree by the pressures of their environment, and their ancestors have all undergone an equal amount of natural selection. We think of humans as "more evolved" than blue-green alga because Victorian Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer engaged in conceptual sleight of hand, transforming the amorphous outward surge of life toward available niches into a ladder of social status, with English gentlemen at the top level and everybody and everything else slotted into place further down. The concept of evolutionary stages or levels was essential to this conjurer's act, since it allowed social barriers between classes to be mapped onto the biological world. In nature, though, evolution has no levels, it just has adaptations. There is no straight line of progress along which living things can be ranked. Instead, evolutionary lineages splay outward like the branches of an unruly shrub. Sometimes those branches take unexpected turns, but these evolutionary breakthroughs can no more be ranked in an ascending hierarchy than organisms can. They move outward into new niches, rather than upward to some imagined goal. There are any number of examples from nature; the one I want to use here is the evolution of bats. The ancestors of the first bats were shrewlike, insect-eating nocturnal mammals, related to early primates, who scampered through the forest canopies of the Eocene around sixty million years ago. For animals that live in trees, the risk of falling is a constant source of evolutionary pressure, and adaptations that will help manage that danger will likely spread through a population; that's how sloths got their claws, New World monkeys got prehensile tails, and many animals of past and present got extra skin that functions as a parachute. If the extra skin bridges the gap between forelegs and the hindlegs, the most common adaptation, you get the ability to glide, like flying squirrels, colugoes, and the like; you've got a viable adaptation, and there you stop. If the extra skin is mostly on and around the forelimbs, though, you've just jumped through the door into a new world, because you can control your glide much more precisely, and you can put muscle into the movements - in other words, you can begin to fly. Once you can do better than a controlled fall, furthermore, the trillions of tasty insects flitting through the forest air are on your menu, and the better you can fly, the more you can catch. The result is ferocious evolutionary pressure toward improved flight skills, and in a few hundred thousand generations, you've got agile fliers. That's what happened to bats, as it happened some 200 million years earlier to the ancestors of the pterodactyls. By 55 million years ago, bats almost identical to today's insect-eating bats were darting through the Eocene skies. Sonar seems to have taken a while to evolve, and some offshoots of the family - the big fruit bats and flying foxes, for example - took even longer, but the basic adaptations were set and, to the discomfiture of countless generations of mosquitoes and moths, have remained ever since. As evolutionary breakthroughs go, the leap into flight was a massive success; bats are the second most numerous of mammal orders, exceeded only by the rodents, but it's impossible to fit the breakthrough that created them into any linear scheme. Applying an ecological concept to human social systems always takes tinkering, but there are good reasons to accept the idea that societies are capable of evolution; like populations of other living things, human communities face pressures from their environments, and adapt or perish in response. Here again, though, the evolutionary process moves outward in all directions rather than ascending an imaginary hierarchy of levels. Hunter-gatherer systems seem to have been the original form of human society, but other forms branched off as adaptations opened doors to possibilities that were likely as appealing at the time as the bug-filled night sky must have been to the first clumsily flapping proto-bats. Where large herbivores could be tamed, therefore, nomadic herding societies came into being; where many food plants could be raised in intensive gardens, tribal horticultural societies were born; where extensive fields of seed-bearing grasses offered the best option for survival, agrarian societies took shape. As it turned out, grains could be bred to yield large surpluses that could be transported and stored, and so the agrarian system opened the door to large-scale divisions of labor and the rise of cities. These in turn made complex material culture possible, and ultimately drove the creation of the machines that broke into the Earth's stockpiles of fossil carbon and gave the modern world its three centuries of exuberance. Thus industrial society is not "more evolved" than other societies, or for that matter "less evolved". It was simply the most successful adaptation to the evolutionary pressures that opened up once fossil fuel energy had been tapped, and it outcompeted other systems in something of the same way that an invasive exotic outcompetes less robust native organisms. As fossil fuels deplete and climate change unfolds, the balance of evolutionary pressures is shifting, and as the new reality of limits takes hold, selection will favor those systems that are better adapted to the new ecological constraints of global climate instability, energy scarcity, and resource shortage. The fact that those new systems are better adapted to new realities, however, does not free them from the human condition. This is where the rubber meets the road, because the people who ask me about the prospects of a new evolutionary level are rarely asking whether the societies of the future will be better adapted to an environment of resource scarcity. They are generally asking whether societies on the other side of an imagined evolutionary leap will be free from problems such as poverty, war, and environmental destruction. The best way to assess this, it seems to me, is to consider what happened the last time human social evolution yielded a breakthrough to a new way of living in the world: that is, the rise of industrial societies beginning around 1750. Agrarian societies suffered from poverty, war, and environmental destruction, and so did all the other "evolutionary levels" or, rather, adaptations, right back to the hunter-gatherers. Many hunter-gatherers among the First Nations in North America, for example, had sharp social inequalities, a busy slave trade, and a long history of fierce tribal wars. Their ecological relationships were less problematic, since those native societies that failed to find a balance with nature, such as the Mound Builders and the people of Chaco Canyon, collapsed long before 1492. Just as bats faced the same experiences of hunger, social squabbles, and the unfriendly attentions of predators as their ancestors, the societies that took up industrialism experienced poverty, war, and environmental destruction just like earlier societies, and it's hard to think of a good reason why the new societies that emerge in response to the evolutionary pressures of the deindustrial age should be exempt from the same troubles. Evolutionary adaptations can make things easier for living things - plenty of predators in the Eocene must have been discomfited when bats evolved the ability to flutter away to safety - but no living thing is exempt from the balances of the natural world. It's a mistake, in other words, to see evolution as a movement toward Utopia. When I've tried to explain any of the above in public, though, someone - and it's not always the same someone who asked the original question - usually insists that this may be how biological evolution works, but spiritual evolution is different. Some of my readers just now may have come up with the same objection. All I can say in response is I know of none of the world's great spiritual traditions that would approve the claim that people living extravagant lifestyles of wealth and privilege - this is, after all, a fair description of life in modern industrial societies from the standpoint of the rest of human experience - can expect a sudden leap to an even more comfortable and convenient life, just because they happen to want it, and would find it a useful way to avoid dealing with the consequences of their own shortsighted choices. This may seem unduly harsh. Still, the notion that an evolutionary leap will extract us from the mess we've made for ourselves is as much a distortion of the realities of the evolutionary process as any Social Darwinist screed. If people want to believe that a miracle will rescue them from the predicament of industrial society, they have every right to their faith, but it would confuse communication a little less to call it a miracle, instead of trying to wrap it in the borrowed prestige of Darwin's theory. Perhaps it's the bias instilled by my own Druid faith, furthermore, but it seems to me that if we are going to use evolution as a metaphor, we need to start by taking evolution seriously, rather than imposing our own fantasies on the very different stories that nature is telling us. _____ ?John Michael Greer has been active in the alternative spirituality movement for more than 25 years, and is the author of a dozen books, including The Druidry Handbook (2006) and The Long Descent (2008). He lives in Ashland, Oregon. http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/12/taking-evolution-seriously.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Sat Dec 6 06:18:00 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:18:00 -0500 Subject: [A-List] why are union's rights repealed ? Message-ID: <493A3538.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> _Click here: Washington Times - Hoyer asks why union's rights repealed_ (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/05/hoyer-wants-explanation-for-repeal-of- unions-right/) in solidarity jim This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Sat Dec 6 09:17:16 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 11:17:16 -0500 Subject: [A-List] A letter to Michael Moore Message-ID: <493A5F3C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> JOHN CORTEZ A letter to Michael Moore _John Cortez_ (mailto:) Automotive News | November 24, 2008 - 3:34 pm EST Dear Mr. Moore: Let me start by stating upfront that I?m a lifelong Michigander and a contract employee of General Motors. I should also add that, unlike many at GM, I have long been a fan of your work, the work of a man I had considered to be about truth, and truth-telling, even when it hurts, and hurts so bad it?s funny in a pathetic sort of way. On ?Larry King Live? last week, you didn?t tell the truth, and it left me flabbergasted. In your defense, I think you did it out of ignorance, not malice. But it was an untruth nonetheless, and one that will have very damaging ramifications for Detroit and for the nation. When is the last time you were in a showroom of new GM products? Or Ford or Chrysler for that matter? I?d guess years, if not decades. And yet, you felt comfortable going on CNN and disparaging the current roster of cars and trucks from GM, calling them ?crap,? ?the wrong vehicles,? and implying that they? re the same old garbage that no one wants to buy! It was hugely irresponsible and couldn?t have come at a worse time for our home state. Yes, many of the products of the past were in fact garbage. I was a journalist for AutoWeek magazine through most of the ?90s, and I drove every car and truck from every manufacturer on the planet, and the GM products were, with the exception of the Corvette, largely lousy. However, Mr. Moore, this is 2008. Have you been in a new Chevrolet Malibu? It ?s better than anything Toyota or Honda has, gets better mileage, won North American Car of the Year, and is built by the UAW in America. Have you seen the Buick Enclave? Gotta be the best-looking crossover on the market, is selling like crazy, even though ?no one? wants GM products, and is built by the UAW in Lansing. Have you driven a Cadillac CTS-V? Even the highly discriminating German press says it?s the best-performing luxury sports sedan on the global market today. It?s built by the UAW in Lansing. The point is, whether you care to admit it or not, right now GM?s product house is IN ORDER. It has the best lineup of cars and trucks, top to bottom, it has ever had. Honest to God. The influential automotive press, across the country and around the world, has realized it, and it is only a matter of time until the public does as well. The newest models had been selling well, and the restructuring already under way had been taking hold, and Wall Street had noticed. The stock price was $43 just a year ago. That?s a sure sign that Wall Street approved of the changes in progress. Then the credit market collapsed, and GM could get no financing to continue business, and most of its customers could get no loans to buy vehicles. And that is where things stand now. Is the weak balance sheet at GM as compared to Toyota and others the fault of past mismanagement, poor products and legacy burdens, and at least partially self-inflicted? You betcha, as the governor of Alaska might say. Absolutely. The company, with an assist from the federal government (national health care, anyone?), bears some of the blame for putting itself in this precarious position. Is it to blame for the catastrophic events of THIS year? No. Wall Street is, and it?s getting $700 billion in handouts, no questions asked. Wall Street executives flew down there in their own jets to get it and no one batted an eye. Now the auto industry is in D.C., with its collective hand out, asking for a pittance by comparison -- $25 billion, in LOANS, not bailout money -- and getting hammered left and right and criticized on national TV because of it. Your irresponsible comments will only fuel the fires of hatred that burn for the Big 3 and for Detroit. And since we all know that politicians don?t put cream in their coffee without first consulting the polls, we know how this is going to go down. America doesn?t want to lend money to the auto industry, so Congress won?t. And we?ll all go down in flames here in Michigan. The UAW you claim to support so strongly will be SOL. Downtown Detroit, which has worked so hard at coming back, will be a literal ghost town, instead of the after-5 p.m. ghost town it largely is now. Restaurants, salons, shops, everything in southeast Michigan will close, and the ripple effect will begin, and spread across America, and it will be horrific. I don?t see how to avoid it, if we don?t get this bridge loan. But I know what I?d like to see, and that is for you to go on TV or write a blog or say something somewhere that indicates you?ve seen GM?s new vehicles. Test drive a Cadillac CTS and tell the UAW workers in Lansing what you think of the vehicle they work so hard to build. It may be the last one they get a chance to make. It?s that bad. And for the life of me, I can?t figure out why the rest of America is so indifferent to the fate of our home state. Drop dead, they are telling us. Do you have any idea why? This isn?t about helping the three CEOs you saw sitting on the witness bench on Capitol Hill; this is about keeping this region -- and ultimately this nation --from economic apocalypse. I apologize for the long letter. This is fairly important stuff. The city and state I love are on the brink of becoming a wasteland. America can help us, but doesn?t want to and doesn?t care. Any idea how that feels? Sincerely, John John Cortez is a former reporter for AutoWeek, a sister publication of Automotive News. He now is vice president of executive communications for Hass This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From tboyle at rosehill.net Fri Dec 5 11:00:59 2008 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:00:59 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Union Caravan to WashDC: Wendy Thompson on DemocracyNOW Message-ID: From DemocracyNOW http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/5/ceos_of_big_three_automakers_return [...] AMY GOODMAN: Wendy Thompson is a retired worker at American Axle in Detroit and the former president of UAW Local 235. She joins us from Detroit, where she is helping organize a caravan of auto workers to Washington, D.C., scheduled to arrive Monday morning. Ralph Nader, longtime consumer advocate, former presidential candidate, he catapulted to fame decades ago with his book Unsafe at Any Speed, which took on the auto industry. He joins us on the telephone from Washington, D.C. Let?s start with Wendy Thompson. What do you think needs to happen right now? WENDY THOMPSON: Well, we?re going to Washington in a caravan, because we think it?s very important that a rank-and-file worker point of view come into this debate. We don?t think it?s a question of saving corporations. It?s a question of saving an industry, a question of saving working-class communities and the heartland of America. And we think a comprehensive reformed industry has to happen. Our suggestion is to expand the industry to become transportation-based and alternative energy-based. We say that there?s?instead of closing these factories, why don?t we start to build products like light rail for mass transit or wind turbines for alternative energy? There is work that needs to be done to create a new society here in America. And a lot is at stake. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1700 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081205/b43fc763/attachment.txt From noreply at coha.org Fri Dec 5 12:02:58 2008 From: noreply at coha.org (Council on Hemispheric Affairs) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 14:02:58 -0500 Subject: [A-List] The Colombia FTA: A Less Attractive Face for Trade? Message-ID: <20081205190157.2602A3E56C8@mx-out2.daemonmail.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5128 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081205/02cb058d/attachment.txt From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Dec 6 11:22:06 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:22:06 -0500 Subject: [A-List] NATO Pulls Entire Balkans Into Bloc Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 11:35 AM Subject: [stopnato] NATO Pulls Entire Balkans Into Bloc 1) Montenegro, Bosnia join NATO's Adriatic Charter 2) NATO says Albania, Croatia on track to join in April 3) NATO asks Macedonia to keep up accession efforts 4) NATO ministers propose partnership action plan with Serbia http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/newssummary/#setimes/newsbriefs/2008/12/05/nb-06 Southeast European Times December 5, 2008 Montenegro, BiH join NATO's Adriatic Charter HELSINKI, Finland - Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) on Thursday (December 4th) joined the so-called Adriatic Charter of NATO aspirants, a co-operation mechanism initiated by the United States in 2003. The two countries became official members of the partnership initiative at a ceremony in Helsinki on the sidelines of an annual meeting of the OSCE foreign ministers. The Adriatic Charter, which consists of Albania, Croatia and Macedonia, extended invitations to Montenegro and BiH during a meeting in New York in September. Albania and Croatia received invitations to join NATO at its April summit. Greece vetoed Macedonia's bid, citing the long-running name dispute between the two countries. (RFE, RTCG, Makfax, A1 - 04/12/08) ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2008/12/04/feature-01 Southeast European Times December 4, 2008 NATO says Albania, Croatia on track to join in April NATO foreign ministers said on Wednesday that Albania and Croatia have implemented the required reforms to join the Alliance next April. They also urged other Balkan hopefuls to continue efforts towards meeting the Alliance's membership conditions. Albania and Croatia are on track to join NATO by April, the foreign ministers of the 26-nation Alliance said at the end of a two-day meeting in Brussels on Wednesday (December 3rd). They pledged to support other Western Balkan candidates' reform efforts and to continue assisting the international organisations in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and Kosovo. "Albania and Croatia have already accomplished important reforms," the ministers said in their final communiqu? from the meeting. "Our aim is to welcome the two new members into the Alliance at our next summit" in April, when NATO will celebrate its 60th anniversary. The top diplomats also urged NATO nations to complete the ratification of Albania and Croatia's Accession Protocols within the next four months, so that they can join the Alliance as its 27th and 28th members. The ministers reassured Macedonia that it will get a membership invitation "as soon as a mutually acceptable solution" to its 17-year-long name dispute with Greece emerges. Voicing support for Serbia's Euro-Atlantic integration bid, the final communique said "All NATO partnership opportunities for political consultation and practical co-operation remain open" to the country. It praised Belgrade for delivering former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) but urged the capture of the two remaining fugitives sought by the ICTY, particularly former Bosnian Serb military commander Ratko Mladic. Welcoming the progress made by BiH and Montenegro in their co-operation with the Alliance, the statement noted the launch earlier this year of an Intensified Dialogue with the two countries. It also urged Sarajevo and Podgorica to "maintain [their] momentum" in implementing their Individual Partnership Action Plans. The ministers, however, voiced deep concern about "the deterioration in the political climate" in BiH in recent months, warning it could jeopardise the country's Euro-Atlantic integration prospects. They called on the country's political leaders to meet the requirements for closing the Office of the High Representative. The 26 foreign ministers also pledged the Alliance and KFOR will continue to work with the UN, the EU and other international organisations "to support the development of a stable, democratic, multi-ethnic and peaceful Kosovo". They called "the prompt deployment" of the EU's justice and police mission, dubbed EULEX, throughout Kosovo "an urgent priority". The ministers reaffirmed that Georgia and Ukraine will join NATO one day, but stopped short of offering them formal road maps to membership. NATO also decided on Wednesday to gradually resume low-level contacts with Russia, which it suspended following Russia's August offensive into Georgia. The ministers also reiterated the Alliance's support for a US plan to build a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe. ------------------------------------------------------ http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/06/content_10463491.htm Xinhua News Agency December 5, 2008 NATO asks Macedonia to keep up accession efforts TIRANA - senior NATO official said on Friday that Macedonia shouldn't lose its trust in the alliance but keep up its accession efforts instead. NATO Military Committee Chairman Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola, who is on a visit to Macedonia, said Macedonia shouldn't feel discouraged by the delay of its admission to the alliance. Macedonia's efforts to join the club was thwarted by Greece over a 17-year-long name dispute between the two neighbors at NATO Bucharest summit in April. Athens has been opposed to its northern neighbor being called the "Republic of Macedonia", arguing it implies a territorial claim over a Greek northern province also called Macedonia. "Macedonia is a major player in the Balkans in terms of the reforms and transformation, and NATO hopes for full inclusion of the Balkans into its structure," Di Paola said after talks with Macedonian Defense Minister Zoran Konjanovski. As regards the deployment of the EU justice and police mission EULEX to Kosovo, Di Paola said he doesn't expect the transition to create any security problems, when the EU takes over administrative duties from the United Nations. "Deployment of EULEX in Kosovo should not create a security gap. The people in Kosovo have a need to feel that the security won't get worse, but that the situation would improve. EULEX is a positive thing for the people in Kosovo," Di Paola said The EU mission to Kosovo, which includes police officers, prosecutors, judges and customs officials, will start its mandate on Dec. 9. Serbia's southern province of Kosovo, where the ethnic Albanian-majority makes up 90 percent of its 2 million population, unilaterally declared independence in February despite strong opposition from Serbia and its ally Russia. ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/newssummary/#setimes/newsbriefs/2008/12/05/nb-03 Southeast European Times December 5, 2008 NATO ministers propose partnership action plan with Serbia BRUSSELS, Belgium - NATO foreign and defence ministers have prepared a Partnership for Peace action plan to expand co-operation with Serbia, media reported on Thursday (December 4th). In a joint statement Wednesday at the end of their two-day annual meeting in Brussels, the ministers said they support Serbia's Euro-Atlantic integration process "in light of the new government's commitment to Euro-Atlantic values and partnership", stressing that the recent signing of a NATO-Serbia agreement on the security of information exchanges constitutes an important step in that direction. (B92, Beta - 04/12/08) =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls | Calendar MARKETPLACE From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Dec 6 11:24:49 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:24:49 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Analysis: After War, US Ready To Dump Georgian Proxy Message-ID: <514DF4DCC56643BEA11E9C09D5BEBD2D@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 10:54 AM Subject: [stopnato] Analysis: After War, US Ready To Dump Georgian Proxy http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=36203&cid=56&p=06.12.2008 Voice of Russia December 6, 2008 GEORGIA SLIDES INTO POLITICAL BANkRUPTCY Konstantin Garibov Four key figures in the Administration of the Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili have resigned, taking Georgia deeper into political bankruptcy. The country's permanent ambassador to the UN says he stepped down voluntarily after NATO foreign ministers, at their recent meeting in Brussels, refused to discuss the alliance's Membership Action Plan for Georgia. Earlier, the Georgian Security Council secretary and the defense and foreign ministers were sacked, apparently for failing to provide a military and diplomatic cover for Saakashvili's policy. What had been planned as a victorious blitzkrieg against South Ossetia in August, proved his own utter defeat. Forced by Russia to accept peace, Saakashvili made things pretty awkward for its allies, the United States and Ukraine, which had trained and equipped the Georgian army. The latest resignations and a split in the Georgian society are further proof that he is a "political corpse". While in the beginning of autumn Georgian diplomacy succeeded in convincing everyone that it was all Russia's fault, today even the closest of Saakashvili's partners are trying to distance themselves from his deliberately false interpretation of the August events. His former sponsors are turning their back on him. Analyst Mikhail Alexandrov says many in the West are disappointed with Saakashvili. Saakashvili's further stay in power no longer fits the interests of the Untied States - because he provoked the August crisis. Russia cannot negotiate with him. Even the European Union treats him with suspicion. The United States is looking for someone to replace him and is pinning its hopes on Nino Burjanadze. She is now trying to position herself as a "clean" politician who is not responsible for Saakashvili's failures. Nino Burjanadze, a former speaker of the Georgian parliament, is now standing in opposition to the president just as Saakashvili himself stood in 2003. Georgia is probably on the brink of a new "rose revolution". =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls | Calendar MARKETPLACE From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Dec 6 11:26:29 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:26:29 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Chicago Factory Occupied: UE Members in Chicago Need Our Help! Message-ID: Hopefully a first salvo of the fightback. -- Yoshie UE Members in Chicago Need Our Help! UE Local 1110 members in Chicago who work at Republic Windows and Doors, are now engaged in a battle with their employer as well as the giant Bank of America. The bank -- which has already been given $25 billion dollars in taxpayer bailout monies -- is refusing to extend credit to the company. The national Jobs with Justice coalition has taken up the fight on behalf of these UE members, launching a campaign to expose the shameful behavior by Bank of America -- as well as the many other outrages of the government bailout. To lend a hand, click here. Do your part today to support these fellow workers and push back against the Wall Street and big bank rip-off of taxpayers. Please participate in the Jobs with Justice Week of Action for a People's Bailout Now! To lend a hand please visit the main Jobs with Justice page. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chicago Factory Occupied by Lee Sustar In a tactic rarely used in the U.S. since the labor struggles of the 1930s, the workers, members of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) Local 1110, refused to leave the plant on December 5, its last scheduled day of operation. "We decided to do it because this is money that belongs to us," said Maria Roman, who's worked at the plant for eight years. "These are our rights." Word of the occupation spread quickly both among labor and immigrant rights activists -- the overwhelming majority of the workers are Latinos. Seven local TV news stations showed up to do interviews and live reports, and a steady stream of activists arrived to bring donations of food and money and to plan solidarity actions. Management claims that it can't continue operations because its main creditor, Bank of America (BoA), refuses to make any more loans to the company. After workers picketed BoA headquarters December 3, bank officials agreed to sit down with Republic management and UE to discuss the matter at a December 5 meeting arranged by U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill), said UE organizer Leah Fried. BoA had said that it couldn't discuss the matter with the union directly without written approval from Republic's management. But Republic representatives failed to show up at the meeting, and plant managers prepared to close the doors for good -- violating the federal WARN Act that requires 60 days notice of a plant closure. The workers decided this couldn't go unchallenged. "The company and Bank of America are throwing the ball to one another, and we're in the middle," said Vicente Rangel, a shop steward and former vice president of Local 1110. Many workers had suspected the company was planning to go out of business -- and perhaps restart operations elsewhere. Several said managers had removed both production and office equipment in recent days. Furthermore, while inventory records indicated there were plenty of parts in the plant, workers on the production line found shortages. And the order books, while certainly down from the peak years of the housing boom, didn't square with management's claims of a total collapse. "Where did all those windows go?" one worker asked. Workers were especially outraged that Bank of America, which recently received a bailout in taxpayer money, won't provide credit to Republic. "They get $25 billion from the government, and won't loan a few million to this company so workers can keep their jobs?" said Ricardo Caceres, who has worked at the plant for six years. The members of Local 1110 have a history of struggle. In 2004, they decertified the Central States Joint Board -- a union notorious for corruption and sweetheart contracts with management -- and brought in UE, a far more democratic organization. In May of this year, Local 1110 mobilized for a contract by organizing a "practice" picket, and 70 workers used their lunch break to confront the boss with a petition listing their demands. The workers were able to turn back the company's effort to win major concessions and won solid pay increases. Now, management is trying to get revenge by pocketing money that belongs to the workers. UE officials and workers acknowledge that it will be difficult to stop the plant from closing. But they're determined to get the money owed to them -- and they believe that by fighting, they can set an example for other workers facing layoffs and plant closures as the recession deepens. Negotiations are set for Monday, December 8. Whatever happens, however, the workers have already sent a message to employers that if they violate workers rights and the law, they can expect a fight. "This is a message to the workers of America," said Vicente Rangel, the shop steward. "If we stand together, we will prevail until justice is done, and we get what we're due." What YOU Can Do If negotiations with Bank of America fail to resolve the issue, there will be a picket of BoA's Chicago headquarters at 231 S. La Salle on Tuesday, December 9 at 12 noon. Members of Local 1110 need your support. Make checks payable to the UE Local 1110 Solidarity Fund, and mail to: 37 S. Ashland, Chicago, IL 60607. Messages of support can be sent to leahfried at gmail.com. For more information, call UE at 312-829-8300. At the Jobs with Justice Web site, you can send a message of protest to Bank of America. Workers occupying the Republic Windows & Doors factory slated for closure are vowing to remain in the Chicago plant until they win the $1.5 million in severance and vacation pay owed them by management. The call to action was first published on the Web site of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) on 5 December 2008. Lee Suster's article was first published by SocialistWorker.org on 6 December 2008. From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Dec 6 11:26:59 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:26:59 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Pentagon Identifies 'Future Threats': Mexico, Russia, China Message-ID: <4B308CE528794A10B4DE3016A4445017@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 10:35 AM Subject: [stopnato] Pentagon Identifies 'Future Threats': Mexico, Russia, China http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/12/defense_jfcom_report_120408/ Army Times December 4, 2008 JFCOM releases study on future threats By John T. Bennett -Its authors considered politics, military efforts, demographic changes, globalization, economic trends, energy competition, food and water scarcity, climate change, cyber threats and pandemics. The study predicts future U.S. forces' missions will range "from regular and irregular wars in remote lands, to relief and reconstruction in crisis zones, to sustained engagement in the global commons." -The document also echoes Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other U.S. military leaders who say America is likely in "an era of persistent conflict." -The study also warns about weak and failing states, including Mexico and Pakistan. -"Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone," said the report. -The JFCOM study team examines potential rival nations China and Russia. -"At present there is a dangerous combination of paranoia...nationalism, and bitterness at the loss of what many Russians regard as their rightful place as a great power," [the report said] said. "It was just such a mixture, along with a series of unfortunate events that drove Nazi Germany on its ill-thought-out course." A new U.S. Joint Forces Command planning document offers insights into planning for irregular conflicts, urges long-promised acquisition reform, and outlines potential threats and enemies. Released Thursday, the "Joint Operating Environment" document is a "historically informed, forward-looking effort to discern most accurately the challenges we will face at the operational level of war, and to determine their inherent implications," Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, JFCOM commander, writes in its foreword. "Its purpose is not to predict, but to suggest ways leaders might think about the future." The study is meant to inform joint concept development and experimentation by the U.S. military and "other leaders and professionals in the national security field." The study is largely a response to three questions: . What future trends and disruptions are likely to affect the joint force over the next quarter century? . How are these trends and disruptions likely to define the future contexts for joint operations? . What are the implications of these trends and contexts for the joint force?" Its authors considered politics, military efforts, demographic changes, globalization, economic trends, energy competition, food and water scarcity, climate change, cyber threats and pandemics. The study predicts future U.S. forces' missions will range "from regular and irregular wars in remote lands, to relief and reconstruction in crisis zones, to sustained engagement in the global commons." Some of these missions will be spawned by "rational political calculation," others by "uncontrolled passion." And future foes will attack U.S. forces in a number of ways. "Our enemy's capabilities will range from explosive vests worn by suicide bombers to long-range precision-guided cyber, space, and missile attacks," the study said. "The threat of mass destruction - from nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons - will likely expand from stable nation-states to less stable states and even non-state networks." The document also echoes Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other U.S. military leaders who say America is likely in "an era of persistent conflict." During the next 25 years, it says, "There will continue to be those who will hijack and exploit Islam and other beliefs for their own extremist ends. There will continue to be opponents who will try to disrupt the political stability and deny the free access to the global commons that is crucial to the world's economy." The study gives substantial ink to what could happen in places of strategic import to Washington, such as Russia, China, Africa, Europe, Asia and the Indian Ocean region. Extremists and militias But it calls the Middle East and Central Asia "the center of instability" where U.S. troops will be engaged for some time against radical Islamic groups. The study does not rule out a fight against a peer nation's military, but stresses preparation for irregular foes such as those that complicated the Iraq war for years. Leaders must avoid "the failure to recognize and fully confront the irregular fight that we are in. The requirement to prepare to meet a wide range of threats is going to prove particularly difficult for American forces in the period between now and the 2030s," the study said. "The difficulties involved in training to meet regular and nuclear threats must not push preparations to fight irregular war into the background, as occurred in the decades after the Vietnam War." Irregular wars are likely to be carried out by terrorist groups, "modern-day militias," and other non-state actors, the study said. It noted the 2006 tussle between Israel and Hezbollah, a militia that "combines state-like technological and war-fighting capabilities with a 'sub-state' political and social structure inside the formal state of Lebanon." .... Failing states The study also warns about weak and failing states, including Mexico and Pakistan. "Some forms of collapse in Pakistan would carry with it the likelihood of a sustained violent and bloody civil and sectarian war, an even bigger haven for violent extremists, and the question of what would happen to its nuclear weapons," said the study. "That 'perfect storm' of uncertainty alone might require the engagement of U.S. and coalition forces into a situation of immense complexity and danger with no guarantee they could gain control of the weapons and with the real possibility that a nuclear weapon might be used." On Mexico, JFCOM warns that how the nation's politicians and courts react to a "sustained assault" by criminal gangs and drug cartels will decide whether chaos becomes the norm on America's southern border. "Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone," said the report. .... Bear and dragon The JFCOM study team examines potential rival nations China and Russia. Beijing is dealing with domestic social and economic issues, building up its large military, and keeping a keen eye on Western nations' economic and military developments. Evidence suggests Chinese officials think their country can compete with America on a near-equal footing in areas such as submarines, space,and cyber warfare, the study said. Yet "the Chinese have drawn the lesson that they must not pursue military development at the expense of economic development" - that means no traditional arms race, the study said. "If one examines their emerging military capabilities in intelligence, submarines, cyber, and space, one sees an asymmetrical operational approach that is different from Western approaches, one consistent with the classical Chinese strategic thinkers." The report describes a Russia increasingly controlled by security services and funded by oil and gas sales. Yet its authors conclude that it is doubtful Moscow would be able to rebuild the "military machine of the old Soviet Union." Instead, they say, Russian officials "may be attempting to make up for demographic and conventional military inferiority by modernizing its nuclear forces, including warheads, delivery systems, and doctrines," according to the report. "It is also exploring and fielding strategic systems based on what it terms "new physical principles" including novel stealth and hypersonic technologies." Moscow could be preparing to take back some of its former republics that were lost in the collapse of the Soviet Union. "At present there is a dangerous combination of paranoia - some of it justified, considering Russia's history - nationalism, and bitterness at the loss of what many Russians regard as their rightful place as a great power," it said. "It was just such a mixture, along with a series of unfortunate events that drove Nazi Germany on its ill-thought-out course." =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls | Calendar MARKETPLACE From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Dec 6 11:28:53 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:28:53 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Pentagon Retools For Global Counterinsurgency, Regime Change Message-ID: <734D35CDFDDE4DEBA6310CD0AC2622F4@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 10:14 AM Subject: [stopnato] Pentagon Retools For Global Counterinsurgency, Regime Change http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/921185.html Washington Post December 3, 2008 Pentagon moves to step up military's "irregular warfare" By ANN SCOTT TYSON -The directive...requires the Pentagon to step up its capabilities across the board to fight unconventionally, such as by working with foreign surrogates to gain access to hostile countries, pursue terrorist groups, shore up fragile states or overthrow governments. -"Think of where our forces have been sent and have been engaged over the last 40-plus years: Vietnam, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa and more," Gates said in a recent speech at the National Defense University. "In fact, the first Gulf War stands alone in over two generations of constant military engagement as a more or less traditional conventional conflict." -The new directive states that irregular warfare "is as strategically important as traditional warfare." WASHINGTON - The Pentagon this week approved a major new policy directive that elevated the military's mission of "irregular warfare" to an equal footing with traditional combat. ... The directive, signed Monday by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, requires the Pentagon to step up its capabilities across the board to fight unconventionally, such as by working with foreign surrogates to gain access to hostile countries, pursue terrorist groups, shore up fragile states or overthrow governments. .... "The U.S. has considerable overmatch in traditional capabilities . and more and more adversaries have realized it's better to take us on in an asymmetric fashion," said Michael Vickers, an assistant secretary of defense and a chief architect of the policy that was under debate since at least 2006. Designed to institutionalize lessons the U.S. military has learned - often painfully - in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001, the policy aims to prepare the military for the most likely future conflicts and to prevent the type of mistakes made in the post-Vietnam era, when hard-won skills in counterinsurgency atrophied. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has lobbied outspokenly for such a shift. "Think of where our forces have been sent and have been engaged over the last 40-plus years: Vietnam, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa and more," Gates said in a recent speech at the National Defense University. "In fact, the first Gulf War stands alone in over two generations of constant military engagement as a more or less traditional conventional conflict." Gates warned that, for the foreseeable future, the U.S. would face the greatest threats not from aggressor countries, but from insurgents and extremist groups operating in weak or failing states. "We do not have the luxury of opting out because they do not conform to preferred notions of the American way of war," he said. The new directive states that irregular warfare "is as strategically important as traditional warfare." Defined as "a violent struggle among state and non-state actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant population(s)," irregular warfare "favors indirect and asymmetric approaches to erode an adversary's power, influence, and will," the directive states. A major thrust of the policy is for U.S. troops to do less of the fighting and instead build the capabilities of foreign forces. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls | Calendar MARKETPLACE From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Dec 6 11:32:28 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:32:28 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Plan Colombia: 45 Convicted, 952 Probed For Slaying Civilians Message-ID: <75888F460B974E73A378E4EB994F12A6@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:33 AM Subject: [stopnato] Plan Colombia: 45 Convicted, 952 Probed For Slaying Civilians http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/06/content_10464759.htm Xinhua News Agency December 6, 2008 45 Colombian officers convicted of extrajudicial murder BOGOTA - A total of 45 Colombian officers were convicted of killing civilians in the name of purging rebels in the country, the prosecutor's office said Friday. Twenty-one police officers, 20 Army soldiers and four secret police officers had been accused of so-called "fake positives," which means killing innocent civilians while alleging they were guerilla members. The officers, among 952 more being investigated, committed the extrajudicial executions in an attempt to seek good security progress, prosecutors said. In January, at least 20 youngsters were killed in Soacha, south of the capital Bogota, leading to investigations into hundreds of such cases in the country. According to a report by the Human Rights Unit of the prosecutor's office, the number of homicides allegedly committed by members of the public forces increased from 155 to 219 between August and November in the northwestern Colombian Department of Antioquia. In the central Meta Department, such cases rose from 107 to 115 during the same period. In Norte de Santander, which borders Venezuela, the number of cases rose from 26 to 50. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls | Calendar MARKETPLACE From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Dec 6 11:55:19 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:55:19 -0500 Subject: [A-List] CPJ: "Online Journalists Now Most Jailed" Message-ID: CPJ's 2008 prison census: Online and in jail Also: See capsule reports on journalists in jail as of December 1, 2008 New York, December 4, 2008--Reflecting the rising influence of online reporting and commentary, more Internet journalists are jailed worldwide today than journalists working in any other medium. In its annual census of imprisoned journalists, released today, the Committee to Protect Journalists found that 45 percent of all media workers jailed worldwide are bloggers, Web-based reporters, or online editors. Online journalists represent the largest professional category for the first time in CPJ's prison census. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . At least 56 online journalists are jailed worldwide, according to CPJ's census, a tally that surpasses the number of print journalists for the first time. The number of imprisoned online journalists has steadily increased since CPJ recorded the first jailed Internet writer in its 1997 census. Print reporters, editors, and photographers make up the next largest professional category, with 53 cases in 2008. Television and radio journalists and documentary filmmakers constitute the rest. From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Dec 6 12:08:44 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 14:08:44 -0500 Subject: [A-List] =?windows-1252?q?Le_partenariat_Chine_-_Etats-Unis_se_r?= =?windows-1252?q?=E9=E9quilibre_au_profit_de_P=E9kin?= Message-ID: Le partenariat Chine - Etats-Unis se r??quilibre au profit de P?kin LE MONDE | 06.12.08 | 13h04 ? Mis ? jour le 06.12.08 | 13h04 SHANGHA? (Chine) CORRESPONDANCE R?unis ? P?kin les 4 et 5 d?cembre pour le dernier "Dialogue ?conomique strat?gique" de l'?re Bush, Am?ricains et Chinois ont promis d'agir ensemble pour pr?venir tout retour du protectionnisme et annonc? 20 milliards de dollars (15,7 milliards d'euros) de cr?dits pour favoriser les ?changes. C'est Henry Paulson qui a initi? il y a deux ans ce sommet bilat?ral destin? ? "int?grer" la Chine. Le secr?taire am?ricain au Tr?sor est un "ami" de la Chine qu'il conna?t en tant que pr?sident de Goldman Sachs et envers laquelle il a toujours privil?gi? une approche conciliatrice face ? une opposition d?mocrate davantage port?e sur l'affrontement. Il a ainsi d? mettre en sourdine les exigences r?p?t?es de r??valuation du yuan. L'heure n'est plus aux le?ons de d?r?gulation qui ont autrefois mis la Chine sur la d?fensive, mais ? une relation qui, crise oblige, est en train de se r??quilibrer en faveur du partenaire chinois : "Les deux pays sont devenus interd?pendants", a d?clar? le vice-premier Wang Qishan, chef de la d?l?gation chinoise. Si cette interd?pendance ne date pas d'aujourd'hui, la d?b?cle financi?re am?ricaine a redonn? plus de poids au financement de la dette publique am?ricaine. L'Am?rique a ni plus ni moins ?t? incit?e ? prendre toutes les mesures possibles de stabilisation de ses march?s financiers "afin d'assurer la s?curit? des actifs et des investissements chinois aux Etats-Unis", a d?clar? M. Wang. Les Am?ricains ont ?t? encourag?s ? augmenter leur taux d'?pargne par le gouverneur de la Banque de Chine, qui s'est envol? vers New York avant la fin du sommet pour rencontrer le successeur de M. Paulson, Timothy Geithner. Il y a quelques jours ? Hongkong, Lou Jiwei le pr?sident de la China Investment corporation, le fonds souverain chinois, avait d?clar? que la Chine remettait ? plus tard tout projet d'investissement dans la finance am?ricaine, car "nous n'avons pas le courage pour l'instant d'investir dans des institutions financi?res dont on ne sait quels probl?mes elles peuvent avoir", a-t-il dit ? une table ronde de la Clinton Global Initiative. EMERGENCE DE LA "CHIMERICA" La Chine d?tient 585 milliards de dollars en bons du Tr?sor am?ricains. Les participations chinoises dans Freddy Mac et Fanny Mae, ou encore le fonds Blackstone et la banque d'affaires Morgan Stanley sont ?quivalentes. Le rench?rissement du yuan (+ 20% par rapport au dollar depuis 2005) et la d?b?cle financi?re am?ricaine ont mis ? mal ces placements, qui ont indirectement servi ? financer 321 milliards de dollars d'exportations chinoises vers les Etats-Unis en 2007 (et probablement autant en 2008). Le destin commun aux deux pays fait l'objet d'un livre, The Ascent of Money : A Financial History of the World (paru en novembre chez Penguin Press). L'?conomiste am?ricain Niall Ferguson y retrace l'?mergence, depuis la fin de la guerre froide, d'un "nouveau continent" ? la croissance spectaculaire : la "Chimerica", un endroit o? les habitants de l'Ouest consomment ? qui mieux mieux les produits que fabriquent ceux de l'Est, les uns s'endettant d'autant que les autres th?saurisent. Ce "continent" doit ?tre remis ? flot - en faisant cro?tre la consommation des Chinois et l'?pargne des Am?ricains. Les grands argentiers de P?kin ont fait comprendre ? leurs interlocuteurs qu'ils n'avaient aucune intention de mettre en p?ril la stabilit? de leur croissance aujourd'hui chancelante en r??valuant brusquement le yuan. Dans quelles conditions se poursuivra le dialogue ? La balle, ont laiss? entendre les Chinois, est dans le camp de l'administration Obama. Brice Pedroletti From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Dec 6 12:14:12 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 14:14:12 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Taking Evolution Seriously In-Reply-To: <493A3D83.6080409@ashisuto.co.jp> References: <493A3D83.6080409@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: While appreciating the social message here, Greer is, at the same time, guilty of mis-representing - or misunderstanding - evolutionary 'progress'. Thus: "In nature, though, evolution has no levels, it just has adaptations. There is no straight line of progress along which living things can be ranked. Instead, evolutionary lineages splay outward like the branches of an unruly shrub. Sometimes those branches take unexpected turns, but these evolutionary breakthroughs can no more be ranked in an ascending hierarchy than organisms can. " Nonsense. Now, of course, one has to pre-establish a reasonable definition of 'progress', but if one chooses the scientific criterion of 'organizational complexity' then, clearly, evolution *does tend* towards 'progress'. It does so, *not invariably* (it is, afterall related to the niches that organisms inhabit, and these may, and often do seek organizational conservation), and *not linearly* (the evolutionary process is a meandering one), but it does do so *inevitably* in terms of the biosphere as a whole. Given the *contextual* pressures of evolutionary 'arms races', organisms, do and have (at least on this planet) evolved greater and greater organizational complexities..in fact, to an astounding degree. Indeed, one need only look around - at oneself to say the least - to see these transparent hierarchies. Now, one can quibble over whether 'organizational complexity' is equivalent to 'progress'...whatever..The point is: Evolution considered as a process operating as some disembodied mechanism, unconnected to the realities of co-evolutionary contextual forces..is a pure fiction. Water, for instance, has no 'intrinsic' direction..Sure, but in the context of gravitational field it is inexorably leant one. So too, 'evolution' does not exist in a contextual vacuum. In truth, the concept so considered is not even logically self-consistent. The 'evolutionary' process as conceived by many modern evolutionary 'theorists' is fundamentally scarred by this simple failure to conceive the essential *contextual nature* of the process. It is moreover arguable that such is, after all, an inappropriate modelling taken over from capitalist individualistic economic and political 'philosophy'. Of capitalism's many attributes, then, likely one of the most underrated in terms of its profound social and ideational influence, is its tendency to partialize reality. Are, for instance, the causes of tuberculosis only to be found in bacilli, or are they to be found, in a wholistic sense, on a multi-dimensional landscape that includes, say, overcrowding, poor nutrition, lack of education...i.e. poverty, meaning exploitation, meaning..etc.? It is precisely its thrust and intent to describe and explain the world from a holistic vantage point that lends Marxism yet another plank in its claims as a 'science' as opposed to a mere ideology (which capitalism most certainly is). Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Totten" To: "a-list" Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 3:53 AM Subject: [A-List] Taking Evolution Seriously > > by John Michael Greer > > The Archdruid Report (December 03 2008) > > Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial > society > > > Back in 1904, sociologist Max Weber proposed that the modern period was > witnessing "the disenchantment of the world" - a process which > traditional mythic ideas that wove meaning into human experience were > being replaced by the alienating and dehumanizing worldview of > materialist science. There's some truth to Weber's thesis, but I'm not > sure he anticipated the inevitable backlash: the Procrustean stretching > and lopping of scientific ideas in the popular imagination that has > turned many of them into substitute myths. > > One example that has been much on my mind of late is the way the theory > of evolution has been manhandled into a surrogate mythology. The reason > it's been on my mind is simple enough: whenever I discuss peak oil at a > lecture, book signing, or some other public setting, it's a safe bet > that someone will raise a hand and ask what I think about the > possibility that the approaching crisis is part of our transition to a > new evolutionary level. I am always left wondering what to say in > response, because this sort of question is almost always rooted in the > notion that evolution is a linear movement that leads onward and upward > through a series of distinct stages or levels - and this notion is a > pretty fair misstatement of the way evolution takes place in nature. > > Few things in the history of ideas are quite so interesting as the way > that new discoveries get harnessed in the service of old obsessions. > When X-rays were first detected in 1895, for example, one of the first > results was panic over the possibility that the new rays might make it > possible to see through clothing; the New Jersey state legislature > actually debated a bill to ban the use of X-rays in opera glasses. > Wildly inaccurate as it was, this notion was rooted in profound fears > about sexuality, and so it took many decades to dispel - when I was a > child, ads in comic books still claimed to sell "X-ray glasses" that > would let you see people naked. > > Something not that different happened to the theory of evolution, and > thus nearly all of today's popular notions about evolution are shrapnel > from the head-on collision between Darwin's theory and the obsessions of > the era in which that theory emerged. Social class rather than sex was > the driving force here; as religious justifications for the English > caste system faltered, the manufacture of scientific justifications for > social hierarchy became a growth industry, and by the time the ink was > dry on the first copies of The Origin of Species (1859), evolution was > already being drafted into service in this dubious cause. The resulting > belief system was very nearly a parody of George Orwell's Animal Farm > (1945) in advance - all living things evolve, but some are more evolved > than others. > > Now of course this is nonsense. A human being, a gecko, a dandelion, and > a single-celled blue-green alga are all equally evolved - that is, they > have all been shaped to the same degree by the pressures of their > environment, and their ancestors have all undergone an equal amount of > natural selection. We think of humans as "more evolved" than blue-green > alga because Victorian Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer engaged > in conceptual sleight of hand, transforming the amorphous outward surge > of life toward available niches into a ladder of social status, with > English gentlemen at the top level and everybody and everything else > slotted into place further down. The concept of evolutionary stages or > levels was essential to this conjurer's act, since it allowed social > barriers between classes to be mapped onto the biological world. > > In nature, though, evolution has no levels, it just has adaptations. > There is no straight line of progress along which living things can be > ranked. Instead, evolutionary lineages splay outward like the branches > of an unruly shrub. Sometimes those branches take unexpected turns, but > these evolutionary breakthroughs can no more be ranked in an ascending > hierarchy than organisms can. They move outward into new niches, rather > than upward to some imagined goal. There are any number of examples from > nature; the one I want to use here is the evolution of bats. > > The ancestors of the first bats were shrewlike, insect-eating nocturnal > mammals, related to early primates, who scampered through the forest > canopies of the Eocene around sixty million years ago. For animals that > live in trees, the risk of falling is a constant source of evolutionary > pressure, and adaptations that will help manage that danger will likely > spread through a population; that's how sloths got their claws, New > World monkeys got prehensile tails, and many animals of past and present > got extra skin that functions as a parachute. If the extra skin bridges > the gap between forelegs and the hindlegs, the most common adaptation, > you get the ability to glide, like flying squirrels, colugoes, and the > like; you've got a viable adaptation, and there you stop. > > If the extra skin is mostly on and around the forelimbs, though, you've > just jumped through the door into a new world, because you can control > your glide much more precisely, and you can put muscle into the > movements - in other words, you can begin to fly. Once you can do better > than a controlled fall, furthermore, the trillions of tasty insects > flitting through the forest air are on your menu, and the better you can > fly, the more you can catch. The result is ferocious evolutionary > pressure toward improved flight skills, and in a few hundred thousand > generations, you've got agile fliers. That's what happened to bats, as > it happened some 200 million years earlier to the ancestors of the > pterodactyls. > > By 55 million years ago, bats almost identical to today's insect-eating > bats were darting through the Eocene skies. Sonar seems to have taken a > while to evolve, and some offshoots of the family - the big fruit bats > and flying foxes, for example - took even longer, but the basic > adaptations were set and, to the discomfiture of countless generations > of mosquitoes and moths, have remained ever since. As evolutionary > breakthroughs go, the leap into flight was a massive success; bats are > the second most numerous of mammal orders, exceeded only by the rodents, > but it's impossible to fit the breakthrough that created them into any > linear scheme. > > Applying an ecological concept to human social systems always takes > tinkering, but there are good reasons to accept the idea that societies > are capable of evolution; like populations of other living things, human > communities face pressures from their environments, and adapt or perish > in response. Here again, though, the evolutionary process moves outward > in all directions rather than ascending an imaginary hierarchy of > levels. Hunter-gatherer systems seem to have been the original form of > human society, but other forms branched off as adaptations opened doors > to possibilities that were likely as appealing at the time as the > bug-filled night sky must have been to the first clumsily flapping > proto-bats. > > Where large herbivores could be tamed, therefore, nomadic herding > societies came into being; where many food plants could be raised in > intensive gardens, tribal horticultural societies were born; where > extensive fields of seed-bearing grasses offered the best option for > survival, agrarian societies took shape. As it turned out, grains could > be bred to yield large surpluses that could be transported and stored, > and so the agrarian system opened the door to large-scale divisions of > labor and the rise of cities. These in turn made complex material > culture possible, and ultimately drove the creation of the machines that > broke into the Earth's stockpiles of fossil carbon and gave the modern > world its three centuries of exuberance. > > Thus industrial society is not "more evolved" than other societies, or > for that matter "less evolved". It was simply the most successful > adaptation to the evolutionary pressures that opened up once fossil fuel > energy had been tapped, and it outcompeted other systems in something of > the same way that an invasive exotic outcompetes less robust native > organisms. As fossil fuels deplete and climate change unfolds, the > balance of evolutionary pressures is shifting, and as the new reality of > limits takes hold, selection will favor those systems that are better > adapted to the new ecological constraints of global climate instability, > energy scarcity, and resource shortage. > > The fact that those new systems are better adapted to new realities, > however, does not free them from the human condition. This is where the > rubber meets the road, because the people who ask me about the prospects > of a new evolutionary level are rarely asking whether the societies of > the future will be better adapted to an environment of resource > scarcity. They are generally asking whether societies on the other side > of an imagined evolutionary leap will be free from problems such as > poverty, war, and environmental destruction. > > The best way to assess this, it seems to me, is to consider what > happened the last time human social evolution yielded a breakthrough to > a new way of living in the world: that is, the rise of industrial > societies beginning around 1750. Agrarian societies suffered from > poverty, war, and environmental destruction, and so did all the other > "evolutionary levels" or, rather, adaptations, right back to the > hunter-gatherers. Many hunter-gatherers among the First Nations in North > America, for example, had sharp social inequalities, a busy slave trade, > and a long history of fierce tribal wars. Their ecological relationships > were less problematic, since those native societies that failed to find > a balance with nature, such as the Mound Builders and the people of > Chaco Canyon, collapsed long before 1492. > > Just as bats faced the same experiences of hunger, social squabbles, and > the unfriendly attentions of predators as their ancestors, the societies > that took up industrialism experienced poverty, war, and environmental > destruction just like earlier societies, and it's hard to think of a > good reason why the new societies that emerge in response to the > evolutionary pressures of the deindustrial age should be exempt from the > same troubles. Evolutionary adaptations can make things easier for > living things - plenty of predators in the Eocene must have been > discomfited when bats evolved the ability to flutter away to safety - > but no living thing is exempt from the balances of the natural world. > It's a mistake, in other words, to see evolution as a movement toward > Utopia. > > When I've tried to explain any of the above in public, though, someone - > and it's not always the same someone who asked the original question - > usually insists that this may be how biological evolution works, but > spiritual evolution is different. Some of my readers just now may have > come up with the same objection. All I can say in response is I know of > none of the world's great spiritual traditions that would approve the > claim that people living extravagant lifestyles of wealth and privilege > - this is, after all, a fair description of life in modern industrial > societies from the standpoint of the rest of human experience - can > expect a sudden leap to an even more comfortable and convenient life, > just because they happen to want it, and would find it a useful way to > avoid dealing with the consequences of their own shortsighted choices. > > This may seem unduly harsh. Still, the notion that an evolutionary leap > will extract us from the mess we've made for ourselves is as much a > distortion of the realities of the evolutionary process as any Social > Darwinist screed. If people want to believe that a miracle will rescue > them from the predicament of industrial society, they have every right > to their faith, but it would confuse communication a little less to call > it a miracle, instead of trying to wrap it in the borrowed prestige of > Darwin's theory. Perhaps it's the bias instilled by my own Druid faith, > furthermore, but it seems to me that if we are going to use evolution as > a metaphor, we need to start by taking evolution seriously, rather than > imposing our own fantasies on the very different stories that nature is > telling us. > _____ > > ?John Michael Greer has been active in the alternative spirituality > movement for more than 25 years, and is the author of a dozen books, > including The Druidry Handbook (2006) and The Long Descent (2008). He > lives in Ashland, Oregon. > > http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/12/taking-evolution-seriously.html > > > http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com > http://www.ashisuto.co.jp > > > > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Sat Dec 6 13:39:32 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 12:39:32 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Taking Evolution Seriously In-Reply-To: References: <493A3D83.6080409@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: <493AE304.9080701@gmail.com> > "The 'evolutionary' process as conceived by many modern evolutionary > 'theorists' is fundamentally scarred by this simple failure to > conceive the essential *contextual nature* of the process." That's the gist of my problem with 'reviving' the US auto industry. In context, IT IS obsolete. Last year's model. The next 'evolution' of industrial society, in MY humble opinion, should be towards societies that require less of a demand for high speed personal transportation... communities that have the jobs right there, making for the tendency to less toxic manufacturing processes as well if the people are concerned with their own, and others, well-being, along with many other benefits to that society such as the possibility that as a whole, they may more carefully consider the what-for and why of their use of industrial capacity.... more for the society's necessities of life... less for the individual's wants. (That means we get to line all the media moguls and advertising people up against a wall (snicker) as well.) It seems like an opportune time for the US to evolve. Leigh Tony B. wrote: > While appreciating the social message here, Greer is, at the same > time, guilty of mis-representing - or misunderstanding - evolutionary > 'progress'. Thus: > > > "In nature, though, evolution has no levels, it just has adaptations. > There is no straight line of progress along which living things can be > ranked. Instead, evolutionary lineages splay outward like the branches > of an unruly shrub. Sometimes those branches take unexpected turns, but > these evolutionary breakthroughs can no more be ranked in an ascending > hierarchy than organisms can. " > > Nonsense. Now, of course, one has to pre-establish a reasonable > definition of 'progress', but if one chooses the scientific criterion > of 'organizational complexity' then, clearly, evolution *does tend* > towards 'progress'. It does so, *not invariably* (it is, afterall > related to the niches that organisms inhabit, and these may, and often > do seek organizational conservation), and *not linearly* (the > evolutionary process is a meandering one), but it does do so > *inevitably* in terms of the biosphere as a whole. Given the > *contextual* pressures of evolutionary 'arms races', organisms, do and > have (at least on this planet) evolved greater and greater > organizational complexities..in fact, to an astounding degree. > > Indeed, one need only look around - at oneself to say the least - to > see these transparent hierarchies. Now, one can quibble over whether > 'organizational complexity' is equivalent to > 'progress'...whatever..The point is: Evolution considered as a process > operating as some disembodied mechanism, unconnected to the realities > of co-evolutionary contextual forces..is a pure fiction. Water, for > instance, has no 'intrinsic' direction..Sure, but in the context of > gravitational field it is inexorably leant one. So too, 'evolution' > does not exist in a contextual vacuum. In truth, the concept so > considered is not even logically self-consistent. > > The 'evolutionary' process as conceived by many modern evolutionary > 'theorists' is fundamentally scarred by this simple failure to > conceive the essential *contextual nature* of the process. > > It is moreover arguable that such is, after all, an inappropriate > modelling taken over from capitalist individualistic economic and > political 'philosophy'. Of capitalism's many attributes, then, likely > one of the most underrated in terms of its profound social and > ideational influence, is its tendency to partialize reality. Are, for > instance, the causes of tuberculosis only to be found in bacilli, or > are they to be found, in a wholistic sense, on a multi-dimensional > landscape that includes, say, overcrowding, poor nutrition, lack of > education...i.e. poverty, meaning exploitation, meaning..etc.? > > It is precisely its thrust and intent to describe and explain the > world from a holistic vantage point that lends Marxism yet another > plank in its claims as a 'science' as opposed to a mere ideology > (which capitalism most certainly is). > > Tony > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Totten" > > To: "a-list" > Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 3:53 AM > Subject: [A-List] Taking Evolution Seriously > > >> >> by John Michael Greer >> >> The Archdruid Report (December 03 2008) >> >> Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial >> society >> >> >> Back in 1904, sociologist Max Weber proposed that the modern period was >> witnessing "the disenchantment of the world" - a process which >> traditional mythic ideas that wove meaning into human experience were >> being replaced by the alienating and dehumanizing worldview of >> materialist science. There's some truth to Weber's thesis, but I'm not >> sure he anticipated the inevitable backlash: the Procrustean stretching >> and lopping of scientific ideas in the popular imagination that has >> turned many of them into substitute myths. >> >> One example that has been much on my mind of late is the way the theory >> of evolution has been manhandled into a surrogate mythology. The reason >> it's been on my mind is simple enough: whenever I discuss peak oil at a >> lecture, book signing, or some other public setting, it's a safe bet >> that someone will raise a hand and ask what I think about the >> possibility that the approaching crisis is part of our transition to a >> new evolutionary level. I am always left wondering what to say in >> response, because this sort of question is almost always rooted in the >> notion that evolution is a linear movement that leads onward and upward >> through a series of distinct stages or levels - and this notion is a >> pretty fair misstatement of the way evolution takes place in nature. >> >> Few things in the history of ideas are quite so interesting as the way >> that new discoveries get harnessed in the service of old obsessions. >> When X-rays were first detected in 1895, for example, one of the first >> results was panic over the possibility that the new rays might make it >> possible to see through clothing; the New Jersey state legislature >> actually debated a bill to ban the use of X-rays in opera glasses. >> Wildly inaccurate as it was, this notion was rooted in profound fears >> about sexuality, and so it took many decades to dispel - when I was a >> child, ads in comic books still claimed to sell "X-ray glasses" that >> would let you see people naked. >> >> Something not that different happened to the theory of evolution, and >> thus nearly all of today's popular notions about evolution are shrapnel >> from the head-on collision between Darwin's theory and the obsessions of >> the era in which that theory emerged. Social class rather than sex was >> the driving force here; as religious justifications for the English >> caste system faltered, the manufacture of scientific justifications for >> social hierarchy became a growth industry, and by the time the ink was >> dry on the first copies of The Origin of Species (1859), evolution was >> already being drafted into service in this dubious cause. The resulting >> belief system was very nearly a parody of George Orwell's Animal Farm >> (1945) in advance - all living things evolve, but some are more evolved >> than others. >> >> Now of course this is nonsense. A human being, a gecko, a dandelion, and >> a single-celled blue-green alga are all equally evolved - that is, they >> have all been shaped to the same degree by the pressures of their >> environment, and their ancestors have all undergone an equal amount of >> natural selection. We think of humans as "more evolved" than blue-green >> alga because Victorian Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer engaged >> in conceptual sleight of hand, transforming the amorphous outward surge >> of life toward available niches into a ladder of social status, with >> English gentlemen at the top level and everybody and everything else >> slotted into place further down. The concept of evolutionary stages or >> levels was essential to this conjurer's act, since it allowed social >> barriers between classes to be mapped onto the biological world. >> >> In nature, though, evolution has no levels, it just has adaptations. >> There is no straight line of progress along which living things can be >> ranked. Instead, evolutionary lineages splay outward like the branches >> of an unruly shrub. Sometimes those branches take unexpected turns, but >> these evolutionary breakthroughs can no more be ranked in an ascending >> hierarchy than organisms can. They move outward into new niches, rather >> than upward to some imagined goal. There are any number of examples from >> nature; the one I want to use here is the evolution of bats. >> >> The ancestors of the first bats were shrewlike, insect-eating nocturnal >> mammals, related to early primates, who scampered through the forest >> canopies of the Eocene around sixty million years ago. For animals that >> live in trees, the risk of falling is a constant source of evolutionary >> pressure, and adaptations that will help manage that danger will likely >> spread through a population; that's how sloths got their claws, New >> World monkeys got prehensile tails, and many animals of past and present >> got extra skin that functions as a parachute. If the extra skin bridges >> the gap between forelegs and the hindlegs, the most common adaptation, >> you get the ability to glide, like flying squirrels, colugoes, and the >> like; you've got a viable adaptation, and there you stop. >> >> If the extra skin is mostly on and around the forelimbs, though, you've >> just jumped through the door into a new world, because you can control >> your glide much more precisely, and you can put muscle into the >> movements - in other words, you can begin to fly. Once you can do better >> than a controlled fall, furthermore, the trillions of tasty insects >> flitting through the forest air are on your menu, and the better you can >> fly, the more you can catch. The result is ferocious evolutionary >> pressure toward improved flight skills, and in a few hundred thousand >> generations, you've got agile fliers. That's what happened to bats, as >> it happened some 200 million years earlier to the ancestors of the >> pterodactyls. >> >> By 55 million years ago, bats almost identical to today's insect-eating >> bats were darting through the Eocene skies. Sonar seems to have taken a >> while to evolve, and some offshoots of the family - the big fruit bats >> and flying foxes, for example - took even longer, but the basic >> adaptations were set and, to the discomfiture of countless generations >> of mosquitoes and moths, have remained ever since. As evolutionary >> breakthroughs go, the leap into flight was a massive success; bats are >> the second most numerous of mammal orders, exceeded only by the rodents, >> but it's impossible to fit the breakthrough that created them into any >> linear scheme. >> >> Applying an ecological concept to human social systems always takes >> tinkering, but there are good reasons to accept the idea that societies >> are capable of evolution; like populations of other living things, human >> communities face pressures from their environments, and adapt or perish >> in response. Here again, though, the evolutionary process moves outward >> in all directions rather than ascending an imaginary hierarchy of >> levels. Hunter-gatherer systems seem to have been the original form of >> human society, but other forms branched off as adaptations opened doors >> to possibilities that were likely as appealing at the time as the >> bug-filled night sky must have been to the first clumsily flapping >> proto-bats. >> >> Where large herbivores could be tamed, therefore, nomadic herding >> societies came into being; where many food plants could be raised in >> intensive gardens, tribal horticultural societies were born; where >> extensive fields of seed-bearing grasses offered the best option for >> survival, agrarian societies took shape. As it turned out, grains could >> be bred to yield large surpluses that could be transported and stored, >> and so the agrarian system opened the door to large-scale divisions of >> labor and the rise of cities. These in turn made complex material >> culture possible, and ultimately drove the creation of the machines that >> broke into the Earth's stockpiles of fossil carbon and gave the modern >> world its three centuries of exuberance. >> >> Thus industrial society is not "more evolved" than other societies, or >> for that matter "less evolved". It was simply the most successful >> adaptation to the evolutionary pressures that opened up once fossil fuel >> energy had been tapped, and it outcompeted other systems in something of >> the same way that an invasive exotic outcompetes less robust native >> organisms. As fossil fuels deplete and climate change unfolds, the >> balance of evolutionary pressures is shifting, and as the new reality of >> limits takes hold, selection will favor those systems that are better >> adapted to the new ecological constraints of global climate instability, >> energy scarcity, and resource shortage. >> >> The fact that those new systems are better adapted to new realities, >> however, does not free them from the human condition. This is where the >> rubber meets the road, because the people who ask me about the prospects >> of a new evolutionary level are rarely asking whether the societies of >> the future will be better adapted to an environment of resource >> scarcity. They are generally asking whether societies on the other side >> of an imagined evolutionary leap will be free from problems such as >> poverty, war, and environmental destruction. >> >> The best way to assess this, it seems to me, is to consider what >> happened the last time human social evolution yielded a breakthrough to >> a new way of living in the world: that is, the rise of industrial >> societies beginning around 1750. Agrarian societies suffered from >> poverty, war, and environmental destruction, and so did all the other >> "evolutionary levels" or, rather, adaptations, right back to the >> hunter-gatherers. Many hunter-gatherers among the First Nations in North >> America, for example, had sharp social inequalities, a busy slave trade, >> and a long history of fierce tribal wars. Their ecological relationships >> were less problematic, since those native societies that failed to find >> a balance with nature, such as the Mound Builders and the people of >> Chaco Canyon, collapsed long before 1492. >> >> Just as bats faced the same experiences of hunger, social squabbles, and >> the unfriendly attentions of predators as their ancestors, the societies >> that took up industrialism experienced poverty, war, and environmental >> destruction just like earlier societies, and it's hard to think of a >> good reason why the new societies that emerge in response to the >> evolutionary pressures of the deindustrial age should be exempt from the >> same troubles. Evolutionary adaptations can make things easier for >> living things - plenty of predators in the Eocene must have been >> discomfited when bats evolved the ability to flutter away to safety - >> but no living thing is exempt from the balances of the natural world. >> It's a mistake, in other words, to see evolution as a movement toward >> Utopia. >> >> When I've tried to explain any of the above in public, though, someone - >> and it's not always the same someone who asked the original question - >> usually insists that this may be how biological evolution works, but >> spiritual evolution is different. Some of my readers just now may have >> come up with the same objection. All I can say in response is I know of >> none of the world's great spiritual traditions that would approve the >> claim that people living extravagant lifestyles of wealth and privilege >> - this is, after all, a fair description of life in modern industrial >> societies from the standpoint of the rest of human experience - can >> expect a sudden leap to an even more comfortable and convenient life, >> just because they happen to want it, and would find it a useful way to >> avoid dealing with the consequences of their own shortsighted choices. >> >> This may seem unduly harsh. Still, the notion that an evolutionary leap >> will extract us from the mess we've made for ourselves is as much a >> distortion of the realities of the evolutionary process as any Social >> Darwinist screed. If people want to believe that a miracle will rescue >> them from the predicament of industrial society, they have every right >> to their faith, but it would confuse communication a little less to call >> it a miracle, instead of trying to wrap it in the borrowed prestige of >> Darwin's theory. Perhaps it's the bias instilled by my own Druid faith, >> furthermore, but it seems to me that if we are going to use evolution as >> a metaphor, we need to start by taking evolution seriously, rather than >> imposing our own fantasies on the very different stories that nature is >> telling us. >> _____ >> >> ?John Michael Greer has been active in the alternative spirituality >> movement for more than 25 years, and is the author of a dozen books, >> including The Druidry Handbook (2006) and The Long Descent (2008). He >> lives in Ashland, Oregon. >> >> http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/12/taking-evolution-seriously.html >> >> >> >> http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com >> http://www.ashisuto.co.jp >> >> >> >> > > > > From seanfischer at earthlink.net Sat Dec 6 13:55:04 2008 From: seanfischer at earthlink.net (Sean Fischer) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 12:55:04 -0800 (GMT-08:00) Subject: [A-List] The China partnership - the United States rebalances itself with the profit of Beijing Message-ID: <8919515.1228596904136.JavaMail.root@elwamui-huard.atl.sa.earthlink.net> The China partnership - the United States rebalances itself with the profit of Beijing SHANGHAI (China) CORRESPONDENCE At this meeting in Beijing on December 4 for the last ?strategic economic Dialogue? of the Bush era, Americans and Chinese promised to act together to prevent any return of protectionism and announced 20 billion dollars (15,7 billion euros) of appropriations to support the exchanges. It is Henry Paulson who initiated there is two years this bilateral top intended ?to integrate? China. The American secretary with the Treasury is a ?friend? of China which he knows as a president of Goldman Sachs and towards which he always privileged a conciliating approach vis-a-vis an democratic opposition more related to the confrontation. He thus had to put out of silencing device the repeated requirements of revaluation of the yuan. The hour is not any more with the lessons of deregulation which formerly put China on the defensive, but with a relation which, crisis obliges, is rebalancing itself in favour of the Chinese partner: ?The two countries became interdependent?, declared the vice-premier Wang Qishan, chief of the Chinese delegation. If this interdependence does not go back to today, the American financial rout gave again more weight with the financing of the American national debt. America neither nor less was more encouraged to take all possible measurements of stabilization of its financial markets ?in order to ensure the safety of the credits and of the Chinese investments in the United States?, Mr. Wang declared. The Americans were encouraged to increase their rate of saving by the governor of the Bank of China, which flew away towards New York before the end of the top to meet the successor of Mr. Paulson, Timothy Geithner. _ it there have a few day with Hongkong, Lou Jiwei the president of Cloud Investment corporation, the fund sovereign Chinese, have declare that the China give to later any investment plan in the finance American, because ?we have not the courage for the moment to invest in some financial institution of which one know which problem they can have?, have it say with a roundtable of Clinton Total Initiative. EMERGENCE OF THE ?CHIMERICA? China holds 585 billion dollars in American Treasury bills. The Chinese participations in Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae, or the Blackstone funds and the bank of Morgan Stanley businesses are equivalent. The increase in the yuan (+ 20% compared to the dollar since 2005) and the American financial rout put at evil these placements, which indirectly were used to finance 321 billion dollars as Chinese exports towards the United States in 2007 (and probably as much in 2008). The destiny common to both countries is the subject of a book, The Ascent off Money: In Financial History off the World (appeared in November at Penguin Near). The American economist Niall Ferguson recalls emergence there, since the end of the cold war, of a ?new continent? with the spectacular growth: the ?Chimerica?, a place where the inhabitants of the West consume with which better best products that those of the East manufacture, the ones being involved in debt the more so as the others th?saurisent. This ?continent? must be given to flood - while making grow the consumption of the Chinese and the saving of the Americans. The Ministers of Finance of Beijing made include/understand with their interlocutors whom they had no intention to put in danger the stability of their growth today staggering by revaluing the yuan abruptly. Under which conditions will continue the dialogue? The ball, implied the Chinese, is in the camp of the Obama administration. Brice Pedroletti Article published in the edition of the 07.12.08. You in the World with 16?/mois subscribe -----Original Message----- >From: Yoshie Furuhashi >Sent: Dec 6, 2008 11:08 AM >To: A-List , Rad-Green >Subject: [A-List] Le partenariat Chine - Etats-Unis se r??quilibre au profit de P?kin > > >Le partenariat Chine - Etats-Unis se r??quilibre au profit de P?kin >LE MONDE | 06.12.08 | 13h04 ? Mis ? jour le 06.12.08 | 13h04 > >SHANGHA? (Chine) CORRESPONDANCE > >R?unis ? P?kin les 4 et 5 d?cembre pour le dernier "Dialogue >?conomique strat?gique" de l'?re Bush, Am?ricains et Chinois ont >promis d'agir ensemble pour pr?venir tout retour du protectionnisme et >annonc? 20 milliards de dollars (15,7 milliards d'euros) de cr?dits >pour favoriser les ?changes. > >C'est Henry Paulson qui a initi? il y a deux ans ce sommet bilat?ral >destin? ? "int?grer" la Chine. Le secr?taire am?ricain au Tr?sor est >un "ami" de la Chine qu'il conna?t en tant que pr?sident de Goldman >Sachs et envers laquelle il a toujours privil?gi? une approche >conciliatrice face ? une opposition d?mocrate davantage port?e sur >l'affrontement. Il a ainsi d? mettre en sourdine les exigences >r?p?t?es de r??valuation du yuan. > >L'heure n'est plus aux le?ons de d?r?gulation qui ont autrefois mis la >Chine sur la d?fensive, mais ? une relation qui, crise oblige, est en >train de se r??quilibrer en faveur du partenaire chinois : "Les deux >pays sont devenus interd?pendants", a d?clar? le vice-premier Wang >Qishan, chef de la d?l?gation chinoise. > >Si cette interd?pendance ne date pas d'aujourd'hui, la d?b?cle >financi?re am?ricaine a redonn? plus de poids au financement de la >dette publique am?ricaine. L'Am?rique a ni plus ni moins ?t? incit?e ? >prendre toutes les mesures possibles de stabilisation de ses march?s >financiers "afin d'assurer la s?curit? des actifs et des >investissements chinois aux Etats-Unis", a d?clar? M. Wang. > >Les Am?ricains ont ?t? encourag?s ? augmenter leur taux d'?pargne par >le gouverneur de la Banque de Chine, qui s'est envol? vers New York >avant la fin du sommet pour rencontrer le successeur de M. Paulson, >Timothy Geithner. Il y a quelques jours ? Hongkong, Lou Jiwei le >pr?sident de la China Investment corporation, le fonds souverain >chinois, avait d?clar? que la Chine remettait ? plus tard tout projet >d'investissement dans la finance am?ricaine, car "nous n'avons pas le >courage pour l'instant d'investir dans des institutions financi?res >dont on ne sait quels probl?mes elles peuvent avoir", a-t-il dit ? une >table ronde de la Clinton Global Initiative. > >EMERGENCE DE LA "CHIMERICA" > >La Chine d?tient 585 milliards de dollars en bons du Tr?sor >am?ricains. Les participations chinoises dans Freddy Mac et Fanny Mae, >ou encore le fonds Blackstone et la banque d'affaires Morgan Stanley >sont ?quivalentes. Le rench?rissement du yuan (+ 20% par rapport au >dollar depuis 2005) et la d?b?cle financi?re am?ricaine ont mis ? mal >ces placements, qui ont indirectement servi ? financer 321 milliards >de dollars d'exportations chinoises vers les Etats-Unis en 2007 (et >probablement autant en 2008). > >Le destin commun aux deux pays fait l'objet d'un livre, The Ascent of >Money : A Financial History of the World (paru en novembre chez >Penguin Press). L'?conomiste am?ricain Niall Ferguson y retrace >l'?mergence, depuis la fin de la guerre froide, d'un "nouveau >continent" ? la croissance spectaculaire : la "Chimerica", un endroit >o? les habitants de l'Ouest consomment ? qui mieux mieux les produits >que fabriquent ceux de l'Est, les uns s'endettant d'autant que les >autres th?saurisent. > >Ce "continent" doit ?tre remis ? flot - en faisant cro?tre la >consommation des Chinois et l'?pargne des Am?ricains. Les grands >argentiers de P?kin ont fait comprendre ? leurs interlocuteurs qu'ils >n'avaient aucune intention de mettre en p?ril la stabilit? de leur >croissance aujourd'hui chancelante en r??valuant brusquement le yuan. >Dans quelles conditions se poursuivra le dialogue ? La balle, ont >laiss? entendre les Chinois, est dans le camp de l'administration >Obama. > >Brice Pedroletti > From seanfischer at earthlink.net Sat Dec 6 14:10:08 2008 From: seanfischer at earthlink.net (Sean Fischer) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:10:08 -0800 (GMT-08:00) Subject: [A-List] CPJ: Message-ID: <4438141.1228597808243.JavaMail.root@elwamui-huard.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Follow the link and read the full article with charts and graphs, it's much better than the snippet provided below by YF. http://www.cpj.org/imprisoned/cpjs-2008-census-online-journalists-now-jailed-mor.php -----Original Message----- >From: Yoshie Furuhashi >Sent: Dec 6, 2008 10:55 AM >To: A-List , Rad-Green >Subject: [A-List] CPJ: "Online Journalists Now Most Jailed" > > >CPJ's 2008 prison census: Online and in jail >Also: See capsule reports on journalists in jail as of December 1, 2008 > >New York, December 4, 2008--Reflecting the rising influence of online >reporting and commentary, more Internet journalists are jailed >worldwide today than journalists working in any other medium. In its >annual census of imprisoned journalists, released today, the Committee >to Protect Journalists found that 45 percent of all media workers >jailed worldwide are bloggers, Web-based reporters, or online editors. >Online journalists represent the largest professional category for the >first time in CPJ's prison census. > >. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > >At least 56 online journalists are jailed worldwide, according to >CPJ's census, a tally that surpasses the number of print journalists >for the first time. The number of imprisoned online journalists has >steadily increased since CPJ recorded the first jailed Internet writer >in its 1997 census. Print reporters, editors, and photographers make >up the next largest professional category, with 53 cases in 2008. >Television and radio journalists and documentary filmmakers constitute >the rest. > From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sat Dec 6 19:21:16 2008 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 11:21:16 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Why it's best that people lose their jobs ... Message-ID: <493B331C.6020901@ashisuto.co.jp> ... in this unsustainable economy by Jan Lundberg Culture Change Letter #214 (November 17 2008) People need to lose their jobs. It sounds crazy, but what if it's true? In this time of mounting tensions and rude awakenings, it is fortunate we can stress compassion and positive ideas. Yet, foremost we must be warned about our present course as an unsustainable society. Sudden, disruptive change is generally good to avoid, but sometimes we need to make an abrupt and wrenching move to save ourselves. Not being able to eat money is perhaps the best reason to prepare for the future hardening of economic and ecological reality. Whether we call our fate petrocollapse or financial collapse, we are about to find out that a closer relationship to our land and our neighbors is all that matters. Looking at what a typical job today really does for us or our community - besides generating cash for others to profit off of - helps open the mind to an alternative way of living without spinning our wheels. If we cannot head off the worst of a crisis with intelligent action, at least we can anticipate changes openly among ourselves. In so doing we counter the prevailing stupidity which is where the big money is. Bailing out the automobile industry is the next waste of money on a colossal scale. Recessions and depressions are just part of the economy's old-school "business cycle" as well as common sense: what goes up must come down. It is prudent to say it is better to deal with reality sooner rather than put it off. In today's world, what really has to change is our lifestyle. But as long as people can cling to a paycheck (or stock dividend), change is retarded and the lethal system of waste and exploitation lumbers on until it takes us down over the cliff. A slightly milder way of introducing the need to give up suicide and ecocide is to suggest exploring, "Why losing your job can be a good thing today". If we consider essential needs being met, most jobs are seldom directly applicable anymore to community resiliency. So, whether it is through employment or unemployment, we need to resurrect techniques of self-sufficiency. Here are additional reasons we need to lose jobs that prop up the climate-changing industrial system (the first three are like saying "Location, location, location" when one comes up with the three most important factors for lucrative property values): * The ecosystem is deteriorating rapidly. * The environment's going to hell in a hand-basket. * It's not nice to fool Mother Nature! (from a margarine commercial, 1970s) * Local economics that liberate people are being instituted and have great promise. * Entropy happens. "Everything made gets destroyed" (Bronwyn Lundberg). * Monotonous work is unhealthy, dispiriting, and such employment is slavery. * Employment takes time away from important survival tasks such as seed saving and seed sharing. * US society and its government have earned disdain by behaving as if they are fundamentally bad. We have a system of friendly fascism that white-washes issues of deadly pollution and toxicity. Supporting the system as a worker paying taxes is one thing, but being unable to bring about a better world is a killer. Culture Change has covered these points at length and for years. Here is all the reason we need for the first three bullet-points: (Bonn, 17 November 2008) - Two weeks ahead of the UN Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland, the UN Climate Change Secretariat in Bonn has reported that greenhouse gas emissions in industrialized countries continue to rise. [UNFCCC Press Release] On the same island as the UN headquarters is a player that's like a wolf in sheep's clothing. We are reminded of corporate news media's real allegiances when we see an outrageous column in the New York Times on trying to preserve inappropriate, doomed car manufacturing jobs. Published Saturday, the column "'Drop Dead' Is Not an Option" tries to justify corporate socialism by saying auto manufacturer bailouts are just as right to do as it was to rescue insolvent New York City in 1975. To make the argument sound progressive and liberal, the "free market" ideology was attacked by the columnist. I for one was not fooled, and jumped on it with my letter below: Dear Editor, Bob Herbert's column in support of bailing out General Motors shows he knows nothing about and cares little for ecological health. There are no jobs on a dead planet. And, any jobs based on unsustainable depletion of resources are soon going to be lost. Oil has reached its global peak of extraction. While the automobile companies are still intact they should be forced to retool their factories to make bicycles. Losing our car fleet (imports too) will save 100,000 people a year in this country from crash deaths and fatal diseases from exhaust fumes. Approximately one million animals are killed by vehicles daily on US roads. Millions of acres of good farmland are destroyed by car-oriented urban sprawl. But those facts are not news or the basis of advertising revenue for corporations. A free press supports life and justice instead of ecocide, mayhem on the roads and dead-end jobs. Jan Lundberg Oil-industry analyst founder, Culture Change www.culturechange.org Post Office Box 4347, Arcata, California 95518 (215) 243-3144 Only once have I gotten a letter published criticizing car-ad revenue, and it was last year in the San Francisco Examiner; I was floored. We shall see if the Times runs this. In the Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog on November 14, none other than the status quo itself was handed a kind sacrifice, or a suggested gesture of same, by peak oilist Robert Hirsch. It is his report we have quoted so many times about the impossibility of mitigating peak oil (which I believe is upon us). TO THE PEAK OIL COMMUNITY: The world is in the midst of the most severe financial crisis in most of our lifetimes. The economic damage that has already been wrought is considerable, and we have yet to see the bottom or the turnaround. Against this background, I suggest that the peak oil community minimize its efforts to awaken the world to the near-term dangers of world oil supply. The motivation is simple: By minimizing our efforts in the near term, we may not add fuel to the economic fires that are already burning so fiercely. Bob Hirsch didn't bother including me on the recipient list; he knows where I stand. How does he think "the turnaround" can happen when cheap energy is gone, gone, gone? Remember folks, the cheaply produced petroleum is all depleted, and any low prices for recent fields' oil are subsidized prices. Economic growth can no longer be supported. Growth has stopped so we have lower nominal oil prices (without subsidies showing). The price of oil collapsed, to a degree, reflecting financial collapse and job losses. Peak is here, so economic fires have barely begun. The present economy and its unimaginative defenders are just running on hope. The addict hoping for a fix around the street-corner is running on hope. Continuing our overpopulation's burning of fuels and forests while imagining we are "greening" jobs in a consumer economy is running on hope. To unplug the global warming machinery is productive hope we can run with. Just as important is to start planting trees collectively, billions per day - Albert Bates, author of Post-Petroleum Survival Guide and Cookbook (2006), calculates that excess atmospheric carbon dioxide can be removed in under a year. What are we waiting for, a GM paycheck? Retooling car factories for more than bicycles A Michigan peak oil meeting was just concluded, where Albert Bates spoke. He reported the following after he saw my letter to the Times: Lots of talk at this conference (Heinberg, me, others) about ideas for retooling GM: streetcars, light rail, wind turbines, HPVs. GM is crashing the economy of Michigan and the Governor here is pulling stings with Obama to make sure they can get back on Plan A as soon as possible, using funny money. Hard truth: They need to skip the whole GM rebuild scene and let China and India make cars for the world now. It is a dead industry. Want to assemble something? Assemble biochar kilns, wave power devices, solar powered tractors, algae oil presses. Fuck cars. If the USA has made its last car it is none too soon. We have more than we need. As they die, let them be recycled into parts and planters. Tackling anti-environment, liberal Democratic Party doctrine A new report in wide circulation, "A Pro-Growth, Progressive Economic Agenda", should sound a warning to truly progressive people. This was my reaction, sent to the authors and to Truthout.org that circulated the report: Growth is the problem. The Center for American Progress and other Democrats appear to have more reasonable policy ideas than the Bushies, but ecological reality and peak oil require that we abandon the idea of economic growth. Understandably, job losses seem like they need to be remedied by more jobs. But this leads nowhere if the cheap energy that created those jobs is gone. The Center for American Progress and other progressives including the Democrats stand for a national and global economy; that is in opposition to the wonderful alternative known as local economics which offers true sustainability. The article said, "the new administration has the opportunity to implement pro-growth, progressive economic policies to get the economy back on track". On track means more of the same: more manufacturing, toxic exposures, greenhouse gas emissions, and buying unneeded stuff. The notion of green jobs is highly questionable when it hinges on more consumer spending and creating energy systems for unnecessary, destructive machines. It's too late to preserve the status quo with a technofix even if peak oil were ten years into the future, as shown by the Hirsch Report on peak-oil mitigation submitted to the US Department of Energy in 2005. "(G)rowing middle-class incomes" are touted to be the "solution" but are really nothing more than the same old illusion of the bankrupt American Dream based on nuclear family over-consumption. The Center for American Progress decries "ineffective military spending" but this does not mean they want to slash military spending. (Objecting to the "conduct of the war" does not get our invading forces out of other countries that were not going to invade us.) It's the old order jiving us when the Center for American Progress says the nation "must focus on policies that both raise the economic tide and lift all boats - boosting productivity and our gross national product while fostering the shared prosperity that defines our nation's values". To justify trickle-down economics with the call for "green-collar jobs" is green-washing and not true progress. But it sure fits in with the goal of corporate profits at the expense of people and other species. For more on the above, see www.culturechange.org Conclusion What is it like to walk away from bad employment? Answer: always better than to wait for the axe to fall and finding oneself unprepared and lacking useful skills. When is it best to leave a job that only accommodates our overbuilt society? As soon as you can think of something more productive to do that you enjoy: now. Further Reading: "I community, do you? - Anti-work, pro-community", Culture Change Magazine issue 20 (never printed), by Jan Lundberg, Miguel Valencia, Susan Meeker-Lowry, 2002: culturechange.org "The right to be poor - and to thrive: Toward a Constitutional Amendment", Culture Change e-Letter #57, by Jan Lundberg, March 30 2004: culturechange.org References: The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Pozna?, 1-12 December 2008: unfccc.int "'Drop Dead' Is Not an Option" by Bob Herbert, New York Times, November 15 2008: nytimes.com "Peak Oil: Prominent Peaker Tells Allies to (Temporarily) Pipe Down", Wall Street Journal Online, by Neil King Jr: blogs.wsj.com The Conference on Michigan's Future: Energy, Economy & Environment, Thompsonville, Michigan, November 14 - 16 2008: futuremichigan.org Albert Bates' blog, The Great Change: peaksurfer.blogspot.com/ "A Pro-Growth, Progressive Economic Agenda" (third in a three-part series on "Change for America: A Progressive Blueprint for the 44th President".): pr.thinkprogress.org Employment is a crime so let me barter my own way Helping out each other every day and every way I'm all for culture change Police cars can fade away from Dream in D, album "Best of Redwood Dreams" by Depaver Jan http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=247&Itemid=1 http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From cbcox at ilstu.edu Sat Dec 6 21:24:27 2008 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 22:24:27 -0600 Subject: [A-List] Taking Evolution Seriously References: <493A3D83.6080409@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: <493B4FFB.59DDEED6@ilstu.edu> "Tony B." wrote: > >> > ?John Michael Greer has been active in the alternative spirituality > > movement for more than 25 years, and is the author of a dozen books, > > including The Druidry Handbook (2006) and The Long Descent (2008). He > > lives in Ashland, Oregon. Shit! Incidentally, Darwin did not believe in evolutionary progress, though his Victorian soul tempted him at times to waver. Read Gould's books. He mocks the idea of an evolutionary 'tree' and speaks instead of a bush. Greer oviously is ignorant of what evolutionary theorists do believe. He must have learned his biology from New Yorker cartoons. Carrol From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sun Dec 7 02:51:52 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 04:51:52 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Taking Evolution Seriously In-Reply-To: <493B4FFB.59DDEED6@ilstu.edu> References: <493A3D83.6080409@ashisuto.co.jp> <493B4FFB.59DDEED6@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: Yes, and though I admire (hell, 'love'..such brilliant 'teddy bear' of a guy) Gould immensely..as far as the notion of 'progress' was concerned, he too was muddle-headed. [The above does not, of course, speak against the 'bush' (i.e. cladist) view of evolution, which is correct...the two are, in fact, more or less independent concepts] For a technical treatise on the matter, (and much more..and likely one of the most significant evolutionary works of the last 30 years) see: 'Phenotypes: Their Epigenetics, Ecology and Evolution' by C. David Rollo (Chapman & Hall) ...though many a 'non-technical' work deals with these matters (i.e. the contextualist stance) as well. Probably the most accessible and interesting is Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen's 'Figments of Reality' (Cambridge Press) Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carrol Cox" To: "The A-List" Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 11:24 PM Subject: Re: [A-List] Taking Evolution Seriously "Tony B." wrote: > >> > ?John Michael Greer has been active in the alternative spirituality > > movement for more than 25 years, and is the author of a dozen books, > > including The Druidry Handbook (2006) and The Long Descent (2008). He > > lives in Ashland, Oregon. Shit! Incidentally, Darwin did not believe in evolutionary progress, though his Victorian soul tempted him at times to waver. Read Gould's books. He mocks the idea of an evolutionary 'tree' and speaks instead of a bush. Greer oviously is ignorant of what evolutionary theorists do believe. He must have learned his biology from New Yorker cartoons. Carrol From tboyle at rosehill.net Sat Dec 6 18:05:48 2008 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:05:48 -0800 Subject: [A-List] [PJH] FT, FB, RGEM: Fed, now 'lender of first & only resort, ' ups ante $800bn In-Reply-To: <585869.39774.qm@web56302.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <585869.39774.qm@web56302.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Some people will benefit from the collapse of the U.S. government, and it's currency. But the causes and mechanisms of this collapse may be beyond the control of any particular class or sector of the population. In my mind, the first question is, what is really happening? I'm not the only person who thinks "the empire is collapsing". And others are far more articulate... but the basic concept is simple, and is steadily advancing. It may not be demarcated by any big spectacle; rather, Americans are steadily boild like the proverbial frog; other people around the world come to enslave many of us, just exactly as America and other colonial powers have enslaved other countries for most of our recent history. There is still great prospect for individuals to have a rich and fulfilling life just as there has been in almost any other country with a decently hard working, well behaved, industrious population. So, not to worry. It is the WashingtonDC/ New York thing that is dying. Not America itself. Indeed we will do better. That's why we are all glad to let it happen. Todd. At 10:27 PM 11/30/2008, Nancy Elizabeth wrote: >Who's interest is served by this 'breakup'? And, would they >'facilitate' it, if they could? "If you want to know what's what, >follow the money" - where does it lead, Todd? > >--- On Wed, 11/26/08, Todd Boyle wrote: >From: Todd Boyle >Subject: Re: [PJH] FT,FB,RGEM: Fed, now 'lender of first & only >resort, ' ups ante $800bn >To: tacomapjh at yahoogroups.com >Cc: "a-list" >Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 1:00 PM >The United States is breaking up, similarly to how the Soviet Union broke up. >We should start a blog, "Breakup Watch". >It's gotten to the point the Treasury and Fed Reserve are underwriting >most of the debt in the united states--- Remember when the federal >government only guaranteed FDIC accounts? now they are essentially >guaranteeing everybody's mortgages and even our credit card debt. >Anybody who can issue credit cards or mortgages is printing money now. >They have shoveled out over $7 trillion with no end in sight. >To me, that is one step from the end of the United States government. >The final step is when the world faces the truth that its guarantees >are worth nothing. >Todd >At 11:58 PM 11/25/2008, jensenmk at plu. edu wrote: >>NEWS & COMMENTARY: Fed, now 'lender of first & only resort,' ups ante $800bn >>[On Tuesday the U.S. Federal Reserve pledged $800bn "to bolster markets >>for loans to homebuyers, consumers, students, and small businesses," the >>London *Financial Times* reported.[1] -- Three quarters of this would >>"buy up to $600bn of mortgage bonds issued or guaranteed by >>government-sponsore d housing enterprises such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, >>Ginnie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Banks," Joanna Chung, Michael >>Mackenzie, and Nicole Bullock said, and the other $200bn would be for >>"another program -- the term asset-backed securities loan facility, or >>TALF -- to lend up to $200bn to holders of AAA-rated securities backed by >>student loans, auto loans, credit card loans, and small business loans." >>-- Admitting that he has "completely lost track of the government bailout >>programs," Fox Business commentator Brian Sullivan offered "a brief and >>obviously truncated list of the programs" the U.S. government has created >>this year in an effort to stave off collapse, including TARP, TALF, AMLF, >>TSLF, SLFs, and PDCF, with explanations thanks to "the invaluable help of >>the Wall Street Community." -- "Despite all the recent negative press," >>Sullivan ironized, "most of those on 'the Street' are generally very >>smart, kind, and trustworthy individuals." -- NYU economist Nouriel >>Roubini called these the latest in a series of "quite unorthodox monetary >>policy moves."[3] -- "The Fed and other central banks that used to be >>the 'lenders of last resort' have become the 'lenders of first and only >>resort,'" he explained on Tuesday. -- Roubini described even more >>"radical actions" that the Fed could take, including "talking down the >>value of the dollar," but "[t]he problem with many of these 'extreme' >>policy actions . . . is that they were tried in Japan in the 1990s and the >>last few years and they miserably failed: once you are in a liquidity >>trap and there are fundamental deflationary forces in the economy -- as >>the excess aggregate supply of goods is facing a falling aggregate demand, >>it is very hard even with extreme policy actions to prevent deflations >>from emerging." --Mark] >> >>http://www.ufppc. >>org/content/ view/8076/ >>1. >>U.S. >>Economy & Fed >>FED ADDS $800bn TO BOOST BORROWING >>By Joanna Chung (Washington) and Michael Mackenzie and Nicole Bullock (New >>York) >>Financial Times (London) >>November 25, 2008 (updated Nov. 26) >> >>http://www.ft. >>com/cms/s/ 0/e7411216- bafb-11dd- bc6c-0000779fd18 c.html >>The U.S. Federal Reserve on Tuesday escalated its efforts to revive the >>financial system, pledging $800bn to bolster markets for loans to >>homebuyers, consumers, students, and small businesses. >>The planned intervention in consumer lending markets had a dramatic impact >>on interest rates for mortgage-backed securities, which fell to their >>lowest levels since January after having remained stubbornly high despite >>Fed interest rate cuts. >>However, the announcement also underscored the severity of the credit >>crisis and raised concerns among some analysts that the Fed might be >>taking too much risk -- and printing too much money -- in response. >>"I wish there was one action that we could take, and all this would end, >>and the financial system would turn around . . . but that is not the world >>we live in today," Hank Paulson, Treasury secretary, said in discussing >>the measures. "We are dealing with a historic situation that happens once >>or twice in a 100 years." >>The Fed said it would buy up to $600bn of mortgage bonds issued or >>guaranteed by government-sponsore d housing enterprises such as Fannie Mae, >>Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Banks. >>The Fed said it was launching another program -- the term asset-backed >>securities loan facility, or TALF -- to lend up to $200bn to holders of >>AAA-rated securities backed by student loans, auto loans, credit card >>loans, and small business loans. >>The Treasury will use $20bn from its $700bn troubled asset relief program, >>or TARP, to provide credit protection for the TALF. Mr. Paulson said that >>the $200bn facility could expand to include commercial and non-agency >>residential mortgage-backed securities. >>The yield on Fannie Mae's 30-year mortgage bond fell as much as 60 basis >>points to 4.81 per cent, its lowest level since last January. Rates on >>30-year conforming mortgages -- meaning they can be bought by Fannie and >>Freddie -- fell to 5.77 per cent from 6.06 per cent on Monday, according >>to HSH Associates. >>However, some analysts expressed concerns about the new programs' impact. >>"Instead of having the Treasury borrow the cash to fund these programs >>through the TARP, we're just going to crank up the magical printing >>presses and expand the Fed's balance sheet," said Stephen Stanley, chief >>economist at RBS Greenwich Capital. "For those not connecting the dots, >>the Treasury has essentially just outsourced the purchase of troubled >>assets to the Fed, with lots of leverage." >>The Fed moves came as the European Union prepared on Wednesday to unveil >>its own fiscal stimulus plan. >>2. >>New Ideas >>TARP, PDCF, TALF: I ADMIT IT, I'M LOST! >>By Brian Sullivan >>Fox Business >>November 25, 2008 >> >>http://briansulliva >>n.blogs.foxbusin ess.com/2008/ 11/25/tarp- tlgs-gse- talf-i-admit- it-im-lost/ >>I have completely lost track of the government bailout programs. >>Whew. Okay, I said it and now I finally feel better. >>We in this odd industry called the media hate to admit that we don't know >>something. Yet sometimes the most powerful thing for us to say is that >>we are confused as much as anyone else. The key for us is to use this >>curiosity to have guests on the program who do know and understand. That >>forces the first step in doing a good interview by asking the most basic, >>fundamental questions. Those are the same questions you may have as well. >> Bringing Main Street to Wall Street. >>So now that I've painfully admitted that I'm getting lost in the flurry of >>government programs and the daily new acronym (today its TALF, by the way, >>the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility) here's what I do know, or >>at least think I do. >>We awoke to new details of the ongoing government spending and rescue >>plans and the latest incarnation of the TARP. In the details lie two >>different programs. >>One is the evolution of the existing TARP to go back to what it was >>originally designed for; the purchase of mortgage securities and debt >>issued by the GSE's (Fannie and Freddie). The Fed said it will purchase >>up to $100 billion in GSE debt through a series of competitive auctions >>starting next week. It will also purchase up to $500 billion in >>mortgage-backed securities backed by GSEs, with the goal of starting that >>program by the end of the year. >>The other program is a second facility (though wrapped in the bodywork of >>the first) meant to buy the debt of consumer-related products, such as >>auto and student loans. As the smart folks at the *Wall Street Journal* >>wrote: "The lending facility, which will be operated by the Federal >>Reserve, is expected to provide loans to investors who want to buy >>securities backed by credit cards, auto loans, and student loans, the >>people said. Treasury will contribute between $25 billion to $100 billion >>to the facility from its $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program." >>Confused yet? >>Luckily there are a variety of people to help us out. The great staff >>here at Fox Business who makes sure we have smart guests on who can >>explain what's going on. The *WSJ* writers who report with clarity and, >>of course, all of you out there who watch and read Fox Business because >>you have helped provide us with terrifiic "real" insight and also >>questions. >>There is also the invaluable help of the Wall Street Community. Despite >>all the recent negative press, most of those on "the Street" are generally >>very smart, kind, and trustworthy individuals. One of those is Josh >>Feinman, Chief Economist at Deutsche Bank Advisors, and thanks to him for >>help me make sense of the alphabet soup. >>So that said, here's what I can discern so far about the programs >>announced in the past few months: >>Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP] -- The big daddy. That $700 billion >>dollar program getting most of the attention. Meant to buy >>mortgage-backed securites and other debt backed by housing and Fannie Mae >>and Freddie Mac. Half has been authorized, $350 billion is still to be >>doled out and spent. >>Term Asset-Backed Lending Facility [TALF] -- New today. This program will >>allow the Federal Reserve to lend money backed by assets of things such as >>auto and students loans. Meant to open up bank lending for >>consumer-related items and get people spending again. >>Asset-Backed Money Fund Lending Facility [AMLF] -- Targeted directly at >>helping money market mutual funds stay liquid. The Fed set up this plan >>to allow banks to buy weakened commercial paper (short-term company debt) >>and other products from money funds to make sure more funds don't "break >>the buck" and cause a run on the banks and money funds. >>Term Securities Lending Facility [TSLF] -- Started in March. This >>actually allows the Fed to swap bad mortgage and other debt on banks' >>books rather than merely lend using those assets as collateral. A trade, >>not a loan. >>Special Lending Facilities [SLFs] -- The Fed set [this] up in March to >>loan money to JPMorgan to help buy Bear Stearns. Also used to back AIG's >>balance sheet to avoid total collapse. >>Primary Dealer Credit Facility [PDCF] -- Extends the Fed discount window >>borrowing facility to non-bank primary dealers. Not used much. >>While that's a brief and obviously truncated list of the programs, >>hopefully it's a decent primer for the plethora of plans and programs >>announced by the American government in 2008. There will be no quiz. >>3. >>Spotlight issues >>FED ANNOUNCES NEW $800bn FACILITIES: HOW EFFECTIVE WILL THEY BE? >>RGE Monitor >>November 25, 2008 >>Roubini: To address the increase in real short-term market rates, the Fed >>and other central banks have already undertaken quite unorthodox monetary >>policy moves. To address the even more severe increase in real long-term >>market rates, the Fed and other central banks will have to undertake even >>more radical and unorthodox policy actions: >>* Nov 25: Fed took two new steps to unfreeze credit for home buyers, >>consumers, and small businesses, committing up to $800 billion. The >>central bank will purchase as much as $600 billion in debt issued or >>backed by government-chartere d housing-finance companies. It will also >>set up a $200 billion program to support consumer and small-business loans >>(Bloomberg) >>* Treasury will provide $20 billion of credit protection to the Federal >>Reserve in connection with its $200 billion Term Asset Backed Securities >>Loan Facility (Paulson) >>ROUBINI ON WHAT MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE: >>* The Fed and other central banks that used to be the "lenders of last >>resort" have become the "lenders of first and only resort" as banks don't >>lend to each other, banks don't lend to non-bank financial institutions >>and financial institutions don't lend to the corporate and household >>sector >>* In spite of the Fed becoming the lender of first and only resort (even >>the corporate CP market is now being propped by the new Fed facility) >>there are still major problems that remain seriously unresolved in >>short-term money markets and short-term credit markets: >>1. Libor spreads are rising again in recent days; and they are still very >>high -- at the 3-month maturity -- compared to what they were before this >>liquidity crunch >>2. Banks and other financial institutions are still not lending to each >>other in spite of lower spreads as they need the liquidity received by the >>Fed and they worry about the solvency of their counterparties >>3. Only banks and major broker dealers have access to these facilities and >>thus most of the shadow banking system does not have access to this Fed >>liquidity >>4. Market spreads are still rising and the availability of short-term >>credit is becoming tighter as banks increase interest rates on credit >>cards, student loans, and auto loans and make such loans in scarcer supply >>5. Only rated investment-grade corporate have access to the commercial >>paper facility, leaving millions of speculative- grade or non-rated firms >>in an even bigger liquidity and credit squeeze >>6. Securitization of credit cards, auto loans, student loans is currently >>dead >>EVEN "CRAZIER" MONETARY ACTIONS: >>* But even more desperate or "crazier" monetary actions are needed to >>address the increase in real long-term market rates. These actions are >>needed to prevent deflation from setting in, to reduce the credit spread >>(the difference between long-term market rates and long-term government >>bond yields) and to reduce the yield curve spread (the difference between >>long-term government bond yields and the policy rate) >>1. The Fed could commit to maintain the Fed Funds rate down to zero for a >>long period of time: since long-term government bond yields are -- based >>on the expectation hypothesis -- equal to a weighted average of current >>short-term government bond yields and current expectations of what those >>short-term bond yields will be for the foreseeable future, a commitment to >>keep the Fed Funds rate down to zero for a long time will affect >>expectations of future expected short rates and could reduce long-term >>government bond yields >>2. The Fed could do what it last did in the 1950s: directly purchase >>long-term government bonds as a way of pushing downward their yield and >>thus reduce the yield curve spread. >>3. Radical actions could take the form of: outright purchases of corporate >>bonds (high-yield and high-grade); outright purchases of mortgages and >>private and agency MBS as well as agency debt; forcing Fannie and Freddie >>to vastly expand their portfolios by buying and/or guaranteeing more >>mortgages and bundles of mortgages; one could decide to directly subsidize >>mortgages with fiscal resources; the Fed (or Treasury) could even go as >>far as directly intervening in the stock market via direct purchases of >>equities as a way to boost falling equity prices. >>4. Finally, the Fed could try to follow aggressive policies to attempt to >>prevent deflation from setting in: massive quantitative easing; flooding >>markets with unlimited unsterilized liquidity; talking down the value of >>the dollar; direct and massive intervention in the forex to weaken the >>dollar; vast increase of the swap lines with foreign central banks (an >>indirect and disguised form of forex intervention) aimed to prevent a >>strengthening of the dollar; attempts to target the price level or the >>inflation rate via aggressive preemptive monetization; or even a >>money-financed budget deficit >>* The problem with many of these "extreme" policy actions -- as well as >>some of the ones described above to affect the relevant spreads -- is that >>they were tried in Japan in the 1990s and the last few years and they >>miserably failed: once you are in a liquidity trap and there are >>fundamental deflationary forces in the economy as the excess aggregate >>supply of goods is facing a falling aggregate demand it is very hard even >>with extreme policy actions to prevent deflations from emerging >> >>------------ --------- --------- ------ >>PPJH's website is located at >>http://www.tacomapj h.org/ -- others may >>join by sending an email >>to tacomapjh-subscribe @yahoogroups. comYahoo! Groups Links >><*> To visit your group on the web, go to: >> http://groups. >> yahoo.com/ group/tacomapjh/ >><*> Your email settings: >> Individual Email | Traditional >><*> To change settings online go to: >> http://groups. >> yahoo.com/ group/tacomapjh/ join >> (Yahoo! ID required) >><*> To change settings via email: >> mailto:tacomapjh- >> digest at yahoogrou ps.com >> mailto:tacomapjh- fullfeatured@ yahoogroups. com >><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >> tacomapjh-unsubscri be at yahoogroups. com >><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: >> http://docs. yahoo.com/ info/terms/ >__._,_.___ >Messages >in this topic (2) >Reply >(via web post) | >Start >a new topic >Messages >| >Files >| >Photos >| >Links >| >Database >| >Polls >| >Members >| >Calendar > >PPJH's website is located at >http://www.tacomapjh.org/ -- others may >join by sending an email >to tacomapjh-subscribe at yahoogroups.com > >Change >settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) >Change settings via email: >Digest>Switch delivery to Daily Digest | >Delivery Format: Traditional>Switch format to Traditional >Visit >Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms >of Use | Unsubscribe >Recent Activity >Visit >Your Group >Give Back >Yahoo! >for Good >Get inspired >by a good cause. >Y! Toolbar >Get >it Free! >easy 1-click access >to your groups. >Yahoo! Groups >Start >a group >in 3 easy steps. >Connect with others. >. >__,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 26034 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081206/e09436d7/attachment.txt From tboyle at rosehill.net Sat Dec 6 19:55:09 2008 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:55:09 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Taking Evolution Seriously In-Reply-To: <493AE304.9080701@gmail.com> References: <493A3D83.6080409@ashisuto.co.jp> <493AE304.9080701@gmail.com> Message-ID: At 12:39 PM 12/6/2008, Leighm wrote: >The next 'evolution' of industrial society, in MY humble opinion, >should be towards societies that require less of a demand for high >speed personal transportation... communities that have the jobs >right there, making for the tendency to less toxic manufacturing >processes as well if the people are concerned with their own, and >others, well-being, along with many other benefits to that society >such as the possibility that as a whole, they may more carefully >consider the what-for and why of their use of industrial >capacity.... more for the society's necessities of life... less for >the individual's wants....an opportune time for the US to evolve. I have been seriously appreciating Leighm's posts here. The way I have been saying this, is in two parts. First, a criticism of all the buildings downtown and the antisocial and senseless activities of downtowns. Headquarters or regional executives of thousands of corporations, Accounting, insurance, securities analysis and betting, real estate schemes, sales and marketing, tax compliance/ tax litigation, auditing, political parties and candidates offices, offices of political officeholders and staffs. political and economic think-tanks of all sorts. Patent writing, patent and copyright acquisition, marketing, litigation.... entire buildings and districts full of Radio and TV broadcasters. Software development and marketing, brokerages of all kinds, web businesses... A hundred thousand people, driving cars downtown Seattle everyday to do these things? I say, no more cars, no more freeways, nothing for downtowns--- the apparatus of our own enslavement. Part two of my criticism is: the human being is not so mysterious. We are well studied and understood. An example of human needs is laid out in Maslow's Hierarchy of human needs. Here are 15,400 graphic images of the famous Pyramid. http://images.google.com/images?q=maslows&num=30 How complicated is that? Not complicated. There is "Utility theory" for a hundred years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utils The accomplishments of our government and corporations must be measured in terms of satisfaction of human needs. Our needs, most notably include higher rational and spiritual needs---such as, ahhh.. survival of the species? survival of our children? The GDP only measures physical crap like, more animal fats, salt and grease and cheap coffee from the fast food industry. More weapons and cops and soldiers and 100 million people in the so called "services" industries and "information economy" sic, downtown. The use of money or macroeconomic measures like GDP as proxies for the wellbeing of society is completely totally discredited. How many books do we have to write?!!! Whover advances that framing is a sitting duck, for any good speaker who stands up in the meeting or council chambers, and shouts out the rebuttal. Be that person. Never accept it. Todd Boyle ex-Cpa I hate who I was. I hate what I did. CPAs are certified professional liars. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3599 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081206/ed8d8f89/attachment.txt From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Dec 7 09:51:41 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 11:51:41 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Somalia: Now What? Message-ID: December 7, 2008 News Analysis Situation in Somalia Seems About to Get Worse By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN NAIROBI, Kenya ? Somalia's transitional government looks as if it is about to flatline. The Ethiopians who have been keeping it alive for two years say they are leaving the country, essentially pulling the plug. For the past 17 years, Somalia has been ripped apart by anarchy, violence, famine and greed. It seems as though things there can never get worse. But then they do. The pirates off Somalia's coast are getting bolder, wilier and somehow richer, despite an armada of Western naval ships hot on their trail. Shipments of emergency food aid are barely keeping much of Somalia's population of nine million from starving. The most fanatical wing of Somalia's Islamist insurgency is gobbling up territory and imposing its own harsh brand of Islamic law, like whipping dancers and stoning a 13-year-old girl to death. And now, with the government on the brink and the Islamists seeming ready to seize control for the second time, the operative question inside and outside Somalia seems to be: Now what? "It will be bloody," predicted Rashid Abdi, a Somalia analyst at the International Crisis Group, a research institute that tracks conflicts worldwide. "The Ethiopians have decided to let the transitional government sink. The chaos will spread from the south to the north. Warlordism will be back." Mr. Rashid sees Somalia deteriorating into an Afghanistan-like cauldron of militant Islamism, drawing in hard-core fighters from the Comoros, Zanzibar, Kenya and other neighboring Islamic areas, a process that seems to have already started. Those men will eventually go home, spreading the killer ethos. "Somalia has now reached a very dangerous phase," he said. "The whole region is in for more chaos, I'm afraid." Most informed predictions go something like this: if the several thousand Ethiopian troops withdraw by January, as they recently said they would, the 3,000 or so African Union peacekeepers in Somalia could soon follow, leaving Somalia wide open to the Islamist insurgents who have been massing on the outskirts of Mogadishu, the capital. The transitional government, which in reality controls only a few city blocks of the entire country, will collapse, just as the 13 previous transitional governments did. The only reason it has not happened yet is the Ethiopians. The government has been a mess for the past few weeks ? many would argue for the past few years ? with the president and the prime minister bitterly and publicly blaming each other for the country's crisis. More than 100 of the 275 members of Parliament are in Kenya, refusing to go home, saying they will be killed. Western diplomats, United Nations officials and the Ethiopians seem to be turning against the transitional president, Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, a cantankerous former warlord in his 70s who has thwarted just about every peace proposal. "Yusuf has gone from being seen as the solution to being seen as the problem," said a senior Western diplomat in Kenya, speaking on condition of anonymity in accord with diplomatic protocol. But Mr. Yusuf's clan still backs him, and Western diplomats said he might soon flee to his clan stronghold in northeast Somalia. Most analysts predict that the war-weary people of Mogadishu would initially welcome the Islamists, out of either relief or fear. In 2006, Islamist troops teamed up with clan elders and businessmen to drive out the warlords who had been preying upon Somalia's people since the central government first collapsed in 1991. The six months the Islamists ruled Mogadishu turned out to be one of the most peaceful periods in modern Somali history. But today's Islamists are a harder, more brutal group than the ones who were ousted by an Ethiopian invasion, backed by the United States, in late 2006. The old guard included many moderates, but those who tried to work with the transitional government mostly failed, leaving them weak and marginalized, and removing a mitigating influence on the die-hard insurgents. On top of that, the unpopular and bloody Ethiopian military operations over the past two years have radicalized many Somalis and sent hundreds of unemployed young men ? most of whom have never gone to school, never been part of a functioning society and never had much of a chance to do anything but shoulder a gun ? into the arms of militant Islamic groups. The most militant group is the Shabab, a multiclan insurgent force that the United States classifies as a terrorist organization. Just a few weeks ago, the Shabab kidnapped a man it accused of being a spy and slowly sawed off his head with a dull knife, videotaping the whole episode. Somalia is nearly 100 percent Muslim, but most Somalis are moderate Muslims. Many analysts expect that the militant Islamic wave will soon crest because Somalis will inevitably chafe under strict Islamist law, especially when the Islamists try to take away their beloved khat, the ubiquitous, mildly stimulating leaf that Somalis chew like bubble gum. Then, many analysts say, the Islamist groups could slug it out among themselves, with Ethiopia and other neighboring countries backing rival factions, and with clan warlords jumping in. Osman Mohamed Abdi, vice chairman of the Somali Youth Development Network, a nonprofit group in Mogadishu, called this possibility the "worst man-made catastrophe." Two possibilities could avert this bloodbath, but both are long shots. Ethiopia could delay its pullout until a larger peacekeeping force arrived. But with both Darfur and now Congo needing peacekeepers, there are few volunteers for lawless Somalia. Or the transitional government could share power with the Islamists. There is a piece of paper called the Djibouti Agreement, recently signed in neighboring Djibouti, that paves the way for moderate Islamists to join the transitional government. But the problem with the Djibouti Agreement, Mr. Rashid of the International Crisis Group said, is that "the interlocutors have no power on the ground." A collapse of the government and the human disaster that would almost surely follow would be strike three for American efforts in Somalia. The United States failed disastrously in its peacekeeping mission in the early 1990s. (Remember "Black Hawk Down"?) In 2005 and 2006, the C.I.A. paid some of Somalia's most reviled warlords to fight the Islamists. That backfired. In the winter of 2006, the United States took a third approach, encouraging Ethiopia to invade and backing them with American airstrikes and intelligence. "The Bush administration made a major miscalculation," said Dan Connell, who teaches African politics at Simmons College in Boston. He compared the situation to America's involvement in Lebanon in the 1980s, "when a regional ally, Israel, pulled us into a failed state in a quixotic effort to transform a hostile neighbor into a pliant ally." That only radicalized the population, he said, adding that in Somalia, "Again, we will be in its sights." From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Dec 7 10:17:19 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 12:17:19 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Mohammad Ayatollahi Tabaar on Abdulkarim Soroush Message-ID: December 7, 2008 Idea Lab Who Wrote the Koran? By MOHAMMAD AYATOLLAHI TABAAR For more than two decades, Abdulkarim Soroush has been Iran's leading public intellectual. Deeply versed in Islamic theology and mysticism, he was chosen by Ayatollah Khomeini to "Islamicize" Iran's universities, only to eventually turn against the theocratic state. He paid a price for his dissidence. Vigilantes and other government-supported elements disrupted his widely attended lectures in Iran, beat him and reportedly nearly assassinated him. In a country where intellectuals are often treated like rock stars, Soroush has been venerated and reviled for his outspoken support of religious pluralism and democracy. Now he has taken one crucial step further. Shuttling from university to university in Europe and the U.S., Soroush is sending shock waves through Iran's clerical establishment. The recent controversy began about eight months ago, after Soroush spoke with a Dutch reporter about one of Islam's most sensitive issues: the divine origin of the Koran. Muslims have long believed that their holy book was transmitted word for word by God through the Prophet Muhammad. In the interview, however, Soroush made explicit his alternative belief that the Koran was a "prophetic experience." He told me that the prophet "was at the same time the receiver and the producer of the Koran or, if you will, the subject and the object of the revelation." Soroush said that "when you read the Koran, you have to feel that a human being is speaking to you, i.e. the words, images, rules and regulations and the like all are coming from a human mind." He added, "This mind, of course, is special in the sense that it is imbued with divinity and inspired by God." As Soroush's words spread thanks to the Internet, Iran's grand ayatollahs entered the battlefield. In their rebuttal, the clerics pointed to the Koranic verses that state "this is a book we have sent down to you (O Muhammad)." They ask, Don't these verses imply that God is the revealer and Muhammad the receiver? They also point out that there were times when Muhammad waited impatiently for the revelation to come to him and that in more than 300 cases the prophet is commanded to tell his people to do one thing or another. This demonstrates, the argument goes, that the commands are coming from elsewhere rather than from the heart or the mind of the prophet himself. Soroush, in turn, responds by saying that the prophet was no parrot. Rather, Soroush told me, he was like a bee who produces honey itself, even though the mechanism for making the honey is placed in him by God. This is "the example the Koran itself sets," says Soroush, citing the Koran: "And your Lord inspired to the bee: take for yourself among the mountains, houses . . . then eat from all the fruits . . . there emerges from their bellies a drink . . . in which there is healing for people." Soroush has been described as a Muslim Luther, but unlike the Protestant reformer, he is no literalist about holy books. His work more closely resembles that of the 19th-century German scholars who tried to understand the Bible in its original context. Case in point: when a verse in the Koran or a saying attributed to Muhammad refers to cutting off a thief's hand or stoning to death for adultery, it only tells us the working rules and regulations of the prophet's era. Today's Muslims are not obliged to follow in these footsteps if they have more humane means at their disposal. Soroush's latest views have not endeared him to the powerful conservative wing of Iran's establishment. Some have accused him of heresy, which is punishable by death. There have been demonstrations by clerics in Qom, the religious capital of Iran, against his recent work. But Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, unexpectedly warned against feeding the controversy. He said those who are employing "philosophy or pseudo-philosophy" to "pervert the nation's mind" should not be dealt with "by declaring apostasy and anger" but rather countered with the "religious truths" that will falsify their arguments. In Iran today, many opponents of the government advocate the creation of a secular state. Soroush himself supports the separation of mosque and state, but for the sake of religion. He seeks freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Thus he speaks for a different ? and potentially more effective ? agenda. The medieval Islamic mystic Rumi once wrote that "an old love may only be dissolved by a new one." In a deeply religious society, whose leaders have justified their hold on power as a divine duty, it may take a religious counterargument to push the society toward pluralism and democracy. Soroush challenges those who claim to speak for Islam, and does so on their own terms. Mohammad Ayatollahi Tabaar is an adjunct lecturer at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University. From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Dec 7 10:26:15 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 12:26:15 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Helene Cooper: "South Asia's Deadly Dominoes" Message-ID: December 7, 2008 South Asia's Deadly Dominoes By HELENE COOPER WASHINGTON ? The Mumbai attacks may have begun with Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistani guerrilla group known in the West mostly for its preoccupation with Kashmir. But by the time the crisis finally ends, foreign policy experts say, the fallout may have expanded to include the United States, NATO, Afghanistan and Iran. Once again, South Asia is showing itself to be vulnerable to contagion. President-elect Barack Obama during the campaign laid out an intricate construction for what might happen in South Asia with the right American push. He advocated increasing American troops in Afghanistan and pressing Pakistan to do more to evict foreign fighters and to attack training camps for radical terrorists along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Such actions, Mr. Obama said, would help prevent the Taliban and Al Qaeda from using Pakistani soil as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan or on the United States or other Western targets. Seldom did Mr. Obama mention or include India in his roadmap to peace in South Asia. During an interview with Time magazine, Mr. Obama did hint at trying to make a diplomatic push to mediate the Kashmir issue. But most of his South Asia focus has been on Afghanistan and Pakistan. The trouble, South Asia experts say, is that just about every issue in the region is somehow interconnected, and they all have a tendency to set each other off. The Mumbai attacks killed 163 civilians and members of the security forces, , and terrorized India's most populous city for more than three days. But when the dust had cleared, "there was a lot more wreckage than just that," said Teresita C. Schaffer, a South Asia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Strategically, the Mumbai massacres have brought into stark relief just how tenuous are American hopes for any kind of calm in Pakistan and Afghanistan, let alone victory over militant forces in the region. Forget worrying about the hunt for Osama bin Laden along their shared border, and the battle against a resurgent Taliban. After Mumbai, it is suddenly all anyone can do just to keep Indians and Pakistanis from war. "Step back and consider the situation the Mumbai attackers have created," said George Friedman, chief executive of Stratfor, a geopolitical risk analysis company. Mr. Friedman laid out a frightening domino theory of possible repercussions of Mumbai. Warning: it gets scary fast. 1. India's already weak government decides it has to retaliate against Pakistan or risk falling. India didn't retaliate after the deadly bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul July 7. But many Indians view the Mumbai attacks the same way Americans viewed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and the Indian government is under enormous pressure to retaliate, perhaps by bombing training camps in Pakistan. Seven years ago, when gunmen attacked India's Parliament in New Delhi, the Indian government moved forces close to the Pakistani border and brought its nuclear forces to a higher alert level, prompting a similar response from Pakistan and an intense crisis between the two nuclear rivals. Since then, the Indian government has been more restrained. But you can't expect that restraint to dissolve were a firm link between the Mumbai attack and Pakistan's intelligence service to emerge. 2. Pakistan responds by withdrawing forces from western Pakistan, where they can fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban, to the India-Pakistan border. Pakistan security officials have already warned that if the situation with India worsens, they will shift troops from western areas, and pointedly noted during a news conference that such a step would likely upset the United States because it would mean resources were being moved from the fight against Islamic militants along the Afghan border. The Americans have been pressing Pakistan for more military action against the militants, not less. While part of Pakistan's threat was "half designed to scare the daylights out of the United States," part of it was serious, Ms. Schaffer said. "The serious part of it is, as far as the Pakistan Army is concerned, India is still the existential threat. If it looked as if India was going to take some kind of military action, there would be a re-deployment so fast it would make your head spin." 3. Taliban forces, freed from having to watch out for Pakistani troops, are strengthened along the Afghan border; Qaeda operatives are more secure. A resurgent Taliban that is freed from having to fight a two-front war will turn its full attention to American and NATO troops in Afghanistan. Mr. Obama has already said he wants to send two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, where violence has climbed ? allied military deaths there have reached 267 this year, the most ever. The American military plan for the war in Afghanistan assumes some help from Pakistani troops on the border. It also assumes that the United States can continue to use Pakistan for logistical support for the Afghanistan war. 4. The United States' situation in Afghanistan goes from bad to worse. For the American military effort in Afghanistan to succeed, the Pakistani military needs to establish control of the lawless territory between the two countries. It is virtually impossible, South Asia experts say, to envision a scenario where American soldiers themselves could establish control of the border regions, with their mountainous terrain and a local population that is sympathetic to Islamist militants. So America is seeking a greater willingness from Pakistani leaders to go after Qaeda and Taliban operatives along the border; a Pakistani government that is distracted by a new flare-up with India would not figure into those plans. 5. Iran, watching Pakistan and India rattling their nuclear sabers, concludes that it is in a better position to insist on pursuing its nuclear program. Mr. Obama has said he will do whatever he can to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, including breaking with years of American foreign policy and sitting down with Iran's leaders, if necessary. But for decades, some Iranians have argued that their country needs a nuclear weapons capacity to match the influence of, or deter, neighbors like India, Pakistan and Israel ? not to mention Russia and China. Foreign policy experts say that persuading Iran's leaders to stop their current uranium enrichment program before it makes such a goal attainable would only get harder if they could point to a nuclear standoff taking place between Pakistan and India. The Mumbai attacks, said Mr. Friedman, of Stratfor, "could leave Obama's entire South Asia strategy in shambles." Turkish officials have stepped in to try to help, summoning Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, and Pakistan's president, Asif Ali Zardari, to Istanbul for talks. A senior Turkish official involved in the talks expressed optimism that diplomacy could somehow avert a further ratcheting up of tensions in South Asia. Speaking on condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic rules, the diplomat said that the Mumbai terrorists "wanted to create a problem for the whole region, because they knew this could radicalize the population more." But, he said, none of that has to happen ? if the Indian government resists the domestic pressure to hit back at Pakistan. "It would be too much," he said, "to start a war just to keep a government in place." From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Dec 7 16:50:05 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 18:50:05 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Militants in Pakistan Destroy NATO Trucks Message-ID: December 8, 2008 Militants in Pakistan Destroy NATO Trucks By JANE PERLEZ ISLAMABAD, Pakistan ? More than 100 trucks loaded with supplies for American forces in Afghanistan were destroyed Sunday by militants in Peshawar, the city that serves as an important transit point for the Afghan war effort. It was the third major attack by Taliban militants on NATO supplies in Pakistan in less than a month, and served to expose the vulnerability of the route from the port of Karachi through Peshawar and over the border into Afghanistan. The United States relies on the route for an overwhelming proportion of its supplies for the war in Afghanistan. The damaged trucks were loaded with American war materiel, including Humvees, destined for the Afghan National Army, said Col. Greg Julian, a spokesman for United States forces in Kabul. The militants overwhelmed the rudimentary security system at two parking lots where the trucks were parked in the heart of Peshawar. They easily disarmed security guards at about 2:30 a.m., then threw grenades and fired rockets at the loaded trucks. "We were unable to challenge such a large number of armed men," said Muhammad Rafiq, a security guard. He estimated that about 200 militants were involved in the attack. Pakistani security forces apparently fired artillery at the attackers. "There was artillery and rapid exchange of fire," said a retired police official, Hidyatullah Arbab, who heard the firing from his home. "Peshawar is becoming a battleground." Colonel Julian said the loss of equipment would have a minimum impact on the overall war effort. "It's a very insignificant loss in terms of everything transported into Afghanistan." But critics of the war effort in Afghanistan have argued that the United States needs to more urgently shape the Afghan Army into an effective fighting force. The loss of supplies to the Afghan army would be a setback in that endeavor. About 80 percent of supplies for the war move from Karachi through Pakistan and onto Afghanistan. Peshawar is the last staging point before the border about 40 miles away, about an hour's journey. From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sun Dec 7 17:25:16 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 19:25:16 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Canada's constitutional coup: a warning to the working class Message-ID: <094589E3618D41D5846DFB6D07A62297@TonyPC> Canada's constitutional coup: A warning to the working class 5 December 2008 In a flagrant attack on parliamentary norms and democratic rights, Canada's minority Conservative government, in conjunction with the unelected governor-general, has shut down the country's national parliament in order to prevent the opposition parties from ousting the government in a non-confidence vote scheduled for Monday. Never before in Canada or, for that matter, any other country that follows the British parliamentary pattern, has a government prorogued parliament for the purpose of avoiding a non-confidence vote. Two further facts underline the arbitrary and undemocratic character of Governor-General Micha?lle Jean's decision to grant Prime Minster Stephen Harper his request that parliament be suspended until January 26: * In an election less than eight weeks ago, Canadians once again denied the Conservatives a parliamentary majority, giving the three opposition parties 163 of the 308 House of Commons seats and well over half their votes. * To demonstrate that the Conservatives had lost parliament's "confidence," and in accordance with long-established constitutional practice, the three opposition parties had officially informed the governor-general earlier this week that they were committed to defeating the government at the earliest opportunity and supporting an opposition coalition government for at least 18 months. The World Socialist Web Site has made clear its political opposition to a Liberal-New Democratic Party (NDP) coalition government supported by the Bloc Qu?b?cois. (See: "Canada's 'putsch': Oppose Conservative power-grab! No support to Liberal-NDP coalition!") But the suspension of parliament and of the MPs' right to defeat and replace the sitting government strikes at the most fundamental democratic right-the right of the people to choose their own government. Turning reality on its head, the Conservatives, with the support of much of the media, have mounted a vitriolic and reactionary campaign, terming the opposition's attempt to bring to power an alternate government "illegal" and branding it an illegitimate attempt to overturn the results of the October 14 election. They have labeled the proposed Liberal-NDP government a "separatist coalition," because the pro-Quebec independence Bloc Qu?b?cois, which has previously provided the Conservatives with their margin of victory in confidence votes, is backing it. "That is as close to treason and sedition as I can imagine," declared Conservative MP Bob Dechert. Even sections of the corporate media that favor the suspension of parliament concede that Harper and the Conservatives have openly incited anti-Quebec chauvinism. In a nationally televised address Wednesday, Harper vowed to "use every legal means" at his disposal to remain in power. Given that he has declared the opposition's attempt to form an alternate government a threat to Canada's "national unity" and "democracy," and has now shut down parliament, this vow raises the question as to how far he and his fellow Conservatives are prepared to go in subverting parliamentary and democratic procedures. While the Conservatives have brazenly asserted the right to govern without parliamentary sanction, the linchpin of their constitutional coup is the governor-general, the representative of Canada's queen, the British monarch Elizabeth II. A feudal relic, this archaic office, supposedly above the political fray, has-although this is not popularly known-virtually unlimited powers. These "reserve" powers are almost always held in abeyance, but the ruling elite has retained the office of the governor-general precisely in order to use it to short-circuit parliamentary democracy in a period of acute crisis. Yesterday, Jean ordered parliament shut down to ensure the survival of a right-wing government under conditions of mounting economic crisis. In Australia in 1975, Governor General John Kerr replaced the Labor government of Gough Whitlam with the right-winger Malcolm Fraser when the Australian ruling class lost confidence in Labor's ability to suppress a rising tide of working class struggles. In keeping with the reactionary traditions and function of her office, Jean will provide no explanation for yesterday's decision to shut down parliament. Legally, she is accountable to no one. This does not mean that yesterday's decision was her own. Canada's corporate elite had made it abundantly clear, through the editorial pages of its newspapers, that it preferred to see democratic principles throttled rather than see the government replaced by a Liberal-NDP coalition. This coalition, one must add, is anything but radical. In striking their alliance with the Liberals, who represent Canada's traditional party of government, the social-democratic NDP pledged to uphold "fiscal responsibility" and support Canada's leading role in the Afghanistan war, and shelved their call for the repeal of a five-year $50 billion program of corporate tax cuts. The class character of the coalition-its subservience to big business-is underscored by its tepid reaction to yesterday's constitutional coup. None of the three opposition leaders dared question, let alone challenge, the office of the governor-general or her decision. Ten minutes into his press conference, NDP leader Jack Layton lamented that it was a "sad day for parliamentary democracy," then meekly moved on. Fissures have already appeared in the Liberal leadership over whether the party, in the "national interest," should not rally behind the Conservative government. The political-constitutional crisis that suddenly erupted in Canada, following the government's presentation on November 27 of a fiscal and economic update, has its roots in deep conflicts within the Canadian bourgeoisie over how to respond to the world recession. The Conservatives, representing the most rapacious sections of capital, including Alberta's oil industry, have spurned calls for an economic stimulus package. The crisis is also a product of the erosion of the popular base of support for the ruling class's principal parties. This is the result of their relentless pursuit over more than a quarter-century of policies aimed at increasing the wealth of the corporate and financial elite by dismantling public services, gutting union rights and slashing the taxes of big business and the rich. In the 1993 election, the Progressive Conservative Party, the Canadian elite's traditional alternate party of government, exploded. The "new" Conservative Party, headed by the neo-conservative ideologue Stephen Harper, is the result of a fusion between the right-wing populist Reform/Canadian Alliance and remnants of the Progressive Conservatives. In the October 14 election, the Liberals won 26.2 percent of the vote, their lowest total ever. The traditional bourgeois-democratic framework is breaking-down. This is due, on the one hand, to the intensity of disputes within the ruling class over how Canadian capitalism can retain its world position under conditions of mounting global trade and geo-political rivalries, and, on the other, to its inability to develop a large, stable base of popular support for its program of social reaction and militarism and its fear of an eruption of the class struggle. This week's events in the "peaceable kingdom" must serve as a warning to workers all over the world. The bourgeoisie is more and more running roughshod over basic democratic norms and principles and turning toward authoritarian forms of rule. This has been seen clearly in United States. The right-wing campaign to impeach Bill Clinton on trumped-up charges was followed by the stolen election of 2000, and then an explosion of militarism and sweeping attacks on democratic rights under the Bush administration. Tens of millions voted last month for Democrat Barack Obama in the hope of putting an end to war and economic policies that have enriched a plutocracy while condemning the vast majority to economic insecurity and declining living standards. But Obama has moved quickly to reassure the US elite that when it comes to economic policy as well as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan there will be "a seamless transition," i.e., a continuation of the same basic course. Now in Canada, as in the US, events have revealed that there is no constituency within the political and media establishment committed to the defense of constitutional principles and democratic rights. The struggle to defend democratic rights is inseparable from a struggle against imperialist war and for the economic interests of working people. It depends upon the independent political mobilization of the working class in opposition to all of the official parties and the capitalist system which they defend. Keith Jones New Today Senate hearing sets the stage for the impoverishment of US autoworkers Canada's constitutional coup: A warning to the working class China's economic growth rate continues to tumble US backing for India fuels tensions with Pakistan Tensions between leading European nations and US following NATO meeting more articles ? Perspectives Canada's constitutional coup: A warning to the working class Washington exploits Mumbai attack to promote "war on terror" US Congress, Big Three, UAW conspire against auto workers Obama's national security team and the failure of American democracy Mumbai atrocity: the dead end of communal politics more articles ? Canada Canada's constitutional coup: A warning to the working class Canada's "putsch": Oppose Conservative power-grab! No support to Liberal-NDP coalition! Canada's "putsch": Oppose Conservative power-grab! No support to Liberal-NDP coalition! Canada's minority Conservative government on brink of collapse Canada: Conservatives provide austerity to workers, aid to banks more articles ? Important Documents Public lecture by David Walsh in the UK Art and socialism: the real premises November 26, 2008 On the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Fourth International David North, November 3, 2008 The Frankfurt School vs. Marxism: The Political and Intellectual Odyssey of Alex Steiner October 22, 2008 Download in PDF Marxism and Science: An Addendum to "The Frankfurt School vs. Marxism" October 28, 2008 SEP (US) Founding Congress SEP holds founding congress Documents of the Founding Congress Statement of Principles Download in PDF The Historical and International Foundations of the Socialist Equality Party Download in PDF The revolutionary implications of the decline of American capitalism Download in PDF About the SEP and the ISSE Socialist Equality Party About the SEP Join the SEP International Students for Social Equality About the ISSE Join the ISSE About the WSWS | Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Top of page Copyright ? 1998-2008 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved From tboyle at rosehill.net Sun Dec 7 11:05:55 2008 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:05:55 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Somalia: Now What? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Yoshie. We're getting a drumbeat on all the MSM, and so are the Brits, if the reports on BBC world service are any indication. Hour after hour they grind on Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe, these days, and it was the Somalis and piracy for a couple of weeks. They have virtually fallen silent on Darfur even though nothing there has improved whatsoever. But the media will continue repeating endlessly, negative stories on Africa for years. Then, when the U.S. elites have enough strategic partners (the military, the arms industry, the oil people, or Israel, or the banksters, etc. ), there will magically appear some incident or provocation. It might not even be in the region. Then the U.S. elites will start another war --and invade Nigeria. Because that's basically the same place, since people are black and that's Africa. Plus it has oil. That is all you need to know about Somalia. good night and good luck. Todd. At 08:51 AM 12/7/2008, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > >December 7, 2008 >News Analysis >Situation in Somalia Seems About to Get Worse >By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN > >NAIROBI, Kenya ? Somalia's transitional government looks as if it is >about to flatline. The Ethiopians who have been keeping it alive for >two years say they are leaving the country, essentially pulling the >plug. > >For the past 17 years, Somalia has been ripped apart by anarchy, >violence, famine and greed. It seems as though things there can never >get worse. But then they do. > >The pirates off Somalia's coast are getting bolder, wilier and somehow >richer, despite an armada of Western naval ships hot on their trail. >Shipments of emergency food aid are barely keeping much of Somalia's >population of nine million from starving. The most fanatical wing of >Somalia's Islamist insurgency is gobbling up territory and imposing >its own harsh brand of Islamic law, like whipping dancers and stoning >a 13-year-old girl to death. > >And now, with the government on the brink and the Islamists seeming >ready to seize control for the second time, the operative question >inside and outside Somalia seems to be: Now what? > >"It will be bloody," predicted Rashid Abdi, a Somalia analyst at the >International Crisis Group, a research institute that tracks conflicts >worldwide. "The Ethiopians have decided to let the transitional >government sink. The chaos will spread from the south to the north. >Warlordism will be back." > >Mr. Rashid sees Somalia deteriorating into an Afghanistan-like >cauldron of militant Islamism, drawing in hard-core fighters from the >Comoros, Zanzibar, Kenya and other neighboring Islamic areas, a >process that seems to have already started. Those men will eventually >go home, spreading the killer ethos. > >"Somalia has now reached a very dangerous phase," he said. "The whole >region is in for more chaos, I'm afraid." > >Most informed predictions go something like this: if the several >thousand Ethiopian troops withdraw by January, as they recently said >they would, the 3,000 or so African Union peacekeepers in Somalia >could soon follow, leaving Somalia wide open to the Islamist >insurgents who have been massing on the outskirts of Mogadishu, the >capital. > >The transitional government, which in reality controls only a few city >blocks of the entire country, will collapse, just as the 13 previous >transitional governments did. The only reason it has not happened yet >is the Ethiopians. > >The government has been a mess for the past few weeks ? many would >argue for the past few years ? with the president and the prime >minister bitterly and publicly blaming each other for the country's >crisis. More than 100 of the 275 members of Parliament are in Kenya, >refusing to go home, saying they will be killed. > >Western diplomats, United Nations officials and the Ethiopians seem to >be turning against the transitional president, Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, >a cantankerous former warlord in his 70s who has thwarted just about >every peace proposal. > >"Yusuf has gone from being seen as the solution to being seen as the >problem," said a senior Western diplomat in Kenya, speaking on >condition of anonymity in accord with diplomatic protocol. > >But Mr. Yusuf's clan still backs him, and Western diplomats said he >might soon flee to his clan stronghold in northeast Somalia. > >Most analysts predict that the war-weary people of Mogadishu would >initially welcome the Islamists, out of either relief or fear. In >2006, Islamist troops teamed up with clan elders and businessmen to >drive out the warlords who had been preying upon Somalia's people >since the central government first collapsed in 1991. The six months >the Islamists ruled Mogadishu turned out to be one of the most >peaceful periods in modern Somali history. > >But today's Islamists are a harder, more brutal group than the ones >who were ousted by an Ethiopian invasion, backed by the United States, >in late 2006. The old guard included many moderates, but those who >tried to work with the transitional government mostly failed, leaving >them weak and marginalized, and removing a mitigating influence on the >die-hard insurgents. > >On top of that, the unpopular and bloody Ethiopian military operations >over the past two years have radicalized many Somalis and sent >hundreds of unemployed young men ? most of whom have never gone to >school, never been part of a functioning society and never had much of >a chance to do anything but shoulder a gun ? into the arms of militant >Islamic groups. > >The most militant group is the Shabab, a multiclan insurgent force >that the United States classifies as a terrorist organization. Just a >few weeks ago, the Shabab kidnapped a man it accused of being a spy >and slowly sawed off his head with a dull knife, videotaping the whole >episode. > >Somalia is nearly 100 percent Muslim, but most Somalis are moderate >Muslims. Many analysts expect that the militant Islamic wave will soon >crest because Somalis will inevitably chafe under strict Islamist law, >especially when the Islamists try to take away their beloved khat, the >ubiquitous, mildly stimulating leaf that Somalis chew like bubble gum. > >Then, many analysts say, the Islamist groups could slug it out among >themselves, with Ethiopia and other neighboring countries backing >rival factions, and with clan warlords jumping in. Osman Mohamed Abdi, >vice chairman of the Somali Youth Development Network, a nonprofit >group in Mogadishu, called this possibility the "worst man-made >catastrophe." > >Two possibilities could avert this bloodbath, but both are long shots. > >Ethiopia could delay its pullout until a larger peacekeeping force >arrived. But with both Darfur and now Congo needing peacekeepers, >there are few volunteers for lawless Somalia. > >Or the transitional government could share power with the Islamists. >There is a piece of paper called the Djibouti Agreement, recently >signed in neighboring Djibouti, that paves the way for moderate >Islamists to join the transitional government. > >But the problem with the Djibouti Agreement, Mr. Rashid of the >International Crisis Group said, is that "the interlocutors have no >power on the ground." > >A collapse of the government and the human disaster that would almost >surely follow would be strike three for American efforts in Somalia. > >The United States failed disastrously in its peacekeeping mission in >the early 1990s. (Remember "Black Hawk Down"?) In 2005 and 2006, the >C.I.A. paid some of Somalia's most reviled warlords to fight the >Islamists. That backfired. In the winter of 2006, the United States >took a third approach, encouraging Ethiopia to invade and backing them >with American airstrikes and intelligence. > >"The Bush administration made a major miscalculation," said Dan >Connell, who teaches African politics at Simmons College in Boston. > >He compared the situation to America's involvement in Lebanon in the >1980s, "when a regional ally, Israel, pulled us into a failed state in >a quixotic effort to transform a hostile neighbor into a pliant ally." > >That only radicalized the population, he said, adding that in Somalia, >"Again, we will be in its sights." -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 9120 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081207/e6967bca/attachment.txt From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Mon Dec 8 13:12:43 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 12:12:43 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Pentagon to US Citizens - If You Want A Military-Police State We Expect Reimbursement Message-ID: <493D7FBB.5040903@gmail.com> The mass FORCIBLE relocation of US populations is regularly practiced in AmeriKKKan ghettos, and most recently along the Mississippi coast... "Hurricane Alley". Also see: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/fema_executive_orders.htm http://www.trispiral.com/pdfs/FEMA%20Executive%20Orders.pdf http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDYllakM0hk "General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis." FEMA's powers were consolidated by President Carter to incorporate: The National Security Act of 1947, which allows for the strategic relocation of industries, services, government and other essential economic activities, and to rationalize the requirements for manpower, resources and production facilities; The 1950 Defense Production Act, which gives the President sweeping powers over all aspects of the economy; The Act of August 29, 1916, which authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in time of war, to take possession of any transportation system for transporting troops, material, or any other purpose related to the emergency; and The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which enables the President to seize the property of a foreign country or national. These powers were transferred to FEMA in a sweeping consolidation in 1979." GSN Homeland (In)Security Insider - "Defense Secretary Robert Gates has issued a set of proposed rules that tightens the Pentagon's control over the use of its military personnel for civilian purposes -- such as domestic emergencies, law enforcement support and special events - and attempts to ensure that the Pentagon is eventually reimbursed for its civilian-related expenditures. The new rules, known as Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DCSA), became necessary because legislative changes over the years "have made the existing guidance outdated and inconsistent with current law and the current organizational structure of the Department of Defense," according to a Federal Register notice issued by the Office of the Secretary of Defense on Dec. 4. Under the new rules, the Defense Department will exercise a stronger hand in determining when and where military personnel will be deployed to undertake essentially civilian tasks, when such deployments should be terminated and how such activities will be reimbursed. The rules say that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America ?s Security Affairs will serve as the ?Defense Domestic Crisis Manager? responsible for advising the defense secretary on the use of DoD personnel and resources to prevent or respond to a potential or actual domestic crisis. The person in this position will ?serve as approval authority for requests for assistance from civil authorities sent to the Secretary of Defense,? said the notice, and will coordinate such matters with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If the assistant secretary is absent, that authority can be delegated to his or her deputy, but no further. The proposed rules state that all requests from civilian authorities for military support should be written and should include a commitment to reimburse DoD. ?All requests for assistance from civil authorities shall be evaluated for legality, lethality, risk, cost (including the source of funding and the effect on the DoD budget), appropriateness, and effect on readiness,? says the notice. As important as determining if and when such military support should commence is deciding when such support should end. The DoD is obviously hesitant to be drawn into a domestic crisis situation, but then find it difficult to wrap up its support activities. ?Commanders, (including National Guard Commanders), heads of DoD Components and/or responsible DoD civilian officials may provide Immediate Response to a request for assistance from a civilian authority, under imminently serious conditions,? the proposed rules specify. But DoD and National Guard officials must immediately notify the National Military Command Center of these activities, through their appropriate chains of command. This ?Immediate Response Authority? should end as promptly as possible, but in all cases the DoD and National Guard officials who authorized the military support should ?reassess? the situation ?not later than 72 hours after resources have been deployed,? the rules say. In a further tightening of the Pentagon?s control, the rules state that only the secretary of defense or a designated representative can approve requests for defense assistance during ?civil disturbances; defense response to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and/or high yield explosive events,? and ?potentially lethal support of civilian law enforcement agencies.? Also, only the defense secretary or a designated representative can authorize DoD components to procure supplies, equipment and materiel exclusively for providing defense support to civilian authorities. Comments on the proposed rules are invited until February 2, 2009 , by visiting www.regulations.gov and citing docket number DoD-2008-OS-0085. Further information is available from Richard Chavez at 703-697-5415 . http://www.gsnmagazine.com/cms/features/news-analysis/1187.html From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Dec 8 14:43:17 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:43:17 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Bridge loan to Detroit 3 cheaper Message-ID: <493D4EA6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Bridge loan to Detroit 3 cheaper for taxpayers than bankruptcy, study says By _Ryan Beene_ (mailto:rbeene at crain.com) This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Mon Dec 8 14:59:41 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:59:41 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Bridge loan to Detroit 3 cheaper In-Reply-To: <493D4EA6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <493D4EA6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <493D98CD.6080007@gmail.com> Charles... tell us... do you give a fuck about anyone else in the world's economic/physical health and well-being besides your UAW union 'friends'? If so, how do you reconcile that with your otherwise planet-raping belief that it is somehow of utmost importance to bail out an obsolete DIRTY industry that has done untold trillions of dollars worth of damage to the planet and it's inhabitants and employs no more than a handful of US workers all told (including the ancillary codependent industries of the region)? A response IS expected Leigh Charles Brown wrote: > Bridge loan to Detroit 3 cheaper for taxpayers than bankruptcy, study says > > By _Ryan Beene_ (mailto:rbeene at crain.com) > > > > > > > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com > > > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Mon Dec 8 15:26:06 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:26:06 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Poisoning Africa (because it's 'cheap') Message-ID: <493D9EFE.8000006@gmail.com> As Charles said: "Cheap". "Bridge loan to Detroit 3 cheaper for taxpayers" "Disposing toxic waste in Africa can be extremely inexpensive. In a paper written for American University in Washington, DC, Irene Bomani argues that disposing hazardous waste in developed countries can cost more than US$3000 per tonne, whereas in Africa it can be disposed for less than US$5 per tonne. Moreover, it is an easy way for deceitful businessmen to earn hard currency with relatively little effort. In some African countries, the import of hazardous waste in the 1990s was even higher than their GDP." Still waiting for an answer Charles... Do you give a flying fuck? If so, how can you rationalize support for an industry and workers with MAJOR culpability for the extractive resource rape (and concomitant toxification) of the African continent? Leigh 8 Dec 2008 Poisoning Africa Developed countries produce more toxic waste than they are willing to handle and the price of unsustainable development is being paid by the poorest populations on the globe, Edoardo Totolo writes for ISN Security Watch. By Edoardo Totolo for ISN Security Watch Despite international community efforts to prohibit the transboundary movement of hazardous waste, developed countries have relentlessly dumped toxic materials in sub/Saharan Africa for the past three decades. The threat of the toxic waste market became apparent in the 1980s when containers full of poisonous industrial waste provoked environmental disasters and killed thousands of people in East and West Africa. This illegal dumping represented an enormous source of profits for criminal organizations, corrupt politicians and unscrupulous businessmen, both in African and developed countries. However, in recent years, the remuneration for firms in industrialized countries has increased even further, as they have been able to sell toxic waste to African countries under the label of "second-hand goods." Obsolete computers, mobile phones and electronic appliances containing toxic substances have been sold by industries claiming to promote the "digitalization" of Africa. The large majority of these devices, however, are no longer usable when they reach the continent and end up in open-air dumping sites, where waste-pickers burn them to extract metals such as copper or aluminium, and get poisoned by a cocktail of chemicals and toxic metals. High quantities of toxic waste are also dispersed in the environment, contaminating the soil and the food chain. Besides being an infringement of the law, the market of hazardous waste must be considered a severe violation of human rights and a shameful exploitation of poverty and despair. The transboundary movement of hazardous waste contravenes two major treaties: the Basel Convention, an international treaty entered into force in 1992, and the Bamako Convention, a regional treaty signed by the Organization of Africa Unity in 1996. However, as the market for toxic waste has continued for over 30 years, the efficacy of the current legal framework needs to be put into question. The African competitive advantage Disposing toxic waste in Africa can be extremely inexpensive. In a paper written for American University in Washington, DC, Irene Bomani argues that disposing hazardous waste in developed countries can cost more than US$3000 per tonne, whereas in Africa it can be disposed for less than US$5 per tonne. Moreover, it is an easy way for deceitful businessmen to earn hard currency with relatively little effort. In some African countries, the import of hazardous waste in the 1990s was even higher than their GDP. Hazardous dumpsites have been found throughout sub-Saharan Africa, especially in countries characterized by conflict, widespread corruption and bad governance. However, it is not possible to determine accurately the magnitude of the problem because illegal exports are discovered only in case of accidents or when authorities conduct independent investigations. Among the many incidents that emerged in the past years, disconcerting examples are those of Somalia and Ivory Coast. After the Somali state collapsed in 1991, unknown European firms made agreements with local warlords for the disposal of toxic waste along the coast. The case emerged when the Swiss company Achair and the Italian firm Progresso were caught signing a contract with a corrupted Somali minister for the exportation of 500,000 tonnes of toxic waste a year. The deal never took place. However, the UN and Italian media made field investigations in the 1990s and found over 15 dumping sites that killed hundreds of people and provoked malformation and cancer in the local population, especially children. The damage increased even further when a tsunami devastated the Somali coast in 2004 and barrels of highly toxic waste were dispersed in the environment. In 2005, a former mafia boss confessed that a shipment was commissioned by an Italian minister who asked to dispose waste generated in public hospitals. The minister rejected the accusations. In 2006, in Ivory Coast, the Dutch oil-trader company Trafigura was accused of provoking one of the biggest environmental disasters in the history of the country. Over 500 tonnes of toxic waste was dumped in 18 different sites around the capital Abidjan, killing at least 16 people and causing diseases to hundred of thousands. The cargo ship was supposed to dispose the waste in Amsterdam, but changed plans because the costs were too high. Two people involved in the disposal were sentenced to prison terms by an Ivorian court. Trafigura has never accepted the charges, maintaining that the material in question was illegally dumped by a licensed Ivorian disposal agency Compagnie Tommy, and not by Trafigura. (The company also maintained that the dumping of the material from the Probo Koala could not have resulted in deaths or illness, and that the material in question was not ?toxic waste? but so-called "slops" ? the liquid residue of cleansing storage tanks, commonly transported by those involved in the petroleum business. Trafigura was never indicted, and in March this year, the Ivorian Court of Appeal dropped all criminal charges due to lack of evidence. However, in February 2007 Trafigura agreed to pay US$198 million to the Ivory Coast government for those who allegedly suffered as a result of the dumping, though the company insists this was not an admission of liability. From industrial waste to e-waste While in the 1980s and 1990s a grand part of the toxic trade involved industrial and chemical wastes, in the past few years the main threat for African countries has become obsolete electronic and electric equipment, also known as "e-waste." The amount of e-waste produced globally every year is alarming. The UN estimated that industrialized countries produce 20 to 50 million tonnes, but less than 25 percent is recycled. Obsolete electronic equipment is also the fastest increasing type of hazardous waste. In 2006, every European citizen produced on average 20 kilograms of e-waste. A recent report published by Greenpeace shows that a major dumping site for the global e-waste is Ghana. "Tons of e-waste is sold in Ghana by recycler companies that do not differentiate between broken and functioning devices," Kim Schoppink, toxics campaigner for Greenpeace, told ISN Security Watch. "Exporting old electronic equipment to developing countries is often hailed as 'bridging the digital divide.' But in reality it means dumping toxic waste on the poor." The report states that containers full of old electronic equipment often leave from Antwerp, in Belgium, and from the US, and reach the enormous scrap markets around the capital Accra. At the dumpsites, informal workers, often children, disassemble the equipment and burn it to extract metals that they can re-sell. Copper is sold locally for US$0.22 per half kilo and aluminium for only US$0.01 per kilo. Plastic components cannot be recycled in Ghana, and are often sold to Asian businessmen, who sell them to companies in their own countries. The scam with these illegal exports is that the electronic equipment shipped to Ghana is categorized as a commodity and not as waste; therefore it manages to circumvent the legal regulations imposed by the Basel Convention and the EU law. In the US, the exports of toxic e-waste do not even represent an infringement of the law. International regulations: a failure? The most important global treaty regulating the transboundary movement of hazardous waste is the Basel Convention. It entered into force in 1992 and nowadays it counts 170 parties, even though the US and few other states have not yet ratified it. The three main goals of the Basel Convention are to minimize the generation of hazardous waste, to dispose hazardous waste as close as possible to the source of generation, and to minimize its international movements. In 1994, the parties also agreed on a complete ban on transports from OECD to non-OECD countries (i.e. Basel Ban Amendment). However, the ban has been ratified by the EU, but not by the US, which is the world leading producer of e-waste. The ban will fully enter into force when three quarters of the parties will ratify it. Unsatisfied by the failure of the Basel Convention to implement a complete ban, the Organization of African Unity decided to work on a new treaty addressing specifically the needs of the region. The Bamako Convention, entered into force in 1996 and now ratified by 20 African countries, imposes stricter regulations compared to the Basel Convention, as it bans the imports of hazardous waste also from non-signatory countries, it extends the ban on artificially created radioactive wastes (which are not regulated in the Basel Convention), and it requires contracting parties to establish national institutions fully devoted to the implementation of law. More stringent regulations, however, have not produced the expected results. According to Schoppink, the Basel Convention cannot be considered a failure because it managed to provide a global legal framework on the disposal of hazardous waste. However, the e-waste problem can only be tackled by giving more responsibility to the producers. "Increasing inspection on exports and banning toxic chemicals from electronic equipment can reduce the impact of illegal exports," said Schoppink. "But these are short term solutions. "Greenpeace advocates for the Individual Producer Responsibility (IPR). This means that producers must become responsible for the collection and the recycling of their own-branded products. If producers have to pay for the recycling of their own products, the incentive to produce products that are less toxics, have a longer life-span, and are easier to recycle will increase, because this will reduce their recycling costs." At the present day, producers of electronic goods are only partly responsible for the products they generate. Out of the estimated 20 kilos of e-waste produced by EU citizens every year, companies are responsible for only 4 kilos. We lose track of the rest of the waste. Some of it may remain in the basement of our houses, some might end up in European dumping sites, but the large majority becomes a severe threat for health and environmental security of the world's poorest communities, especially those living in sub-Saharan Africa. Edoardo Totolo is a freelance writer and academic researcher based in Amsterdam. His fields of expertise are private sector development and the impact of informal economies on human security in Sub-Saharan Africa. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Mon Dec 8 17:10:51 2008 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 09:10:51 +0900 Subject: [A-List] How Iraq War Sucked Billions Out Of Rhode Island Economy Message-ID: <493DB78B.2090406@ashisuto.co.jp> by Sherwood Ross Countercurrents.org (November 14 2008) Apart from the tragic human cost, Americans are wising up to the fact it's not just Iraq that's suffering economically from this war. Sixty-seven percent of respondents to a New York Times/CBS News poll April 2 said the Iraq war had contributed "a lot" to our economic problems and 22 percent more said it contributed "some", while only ten percent said "not much" or "not at all". President Bush's war is, in fact, driving up the price of oil and the cost of oil-dependent activities as trucking and agriculture, hitting Americans at the checkout counter as well as the gas pump, sucking jobs out of the economy, depressing wages and emptying family bank accounts. Rhode Island taxpayers, for example, will be parted from $622 million this year to finance the war, according to the National Priorities Project of Northampton, Massachusetts, which tracks the impact of federal spending on states and localities. The total bill just to Rhode Island since Bush invaded Iraq is $2.1 billion. Spent in Rhode Island, that same money instead might have bought health care for 713,083 people for a year or paid for a year's worth of scholarships for 270,844 students or hired 30,286 elementary school teachers or provided 3.5 million homes with a year's worth of renewable electricity, the Priorities Project said. As for the full $572 billion Bush spent on the military last year - that's 44 cents out of every tax dollar - it breaks down to $1,800 for every resident of America, writes economist Robert Pollin of the University of Massachusetts in the March 31 issue of The Nation. President-elect Obama is familiar with these costs. He earlier put the cost of the war to each American household at about $1,200 a year. Whichever figure you use, we're talking big bucks. Economist Pollin asserts that money spent at home on education, health care, energy conservation and infrastructure "creates between fifty and 100 percent more jobs than the same money going to Iraq". So the $138 billion funneled just into Iraq last year cost American workers one million jobs, he says. And, for comparison purposes, that $138 billion could have instead provided Medicaid-level health insurance for all 45 million uninsured Americans, Pollin said, as well as built 400 schools and hired 30,000 more K-12 teachers. What's more, "channeling hundreds of billions of dollars into areas such as renewable energy and mass transportation would create a hothouse environment supporting new technologies", he asserted. As for the lost one million jobs, there's more tragedy here than meets the eye. Putting a million people to work would have reduced unemployment to close to four percent. When it gets down that low, Pollin says, good help becomes harder to find so employers raise wages and improve working conditions, meaning American workers would be better off generally. In recent years, US workers made heady productivity gains for employers, yet few of the fruits fell into their pay envelopes. America, especially after World War One, had a fierce "isolationist" streak. There were millions of rock-ribbed Republicans, particularly in the Midwest, who didn't want any part of Europe's wars. Now President Bush can easily induce interventionist congressional Republicans and Democrats alike to spend for an endless war that is benefiting defense contractors and oil producers and few others. Imagine if the benefits to Rhode Island of the $2 billion taken from this state (under false pretenses, I might point out) and squandered in Iraq were put back into the hands of the people of Rhode Island and devoted instead to modernizing factories and implementing new technologies, to lifting the skill levels of the work force to make it more entrepreneurial and competitive! Imagine the benefits to America! _____ Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based columnist and public relations consultant who covers military and political topics. He worked formerly for the Chicago Daily News and wire services. Reach him at sherwoodr1 at yahoo.com This essay first appeared in The Providence Journal. http://www.countercurrents.org/ross141108.htm http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Mon Dec 8 18:08:58 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:08:58 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Unplug Yourself Message-ID: <493DC52A.3060608@gmail.com> NewScientist: How to unplug from the grid * 03 December 2008 by Gaia Vince * Magazine issue 2685 "I HAVEN'T paid an electricity bill since 1970," says Richard Perez with noticeable glee. He can afford to be smug. While most of us fretted over soaring utility bills this year, he barely noticed. Nor is he particularly concerned about forecast price hikes of 30 to 50 per cent in 2009. Perez, a renewable-energy researcher at the University at Albany, State University of New York, lives "off-grid" - unconnected to the power grid and the water, gas and sewerage supplies that most of us rely on. He generates his own electricity, sources his own water and manages his own waste disposal - and prefers it that way. "There are times when the grid blacks out," he says. "I like the security of having my own electricity company." Perez is not alone. Once the preserve of mavericks, hippies and survivalists, there are now approximately 200,000 off-grid households in the US, a figure that Perez says has been increasing by a third every year for the past decade. In addition, nearly 30,000 grid-connected US households supplement their supply with renewables, according to the non-profit Interstate Renewable Energy Council. In the UK there are around 40,000 off-grid homes: the number has also risen in recent years due to escalating house prices and now to more expensive home loans, both of which have driven buyers far from conventional utility networks in search of properties they can afford... In full: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026851.600-how-to-unplug-from-the-grid.html?full=true From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Tue Dec 9 04:01:53 2008 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:01:53 +0900 Subject: [A-List] People Get Ready Message-ID: <493E5021.90601@ashisuto.co.jp> Clusterfuck Nation by Jim Kunstler Comment on current events by the author of The Long Emergency (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2005) www.kunstler.com (December 08 2008) In the twilight of the Bush days, in the twilight of the twilight season, a consensus has formed that we are headed into a long, dark passage leading we know not where. Even CNBC's Lawrence Kudlow has been reduced to searching for stray "mustard seeds" of hope on hands and knees in a bleak and tortured financial landscape. Half the enterprises in the land are lined up for some kind of relief bailout and a blizzard of pink slips has cut economic visibility to zero. The broad American public voted for "change" but they thought that meant a "changing of the guard". Out with the feckless Bush; in with the charismatic Obama ... and may this American life now continue just as it ever was. The change actually coming will be much more than they bargained for, namely our transition from a wealthy society to a hardship society. The sharp break is a product of our years-long failure to reckon with the energy realities of our time. We're still confused about that, but it's hard, otherwise, to ignore the massive disappearance of capital, asset values, livelihoods, domiciles, comforts, and necessities. The price of oil is suddenly down to an astounding $40-odd per barrel. Those of us studying the Peak Oil story have said that the "bumpy plateau" years of peak production would be expressed in tremendous price volatility, and for exactly the reasons now evident - that the high-price phase would mangle advanced economies, that they would fall back in paralysis, then respond anew to oil price collapses by straggling up again, only to be crushed again when a resumption in demand for oil drove the price back up. What was not so generally anticipated was the wholesale destruction of global finance in the first phase of this period. This has now occurred so comprehensively that we know the banking business will never be the same again. It has also accelerated other plot-lines in the story. One affects the global oil industry itself: a lack of capital to go forward with the new oil projects that were designed to mitigate the present depletions in old oil fields. The result of this quandary is as likely to be oil shortages in 2009 as much as an extremely sharp snap-back in oil prices. The oil markets themselves are changing in the face of financial disruption. Between pirates lurking off the Horn of Africa, and a shortage in letters-of-credit that enable the shipping of anything for delivery between nations, the allocation system is impaired. This affects poorer nations the most, and when they don't get their oil shipments, conditions in these nations get worse. People lose incomes. Ethnic strife ramps up. All this will make it harder to move oil from the places where it is produced to the importing countries. So much artificially-generated pixel "money" is being pumped into the system now that it will eventually overtake the quantity of capital currently vanishing in the form of exposed securities swindles, unwinding bad debt, and imploded worthless counter-party contracts. The pixel money will express itself as super or hyper inflation, lagging from six to eighteen months from the time it was actually introduced in the form of bailouts. For the moment, money is moving into the presumed safety of US Treasury paper. Personally, the safety of this is not something I would presume. But in the current deflationary stage its hard to find any other place to park cash, and when asset values are crashing everywhere, cash is king. Gold is physically unavailable in the form that non-millionaires usually buy it in, ounce and half-ounce coins. President-elect Obama has announced his intention to kick off a massive "stimulation" program when he hits the White House "running" in January. Early indications are that it will be directed at things like highway repair. If so, we will be investing long-term in infrastructure that we probably won't be using the same way in ten years. But I doubt there is any way around it. The American public can't conceive of living any other way except in a car-centered society. Anyway, some parts of our highway-bridge-and-tunnel system are already so decrepit that they pose a menace right now, and the clamor to direct "stimulation" there is already very strong - backed by all the fraternities of engineers. Stimulus aimed at perpetuating mass motoring will be a tragic waste of our dwindling resources. We'd be better off aiming it at fixing the railroads (especially electrifying them), refitting our harbors with piers and warehouses in preparation to move more stuff by boats, and in repairing the electric grid. Unfortunately, our tendency will be to try to rescue the totemic touchstones of everyday life, things familiar and comfortable, regardless of whether they have a future or not. The ominous forces gathering out there will defeat these efforts and everyday life will reorganize itself some other way consistent with the single greatest trend: the force of contraction. Every sign we see is pointing in that direction, from the inability of the earth's ecology to support more human beings, to the dwindling of mineral and energy resources, to the destruction of farmland, to mischief in the climate. We just don't know how badly things will fall apart in the meantime, or how kind (or cruelly) people will act in the process. Mr Obama would be most successful if he could persuade the public how much more severe the required changes are than they currently realize, and inspire them to get with program of retrofitting American life to comply with these realities. _____ My new novel of the post-oil future, World Made By Hand, is available at all booksellers. http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2008/12/people-get-ready.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Tue Dec 9 04:01:53 2008 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:01:53 +0900 Subject: [A-List] People Get Ready Message-ID: <493E5021.90601@ashisuto.co.jp> Clusterfuck Nation by Jim Kunstler Comment on current events by the author of The Long Emergency (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2005) www.kunstler.com (December 08 2008) In the twilight of the Bush days, in the twilight of the twilight season, a consensus has formed that we are headed into a long, dark passage leading we know not where. Even CNBC's Lawrence Kudlow has been reduced to searching for stray "mustard seeds" of hope on hands and knees in a bleak and tortured financial landscape. Half the enterprises in the land are lined up for some kind of relief bailout and a blizzard of pink slips has cut economic visibility to zero. The broad American public voted for "change" but they thought that meant a "changing of the guard". Out with the feckless Bush; in with the charismatic Obama ... and may this American life now continue just as it ever was. The change actually coming will be much more than they bargained for, namely our transition from a wealthy society to a hardship society. The sharp break is a product of our years-long failure to reckon with the energy realities of our time. We're still confused about that, but it's hard, otherwise, to ignore the massive disappearance of capital, asset values, livelihoods, domiciles, comforts, and necessities. The price of oil is suddenly down to an astounding $40-odd per barrel. Those of us studying the Peak Oil story have said that the "bumpy plateau" years of peak production would be expressed in tremendous price volatility, and for exactly the reasons now evident - that the high-price phase would mangle advanced economies, that they would fall back in paralysis, then respond anew to oil price collapses by straggling up again, only to be crushed again when a resumption in demand for oil drove the price back up. What was not so generally anticipated was the wholesale destruction of global finance in the first phase of this period. This has now occurred so comprehensively that we know the banking business will never be the same again. It has also accelerated other plot-lines in the story. One affects the global oil industry itself: a lack of capital to go forward with the new oil projects that were designed to mitigate the present depletions in old oil fields. The result of this quandary is as likely to be oil shortages in 2009 as much as an extremely sharp snap-back in oil prices. The oil markets themselves are changing in the face of financial disruption. Between pirates lurking off the Horn of Africa, and a shortage in letters-of-credit that enable the shipping of anything for delivery between nations, the allocation system is impaired. This affects poorer nations the most, and when they don't get their oil shipments, conditions in these nations get worse. People lose incomes. Ethnic strife ramps up. All this will make it harder to move oil from the places where it is produced to the importing countries. So much artificially-generated pixel "money" is being pumped into the system now that it will eventually overtake the quantity of capital currently vanishing in the form of exposed securities swindles, unwinding bad debt, and imploded worthless counter-party contracts. The pixel money will express itself as super or hyper inflation, lagging from six to eighteen months from the time it was actually introduced in the form of bailouts. For the moment, money is moving into the presumed safety of US Treasury paper. Personally, the safety of this is not something I would presume. But in the current deflationary stage its hard to find any other place to park cash, and when asset values are crashing everywhere, cash is king. Gold is physically unavailable in the form that non-millionaires usually buy it in, ounce and half-ounce coins. President-elect Obama has announced his intention to kick off a massive "stimulation" program when he hits the White House "running" in January. Early indications are that it will be directed at things like highway repair. If so, we will be investing long-term in infrastructure that we probably won't be using the same way in ten years. But I doubt there is any way around it. The American public can't conceive of living any other way except in a car-centered society. Anyway, some parts of our highway-bridge-and-tunnel system are already so decrepit that they pose a menace right now, and the clamor to direct "stimulation" there is already very strong - backed by all the fraternities of engineers. Stimulus aimed at perpetuating mass motoring will be a tragic waste of our dwindling resources. We'd be better off aiming it at fixing the railroads (especially electrifying them), refitting our harbors with piers and warehouses in preparation to move more stuff by boats, and in repairing the electric grid. Unfortunately, our tendency will be to try to rescue the totemic touchstones of everyday life, things familiar and comfortable, regardless of whether they have a future or not. The ominous forces gathering out there will defeat these efforts and everyday life will reorganize itself some other way consistent with the single greatest trend: the force of contraction. Every sign we see is pointing in that direction, from the inability of the earth's ecology to support more human beings, to the dwindling of mineral and energy resources, to the destruction of farmland, to mischief in the climate. We just don't know how badly things will fall apart in the meantime, or how kind (or cruelly) people will act in the process. Mr Obama would be most successful if he could persuade the public how much more severe the required changes are than they currently realize, and inspire them to get with program of retrofitting American life to comply with these realities. _____ My new novel of the post-oil future, World Made By Hand, is available at all booksellers. http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2008/12/people-get-ready.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Dec 9 07:35:46 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 09:35:46 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Bridge loan to Detroit 3 cheaper Message-ID: <493E3BF6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> A response IS expected Leigh ^^^ Do you still beat your dog ? This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Tue Dec 9 07:53:53 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:53:53 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Bridge loan to Detroit 3 cheaper In-Reply-To: <493E3BF6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <493E3BF6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <493E8681.40605@gmail.com> No, but I'd like to leash your dog-ma. Charles Brown wrote: > > A response IS expected > > > Leigh > > ^^^ > Do you still beat your dog ? > > > > > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com > > > From Waistline2 at aol.com Tue Dec 9 08:38:29 2008 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 10:38:29 EST Subject: [A-List] Bridge loan to Detroit 3 cheaper Message-ID: : In a message dated 12/8/2008 5:00:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com writes: >> Charles... tell us... do you give a fuck about anyone else in the world's economic/physical health and well-being besides your UAW union 'friends'? If so, how do you reconcile that with your otherwise planet-raping belief that it is somehow of utmost importance to bail out an obsolete DIRTY industry that has done untold trillions of dollars worth of damage to the planet and it's inhabitants and employs no more than a handful of US workers all told (including the ancillary codependent industries of the region)? A response IS expected << Comment Until this year the annual rate of new vehicle purchases has been roughly 17 million for the past seven years. New vehicle purchase in the US is running at roughly a rte of 10 million units rather than 17 million. This contraction of the market means lay-offs and the shutting down of capacity. The world wide market is projected at between 50 - 65 million for the next decade or so. The passage of the automobile from a toy of the rich and wealthy into an affordable mode of transportation for the working class changed American society. Without question automotive production and Ford ism has given American capitalism much of its distinguishing characteristic for the past century. The issue facing most auto workers is economic survival and resisting falling wage rates. Whether or not one or all three of the American auto producers are bailed out or ultimately survive well into the next decade, will in fact have nothing whatsoever to do with the volume of automotive production world wide and in America. In fact the American producers dominate a little less than 50% of the America market with Toyota, Nissan and Honda commanding the loin share of the other 50%. Whether or not one supports a bailout - bridge loan, for the American producers is purely a tactical and individual inclination . . . . in my opinion. Roughly 60% of the American people oppose bailing out the American auto companies due to a 50 year anti-union orientation and other ideological hate. Ones attitude toward automotive production and its impact on the environment is of course a different question all together. Me, I support a government bailout - bridge loan, of the industry and beefing up pensions along with taking health care out of the private sector. On the other hand I support recasting the trade union movement and this most certainly includes the UAW. Recasting the union movement is of course a totally different question from the environmental impact of the automotive industry. The auto industry is in fact dirty as was steel and rubber in its hay day. In my opinion the new car market could be immediately halved and then halved again in 24 months and then halved again while society concentrates on a different form of mass transit. I do not advocate doing away with the automobile, individual transportation and feel that 2 million new vehicles a year could more than adequately service our needs for private modes of transportation. On the issue of power train and engine source I favor fuel cell technology and various hybrids in the real world. I do believe the automotive industry is wrongly configured as a result of the bourgeois mode of producing. I lean against the idea that today the automotive industry is obsolete, whatever obsolete means in this context. Waistline **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010) From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Tue Dec 9 04:19:20 2008 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:19:20 +1100 Subject: [A-List] What's new at Links: Castro on Obama; Evo Morales on climate; Malaysian socialists; Thailand; Nepal; Zimbabwe; Indonesia; economy Message-ID: <493E5438.3030205@greenleft.org.au> Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 Visit and bookmark http://links.org.au and add it to your RSS feed (http://links.org.au/rss.xml). If you would like us to consider an article, please send it to links at dsp.org.au Please pass on to anybody you think will be interested in Links. * * * Fidel Castro on `Team Obama' By Fidel Castro Ruz December 4, 2008 -- Following Barack Obama's speech, on May 23, 2008, to the Cuban American National Foundation established by Ronald Reagan, I wrote a reflection entitled ``The empire's hypocritical policy''. In that reflection I quoted his exact words to the Miami annexationists. I then offered several arguments and unethical examples of the general behaviour of the presidents who preceded the one who would be elected to that position in the November 4 elections. * Read more Evo Morales on addressing climate change: `Save the planet from capitalism' By Evo Morales Ayma, President of Bolivia November 28, 2008 -- Sisters and brothers, today our Mother Earth is ill. From the beginning of the 21st century we have lived the hottest years of the last thousand years. Global warming is generating abrupt changes in the weather: the retreat of glaciers and the decrease of the polar ice caps; the increase of the sea level and the flooding of coastal areas, where approximately 60% of the world population live; the increase in the processes of desertification and the decrease of fresh water sources; a higher frequency in natural disasters that the communities of the earth suffer[1]; the extinction of animal and plant species; and the spread of diseases in areas that before were free from those diseases. Everything began with the industrial revolution in 1750, which gave birth to the capitalist system. In two and a half centuries, the so called "developed" countries have consumed a large part of the fossil fuels created over five million centuries. * Read more Malaysia: Bicycle protesters for workers' rights defy police intimidation By Oppressed People's Movement (Jaring Rakyat Tertindas, Jerit) December 6, 2008 -- The Oppressed People's Movement (Jaring Rakyat Tertindas, Jerit) is conducting a cycling campaign throughout Malaysia to highlight demands for workers' right, which will be presented to the prime minister of Malaysia. The campaign officially began on December 3 at Wisma Darul Aman Kedah, where 50 cyclists were flagged off. They will cycle for 16 days through Kedah, Penang, Perak and Selangor. On December 18, they will hand a memorandum to the prime minister, at the national parliament in Kuala Lumpur. * Read more Team Obama: Channelling Clinton, extending Bush By Patrick Bond December 4, 2008 -- Barack Obama was elected on a platform of change. Yet, his actions are pointing to more and more of the same. The question of whether Obama can possibly replace Bush as a danger to world peace is worth considering. * Read more Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist): The differences of opinion within our party By Netra Bikram Chand 'Biplap' We should say honestly that there is a difference of opinion on how to accomplish the Nepalese Revolution. Mainly, the difference of opinion is about the party line, political program and tactics in our party. This clearly justifies that a serious u-turn has occurred before the Nepalese Revolution. The responsibility of carrying the revolution ahead successfully has fallen upon the shoulders of the revolutionary communists of Nepal and the revolutionary communists of the world. We all should direct our attention to it. * Read more Zimbabwe: First signs of united front mass action against elite settlement By the National Co-Ordinating Committee, International Socialist Organisation Zimbabwe December 2, 2008 -- The situation in Zimbabwe has reached unprecedented levels of crisis. As we have been saying for the last few years, such a crisis was climaxing and with a number of possibilities arising. First and most likely was the likelihood of the bourgeois elite politicians in [President Robert Mugabe's] Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) uniting together in an elitist government of national unity in which ZANU-PF would be the senior partner around a Western- and capitalist-supported neoliberal economic agenda. The MDC's popularity would be used to pacify the urban working people from rising up. * Read more Indonesia: Activists debate electoral tactic By Kelik Ismunanto November 29, 2008 -- After such a long period of time in a vacuum, uncertain of how to respond to changes caused by neoliberal economic policies, little by little, democracy movement activists have been able to wrest back the political podium. In the last few months, several national television stations provided a political stage for activists such as Dita Sari, Budiman Sujatmiko, Pius Lustrilanang and other young activists who are contesting the 2009 elections, to explain their reasons for choosing the parliamentary tactic. Among young activists, there are opinions in favour and against this tactic. * Read more Malaysia: Detention without trial -- Abolish the Internal Security Act 1960! By Enalini Elumalai, general coordinator Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) November 27, 2008 -- While Malaysia celebrated its 51st anniversary of Merdeka (independence) from Britain in 2008, the Malaysian government continued to arrest and detain individuals without charging them or putting them on trial under the Internal Security Act 1960 * Read more Thailand: A second `coup for the rich' By Giles Ji Ungpakorn, Bangkok December 2, 2008 -- Today the constitutional court dissolved the democratically elected governing party, the People Power Party, in Thailand for the second time, forcing the government to resign. This follows the refusal of the armed forces and the police to follow government instructions to clear the two international airports blocked by armed People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) fascists. * Read more Socialist Party of Malaysia: The left in coalition politics (+ interview with PSM MP) By Jeyakumar Devaraj November 8, 2008 -- Ever since the First International, building and working within coalitions with other groups has been one of the strategies used by the left to attempt to advance its political agenda. This practice has continued up until the present. However the strategy of working in coalitions with other groups has, fairly often, led to controversy, disagreements and even acrimonious splits, both of the coalitions as well as within the left parties involved themselves. Why does this happen? Is the strategy of coalition work worth the effort and trouble? What are the benefits of coalition building? What are measures a socialist party can take to avoid some of the negative consequences of coalition political work? * Read more The `third slump' and its consequences By Phil Hearse November 30, 2008 -- Ernest Mandel called the market crash and global recession of 1974-5 the ``second slump'' (1) - the first one being of course that of the 1930s, initiated by the stockmarket crash of 1929. We now know that the crash of 2008-9 is more severe, and will have more devastating consequences than that in the 1970s; whether it will be as bad as the 1930s slump we have yet to see. But it is now clear that this is a fundamental crisis of the neoliberal ``mode of regulation'' which now is under severe pressure and probably cannot survive in its present form. Theorists who in this period stress the relative stability and continuity of modern capitalism are, as we shall see, way off the mark. This article aims to give a brief explanation of why the crash has happened; to situate it in the history of development of capitalism; to discuss possible consequences, especially those for the working class in Britain and internationally; and to suggest political implications for the radical left. * Read more * * * Links seeks to promote the international exchange of information, experience of struggle, theoretical analysis and views of political strategy and tactics within the international left. It is a forum for open and constructive dialogue between active socialists coming from different political traditions. It seeks to bring together those in the international left who are opposed to neoliberal economic and social policies. It aims to promote the renewal of the socialist movement in the wake of the collapse of the bureaucratic model of "actually existing socialism" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. * ATTENTION: Sign up for regular ``what's new'' announcement emails at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 14589 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081209/4936f393/attachment.txt From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Dec 9 12:08:38 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 14:08:38 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Taking Evolution Seriously Message-ID: <493E7BEB.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Taking Evolution Seriously From: "Tony B." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- While appreciating the social message here, Greer is, at the same time, guilty of mis-representing - or misunderstanding - evolutionary 'progress'. Thus: "In nature, though, evolution has no levels, it just has adaptations. There is no straight line of progress along which living things can be ranked. Instead, evolutionary lineages splay outward like the branches of an unruly shrub. Sometimes those branches take unexpected turns, but these evolutionary breakthroughs can no more be ranked in an ascending hierarchy than organisms can. " Nonsense. ^^^ CB: I'm sure you are familiar with Stephen Jay Gould's thinking and writing on this. The extinction of the "dinosaurs" and coincident species was a reduction in "complexity", wasn't it. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Dec 9 12:19:56 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 14:19:56 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Taking Evolution Seriously Message-ID: <493E7E91.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Taking Evolution Seriously From: "Tony B." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- While appreciating the social message here, Greer is, at the same time, guilty of mis-representing - or misunderstanding - evolutionary 'progress'. Thus: "In nature, though, evolution has no levels, it just has adaptations. There is no straight line of progress along which living things can be ranked. Instead, evolutionary lineages splay outward like the branches of an unruly shrub. Sometimes those branches take unexpected turns, but these evolutionary breakthroughs can no more be ranked in an ascending hierarchy than organisms can. " Nonsense. Now, of course, one has to pre-establish a reasonable definition of 'progress', but if one chooses the scientific criterion of 'organizational complexity' then, clearly, evolution *does tend* towards 'progress'. It does so, *not invariably* (it is, afterall related to the niches that organisms inhabit, and these may, and often do seek organizational conservation), and *not linearly* (the evolutionary process is a meandering one), but it does do so *inevitably* in terms of the biosphere as a whole. Given the *contextual* pressures of evolutionary 'arms races', organisms, do and have (at least on this planet) evolved greater and greater organizational complexities..in fact, to an astounding degree. ^^^ CB: There is no inherent ,universal advantage in adaptation of greater complexity over less complexity. Adaptive advantage is always determined concretely, on a case by case basis, _relative_ to a specific environment. Also, it is differential fertility, not differential mortality ( "arms races" ) that is the dominant determinant of adaptive advantage. On your claim regarding "complexity" , think about micro-organisms, which are very "uncomplex" relative to other species. They existed long before plants and animals,and still exist. I'd say they win the "adaptation" race, and there hasn't been "progress" away from to better adapted species. There are five kingdoms of life in the current biological thinking, not just animals and plants. At any rate, in evolution , no ,in the long run there is not a tendency toward "bigger" as better, This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Dec 9 15:20:02 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:20:02 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Bridge loan to Detroit 3 cheaper Message-ID: <493EA8C7.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Bridge loan to Detroit 3 cheaper Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com Mon Dec 8 16:48:00 MST 2008 Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Bridge loan to Detroit 3 cheaper Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 12/8/2008 5:00:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, _the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com_ (mailto:the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com) writes: >> Charles... tell us... do you give a fuck about anyone else in the world's economic/physical health and well-being besides your UAW union 'friends'? If so, how do you reconcile that with your otherwise planet-raping belief that it is somehow of utmost importance to bail out an obsolete DIRTY industry that has done untold trillions of dollars worth of damage to the planet and it's inhabitants and employs no more than a handful of US workers all told (including the ancillary codependent industries of the region)? A response IS expected << Comment Until this year the annual rate of new vehicle purchases has been roughly 17 million for the past seven years. The world wide market is projected at between 50 - 65 million for the next decade or so. Without question automotive production and Ford ism has given American capitalism much of its distinguishing characteristic for the past century. The passage of the automobile from a toy of the rich and wealthy into an affordable mode of transportation for the working class changed American society. The issue facing most auto workers is economic survival and resisting falling wage rates. Whether or not one or all three of the American auto producers are bailed out or ultimately survive well into the next decade, will in fact have nothing whatsoever to do with the volume of automotive production world wide and in America. In fact the American producers dominate a little less than 50% of the America market with Toyota, Nissan and Honda commanding the loin share of the other 50%. Whether or not one supports a bailout - bridge loan, for the American producers is purely a tactical and individual inclination . . . . in my opinion. Roughly 60% of the American people oppose bailing out the American auto companies due to a 50 year anti-union orientation and other ideological hate. Ones attitude toward automotive production and its impact on the environment is of course a different question all together. Me, I support a government bailout of the industry and beefing up pensions along with taking health care out of the private sector. In my opinion the new car market could be immediately halved and then halved again in 24 months and then halved again while society concentrates on a different form of mass transit. I do not advocate doing away with the automobile, individual transportation and feel that 2 million new vehicles a year could more than adequately service our needs for private modes of transportation. On the issue of power train and engine source I favor fuel cell technology and various hybrids in the real world. I do believe the automotive industry is wrongly configured as a result of the bourgeois mode of producing. I lean against the idea that today the automotive industry is obsolete. Waistline This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Dec 9 15:30:41 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:30:41 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Workers win big Round in Chicago factory Sit-In Message-ID: <493EAB47.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Workers win big Round in Chicago factory Sit-In http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081209/ap_on_re_us/workers_takeover This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Tue Dec 9 17:23:54 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:23:54 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Workers win big Round in Chicago factory Sit-In In-Reply-To: <493EAB47.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <493EAB47.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <493F0C1A.8010603@gmail.com> This is a BIG round? ...a big RUN A round. B of A will give them a credit line to pay the 60 day plant closure act issue, but the manufacturing will undoubtedy move to Malaysia or somesuch godforsaken backwater e-waste dump where it will be sooooo much easier for Republic to pay off the loan with the sweat and occasional lost finger or eye or... of ... dast I say (dast! Dast!) Malaysia, or somesuch? ...I'm behind these folks 100% but the jobs are still going going GONE! Leigh PS... We need more food farmers. Even 'hippies' like Steve Gaskin knew that: With a grant from the State Department, Global Village Institute and La Caravana Arcoiris y Paz brought together 400 women community organizers in Ecuador to share training and expertise in consensus, conflict transformation, village technology, email and web-based communications, and economic development. The Soybean Germ Plasm Collection of the USDA donated 100 each of 34 varieties of soybean seed for Plenty's soybean variety trials on Huichol lands in Mexico. Plenty soy tech Louise Hagler is assisting the Huichols in establishing the first soy dairy in Jalisco. Our Kids to the Country summer program includes four week-long "camps" with horseback riding, swimming, river canoeing, and bike hikes for underprivileged inner-city children gathered from shelters and low-income neighborhoods. Students from the Farm School helped put siding on the hemp house and build the volunteers camp kitchen at the Pine Ridge Reservation in Porcupine, South Dakota. A Wave of Peace--The Farm's Annual Pilgrimage to the School of the Americas Cost of the War in Iraq $578,171,232,371 To see more details, click here. Move decimal place 4 positions to left to see how many families could be fed for a year. Move decimal place 5 positions to left to see how many homes could be converted to run forever on solar power. Move decimal place 6 positions to left to see how many people could have basic health coverage without deductibles or co-pays for a lifetime. For roughly twice the number above, the United States could replace its entire liquid fuel needs from wind power, and could do it in less time than has elapsed since it invaded Iraq. Eventual Cost Scott Wallsten, senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, AEI-Brookings and American Enterprise Institute, former economist at The World Bank, and staff economist at the U.S. President's Council of Economic Advisers, argues for a figure of $1 trillion in today?s dollars. Linda Bilmes, at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate and former Clinton administration adviser, put a total price tag of more than $2 trillion. http://www.thefarm.org/ In Charles Brown wrote: > Workers win big Round in Chicago factory Sit-In > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081209/ap_on_re_us/workers_takeover > > > > > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com > > > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Tue Dec 9 17:34:49 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:34:49 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Sacramento (California) approves buyouts for all employees Message-ID: <493F0EA9.3050509@gmail.com> Sacramento, the Golden State capital, is going out of business (snicker...). By Ryan Lillis rlillis[ATs]acbee.com Published: Tuesday, Dec. 09, 2008 The Sacramento City Council approved offering buyouts to all city employees on Tuesday. City officials said they could not estimate how many employees would take the buyouts, but noted 109 took a nearly identical offer in March. Buyouts could be offered as early as Wednesday, officials said. Those who take the buyouts will be given one week pay for every year of service, up to $50,000. The buyout program is part of an ongoing effort by the city to slash spending as it faces midyear cuts and the possibility of a budget shortfall of more than $40 million next year. http://www.sacbee.com/1089/story/1460659.html From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Tue Dec 9 18:13:51 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:13:51 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Just a Speedbump on the industrialization superhighway - Slump hits India's car industry Message-ID: <493F17CF.8020606@gmail.com> "Carmakers Nissan and Renault have scaled down plans for joint projects in India after a sharp fall in car sales in the region. Nissan, which is reviewing its current expansion strategy, said it would cut investments to improve cash flow. The two partners plan to open several local factories in partnership with Indian manufacturers. More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7772860.stm It seems like an opportune time to manufacture something else. Nissan and Renault COULD build a high quality, inexpensive, reliable BICYCLE. (Let Renault handle the drivetrain (ask any commercial fisherman) and Nissan can do the frame... umn... body and umn.... upholstery) But they won't... Because there's no $$$$$$$$$ (nine places... for a start) to line their pockets in bicycle manufacturing. Fuck the corporations... and fuck their cars too. Waistline IS correct. Some people NEED cars. But *generally* not the people who think they 'need' them the most. Fuck them too... Hunter S. Thompson had a name for people like that. Greedheads. I side with Jim Kunstler @ Clusterfuck Nation et al. I think it's going down.... It's gonna go down hard... and everyone is just going to sit there with their thumbs up their ass and a stupid deer-in-the-headlights look on their face. ...and scapegoating.... LOTS of scapegoating. Jess like that ol' Nasty Notsy (sic) Germany. Leigh From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Tue Dec 9 18:14:52 2008 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:14:52 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Past and Future Message-ID: <493F180C.4010304@ashisuto.co.jp> by William Greider www.thenation.com (November 24 2008) A year ago, when Barack Obama said it was time to turn the page, his campaign declaration seemed to promise a fresh start for Washington. I, for one, failed to foresee Obama would turn the page backward. The president-elect's lineup for key governing positions has opted for continuity, not change. Virtually all of his leading appointments are restoring the Clinton presidency, only without Mr Bill. In some important ways, Obama's selections seem designed to sustain the failing policies of George W Bush. This is not the last word and things are changing rapidly. But Obama's choices have begun to define him. His victory, it appears, was a triumph for the cautious center-right politics that has described the Democratic party for several decades. Those of us who expected more were duped, not so much by Obama but by our own wishful thinking. Let us stipulate that these are all honorable people, smart and experienced veterans of Washington combat. But they represent the Democratic party that mainly sees itself as managerial - making government work better. The long era of conservative dominance has taught them to keep their distance from big reform ideas that promise fundamental change of the system. Their operating style is incremental and cautiously practical. They conscientiously avoid (or actively block) propositions that sound too liberal or radical. Alas, Obama is coming to power at a critical moment when incrementalism is irrelevant. The system is in collapse. Financial chaos won't wait for patient deliberations. Events have confronted Obama with a fearful symmetry between past and present, illustrated by his choice of economic advisers. On Friday, we learned that Timothy Geithner, president of the New York Federal Reserve, would become his new treasury secretary and Larry Summers, who held the same position in the Clinton administration, would be the White House overseer of economic policy. On Monday, Geithner was busy executing the government's massive rescue of Citicorp - the very banking behemoth that Geithner and Summers helped to create back in the Clinton years, along with Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin, Clinton's economics guru. Now Rubin is himself a Citicorp executive and his bank is now being saved by his old protege (Geithner) with the taxpayers' money. The connections go way beyond irony. They raise very serious questions about where the new president intends to lead and whether he has the nerve to break from the weak and haphazard strategy of the Bush administration. It has dumped piles of public money on the largest financial institutions and demanded little or nothing in return, hoping for the best. Geithner has been a central player in the deal-making, from Bear Stearns to AIG to Citi. The strategy has not only failed, it has arguably made things worse as savvy market players saw through the contradictions and rushed out to dump more bank stocks. On Wall Street, Geithner is known as a highly competent technocrat, well versed in the financial complexities. But he has also been seen as a weak and compliant regulator of Wall Street firms, someone who did not seem the storm coming. Occasionally, Geithner would anguish publicly about the accumulating time bombs like credit derivatives and urge bankers to do something, but he did not use his supervisory powers to compel action. In bailout negotiations with Wall Street titans, Geithner and the Federal Reserve were spun around like a top more than once. No wonder the stock markets rallied explosively when they heard Geithner would be their new boss in Washington. They think he is their guy. Summers may be a brilliant economist - everyone says so - but he, too, is a club member in good standing and now manages a huge hedge fund while he advises Obama. The president-elect needs to get a "second opinion" - someone from outside the financial club who can explain the flaws in the rescue strategy preached by Bush's treasury secretary Henry Paulson and Tim Geithner at the New York Fed. Their approach has clearly been designed to preserve what's left of the Wall Street establishment and maintain the supremacy of the largest financial firms while the taxpayers pick up their losses. That model has failed and too many smart people know why. The bailouts have been too little too late and aimed at an impossible objective - persuading private capital investors to believe in the phony assurances proffered by the bankers. AIG, the insurance giant taken over by the feds, has turned into a bloody hemorrhage. Citigroup will be another and may soon be joined by other major banks demanding the same favorable terms. Wasting more public money on insolvent mastodons is the least of it. The real scandal is it doesn't work. It can't work because the black hole is too large even for Washington to fill. Government should take over the failing institutions or force them into bankruptcy, break them up and sell them off or mercifully relieve everyone, including the taxpayers. Stock markets rallied again with the salvage of Citigroup. But not everyone in Wall Street was cheering. Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics, the bank monitoring firm that has repeatedly been right about the banks when the government officials were wrong, had harsh words for the deal. "Pretending that Citi is going to be a going concern I think is silly", Whalen said. "We should be thinking about breaking this company up and redistributing the assets into stronger hands". Will Timothy Geithner or Larry Summers advise the next president to face reality and throw in the towel? One hopes so, because Whalen warns: "By embracing Geithner, President-elect Obama is endorsing the ill-advised scheme to support AIG directed by Hank Paulson et al at Goldman Sachs and executed by Tim Geithner ... This scheme to stay AIG's resolution cannot possibly work and, when it does collapse, Barack Obama and his administration will wear the blame". Barack Obama is too smart and perceptive to let this happen to his yet-unborn presidency. Maybe he should find out what Whalen knows. _____ William Greider, a prominent political journalist and author, has been a reporter for more than 35 years for newspapers, magazines and television. Over the past two decades, he has persistently challenged mainstream thinking on economics. For seventeen years Greider was the National Affairs Editor at Rolling Stone magazine, where his investigation of the defense establishment began. He is a former assistant managing editor at the Washington Post, where he worked for fifteen years as a national correspondent, editor and columnist. While at the Post, he broke the story of how David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director, grew disillusioned with supply-side economics and the budget deficits that policy caused, which still burden the American economy. He is the author of the national bestsellers One World, Ready or Not (1998), Secrets of the Temple (1989), Who Will Tell The People (1993), and - due out in February from Rodale - Come Home, America. In the award-winning Secrets of the Temple, he offered a critique of the Federal Reserve system. Greider has also served as a correspondent for six Frontline documentaries on PBS, including "Return to Beirut", which won an Emmy in 1985. Greider's most recent book is The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to A Moral Economy (2004). In it, he untangles the systemic mysteries of American capitalism, details its destructive collisions with society and demonstrates how people can achieve decisive influence to reform the system's structure and operating values. Raised in Wyoming, Ohio, a suburb of Cincinnati, he graduated from Princeton University in 1958. He currently lives in Washington, DC. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081208/greider_web http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From Waistline2 at aol.com Tue Dec 9 18:17:52 2008 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 20:17:52 EST Subject: [A-List] Just a Speedbump on the industrialization superhighway - Slump h... Message-ID: full: _http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7728986.stm_ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7728986.stm) Europe car sales in steep decline General Motors saw a sharp drop in sales in Europe New car sales in Europe fell by 14.5% in October, the sixth monthly fall in a row, said the European carmakers' association, the Acea. Car sales in Ireland and Spain were the worst-affected, plummeting 54.6% and 40% respectively, in October. Even in the new EU member states, once a source of growth, overall sales fell 3.3%, despite a 12.3% rise in Poland. With demand falling fast, manufacturers are temporarily halting production at some plants to cut their costs. Brake on sales In western Europe, the number of cars sold totalled 1,034,955, 15.5% lower than the same month last year. Austria was the only western European country which posted a growth in car sales - up 4%. The Spanish figures were the worst since 1995, while the UK and Italy saw sales drop more than 15%. **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010) From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Wed Dec 10 02:53:14 2008 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:53:14 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The Threat of Nuclear War Grows Message-ID: <493F918A.7090101@ashisuto.co.jp> by Edward S Herman Z Magazine (November 01 2008) Global Research (November 04 2008) In this Kafkaesque age everything is stood on its head - the champion violator of international law and sovereignty and the territorial integrity of states is gung ho for respecting state sovereignty and territorial integrity (of Georgia, but not Pakistan); primary terrorist and ethnic cleansing states (the United States and Israel) invade, bomb, and torture, but wax indignant at retail terrorism that flows largely in response to their wholesale terror; and these same two states, brimming over with nuclear arms and increasingly threatening to use them, are aghast that Iran might want and someday be able to make a nuclear weapon. These two states are mainly responsible for the steadily rising probability that nuclear weapons will again be used in the not too distant future. Both have a stock of nuclear weapons and up-to-date delivery systems: that of the United States is of course gigantic, but Israel's is substantial (estimated as between sixty and 200 ready bombs). Israel has developed its nuclear capability outside the authority of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, with the collusion of the Western powers, which have been so aggressive in denying any similar rights to Iran (except during the period of the rule of the Western-imposed dictator, the Shah). This weapons accumulation and refusal to accept the NPT has entailed no penalty for Israel - no threats, no sanctions, no refusal to assist its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Israel has threatened to use its nuclear weapons, earlier against the Soviet Union, today against Iran. Its threat of an attack on Iran, which is in itself a violation of the UN Charter, has not been treated at all critically in the West - in contrast with the horror at Ahmadinejad's fuzzy condemnations of Israel, which have never included any expressed threat to literally attack Israel. The United States has also steadily violated both the letter and spirit of the NPT. It had agreed in signing on to this treaty in 1968 to work toward the elimination of nuclear weapons. Not only has it not done this, it has made them officially a core part of national defense strategy and in recent years has worked steadily to make them more usable in warfare. It has also withdrawn its NPT promise not to use nuclear weapons against any state that signs on to the NPT and promises not to develop nuclear weapons. The United States has also violated the spirit of the NPT by helping and supporting Israel's development of a nuclear weapons capability, of turning a blind eye to Pakistan's nuclear development during years when it was serving as a useful client, and now recently agreeing to assist India's nuclear program despite that country's refusal to join the NPT. Pakistan and China of course resent this US support of a nuclear India, clearly based on political expediency and weakening further any control over nuclear weapons proliferation. The End of Soviet Nuclear Containment One important reason for Israel's and the US's greater openness on the possibility of using nuclear arms is that the countries they threaten, with the exception of Russia, have no nuclear retaliatory capability. In earlier years the Soviet Union, with its own large nuclear weapons arsenal, was a barrier to nuclear threats, especially to countries which were allied with the Soviets. Its termination diminished the containing force that had previously put some limits on US and Israeli violence. A country like Iran would surely respond to a nuclear attack, but it couldn't do so with a comparably devastating weapon. The stream of attacks in recent years by the two primary aggressor states has been grounded heavily in the imbalance of power and weakness and limited ability to respond on the part of the victims (Panama, Serbia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Iraq). A nuclear capability on the part of potential victims would enhance their power of self defense - a terrifying threat to aggressor states. Russia could respond, but it is substantially weaker in its retaliatory potential than the Soviet Union: it is smaller and militarily less formidable in the wake of its economic disaster of 1992-1998, substantial cutbacks in military expenditures, and national demoralization. It has made some recovery in recent years with higher energy prices and a stronger and more independent government, and the short war with Georgia indicates that it is now prepared to resist the West's (mainly US's) political and military encirclement and possible attempts at further dismantlement. But it is still vulnerable and justifiably worried about a US first strike capability, enhanced by the planned placement of US anti-missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, with perhaps others to follow. With God-instructed politicians in command in the United States, a manageable (or ignorable) populace, and with its overweening power, aggressive nuclear attack and/or misreadings that set off trigger-alerts are more likely than in the recent past. Not only are the Russian triggers more alert and sensitive as a US first strike potential and threat grows, Russia has also warned that it is elevating its tactical nuclear weapons to potential use where it is threatened by advanced electronic technology that it cannot match. During the years after 1990, with its devastating economic and political setbacks, it fell further behind the United States in its weaponry, and feels obligated to offset this - or at least talk and threaten to offset this - with the formidable weaponry it still possesses. Deteriorating Moral Environment Another important reason for the growing probability of nuclear warfare is the deteriorating moral environment. This has resulted in good part from militarization and war itself, both of which get people habituated to the resort to force and a steady diet of killing, which are normalized. Militarization and war also contribute to justifying the development and use of outlandish weapons, allegedly needed to "defend" the home country and clients from the threat of demonized enemies. Enlightenment values erode and disappear quickly in such a moral environment; mass killing becomes acceptable and even laudable - the large-scale killing of civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the basis of celebration in the United States. One measure of the deteriorated moral environment is in fact the open acceptance of aggressive war as an appropriate policy option even in the absence of a military attack or serious threat. This was notorious in the case of the 2003 attack on Iraq, and is equally obvious in the case of the ongoing threats to attack Iran. Pugnacity and a willingness - even eagerness - to use force is a political necessity, at least for satisfying the establishment media and major election funders. What the public thinks on this is less clear - the public usually drags it feet in the war-making process, often preferring diplomacy and reliance on the UN, and has to be managed into a proper frame of mind, although once the bombs start falling patriotic zeal takes over. Writing during World War I, Thorstein Veblen pointed out, that "once a warlike enterprise has been entered upon, it will have the cordial support of popular sentiment even if it is patently an aggressive war". Furthermore, "The higher the pitch of patriotic fervor, the more tenuous and more threadbare may be the requisite moral sanction. By cumulative excitation some very remarkable results have latterly been attained along this line" (in his chapter "On the Nature and Uses of Patriotism", in An Inquiry into the Nature of Peace [1917]). The Democrats are deemed by the establishment to be less trustworthy as war-makers than the Republicans - they are supposedly weak on "national security". This causes their politicians and aspiring political nominees to lean over backwards to demonstrate their bomb-worthiness. For both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all options were "on the table" in dealing with that gigantic threat that Iran might be able to defend itself some time in the future, and Obama has compensated for his Iraq war foot-dragging by promising an escalation in Afghanistan and maybe Pakistan. He also chose Joe Biden as his running mate, for his "experience" (he's been wrong lots of times) and known foreign policy pugnacity. Biden has recently proclaimed that he is a "Zionist", and in fact virtually every Democratic politician has appeared before AIPAC to pledge allegiance to the state of Israel. This steady genuflection, and the financial dependence of the Democrats on organized Zionist money, has been a further factor in moral degradation. It has completely stymied any political opposition to Israeli ethnic cleansing in Palestine and the war against Lebanon in 2006, and as Israeli leaders wanted the Iraq attack and are eager for a war with Iran, the Democratic Party went along with the Iraq war, dragged its feet in extrication even after the antiwar vote of 2006, and has demonized Iran and helped set the stage for war there. It has been pointed out by Michael MccGwire that of the two first class global threats, nuclear war and global warming, the first could be eliminated with small costs (actually, its elimination would release large resources for human improvement and welfare), whereas combating global warming will be quite expensive. But eliminating the nuclear warfare threat, and in the process, demilitarizing, would be contrary to the interests of the Pentagon and rest of the military-industrial complex, and those special interests that benefit from or thrive on permanent warfare. At the moment these real special interests are in command. Whether the financial crisis and permanent war setbacks will change the situation and allow a move toward a decent and rational world order remains to be seen. _____ Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor at yahoo.com www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries: crgeditor at yahoo.com (c) Copyright Edward S Herman, Z Magazine, 2008 (c) Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10813 http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Dec 10 07:47:43 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:47:43 -0500 Subject: [A-List] T-bill yield goes negative Message-ID: <493F903F.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Treasurys headed higher Tuesday, helped by a strong bill auction that showed investors purely wanted assurance that they would get their principal back. The market reached the highs of the day after the Treasury Department sold $32 billion in four-week bills at a yield of 0%. --- December 9, 2008, 2:16 pm Three-Month Bill Yield Goes Negative Posted by David Gaffen In bond markets, there are two numbers to worry about: price, and yield. Now, there is no yield to speak of. At some point during the afternoon, the yield on the three-month Treasury bill dipped below 0%, according to traders, as investor desire to hold short-term liquid debt trumps all else. Year-end needs for liquidity probably play a part in this, according to one fund manager, but it?s still insane. ?It?s the modern version of stuffing it into your mattress,? says Thomas di Galoma, head of trading at Jefferies & Co. ?You just can?t make it up.? A negative bill yield means investors are willing to pay to get the securities and forego the interest they?d normally receive. It comes one day after a three-month bill auction that yielded 0.005%, the lowest auctioned yield since 1941, and at a time when investors, in part because of year-end worries, are ?trying to hide their money for year-end in the safest instrument known to mankind, and that?s Treasury bills,? Mr. di Galoma says. Most of the Treasury bill curve is sporting a yield of zero, or just about. The one-month bill was lately yielding 0.025%; the six-month bill was at 0.25%, and the one-year bill sported a yield of 0.4%. - With reporting by Min Zeng This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Dec 10 08:07:22 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:07:22 -0500 Subject: [A-List] The media myth: Detroit's $70-an-hour autoworker Message-ID: <493F94D9.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/14103/ The media myth: Detroit's $70-an-hour autoworker Author: Eric Boehlert People's Weekly World Newspaper, 12/05/08 14:47 From chillout at email.it Wed Dec 10 08:12:19 2008 From: chillout at email.it (splatter gore) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:12:19 +0100 Subject: [A-List] Coming soon to U.S., 1 million jobs lost every month: Report In-Reply-To: <493F94D9.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <493F94D9.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <493FDC53.7040704@email.it> London-based GFC Economics is making a frightening prediction: By spring 2009, the United States could be facing more than 1 million layoffs every successive month. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Coming_soon_to_U.S._1_million_1207.html (This means that unemployment should be around 100% in about 18 months, isn?t it? I wonder what is the prediction on what will happen next) > -- Caselle da 1GB, trasmetti allegati fino a 3GB e in piu' IMAP, POP3 e SMTP autenticato? GRATIS solo con Email.it http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Polizza auto? * Garanzia furto e incendio per un anno al vantaggioso prezzo di 30 euro tasse incluse! * Scopri subito l'offerta! * Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=8425&d=10-12 From Waistline2 at aol.com Wed Dec 10 08:34:20 2008 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:34:20 EST Subject: [A-List] real cost of unionized auto workers? $70/hour? Try $38! Message-ID: OPINION: The real cost of unionized auto workers? $70/hour? Try $38! _http://www.autoblog.com/2008/11/23/opinion-the-real-cost-of-unionized-auto-wo rkers-70-hour-try/_ (http://www.autoblog.com/2008/11/23/opinion-the-real-cost-of-unionized-auto-workers-70-hour-try/) There are plenty of people in this country who would desperately love to see all unions go away. Over the course of the congressional hearings on an automaker bailout this week many of those people have continually brought up the un-cited "fact" that UAW workers get $70/hour in wages and benefits as opposed to about $40 or so for non-unionized workers at the foreign owned transplants. While the UAW and the Detroit automakers have made more than their share of mistakes and deserve a good chunk of the blame for what is happening, there is a major problem with this particular argument. IT'S NOT TRUE! UAW members do not take home $70/hour. That is the automaker's cost per active employee. What's the difference? The latter figure is total spent by automakers on wages and benefits divided by the number of active employees. The cost of benefits includes the pensions and health care costs for the hundreds of thousands of living retirees in addition to active workers. Those punching the clock every day, don't get a dime of that. As of last year, UAW workers made an average of $28/hour in wages + $10/hour in benefits. The rest went to retirees, a cost that is borne by the automakers. The reality is that unionized and non-unionized autoworkers actually make very similar wages and benefits. Continue reading after the jump. [Source: The New Republic, via DailyKos] You might be wondering why the UAW has had such a hard time organizing the US factories of Honda, Toyota, Nissan and others. A major part of it is because the workers there don't see a need to join. They already make as much as their unionized counterparts. The fact is that in industries like this, companies will often tend to match the compensation offered to union workers just to keep the union out. When I was growing up in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, there were two big steel companies in town, Stelco and Dofasco. Stelco was unionized and Dofasco was not. Both companies paid workers essentially the same. My father worked at Stelco and went on strike three times over his 30 years there. Every three years when there was a new contract at Stelco, Dofasco automatically matched it for their employees. If the United Steel Workers at Stelco didn't pay the price to get those raises do you think Dofasco workers would have got them? Not a chance. It's exactly the same with the auto makers. Since I can't find the precise quote at the moment, I'll paraphrase the late Studs Terkel, who asked someone who was anti-union, "Do you like going home from work at 5 o'clock? Do you like having health care benefits? Do you like having paid time off? You may not be in a union, but if you have any of that, you can thank union workers for it." Before unions fought for reasonable work weeks, health care, and workplace safety in the first half of the twentieth century, few Americans had any of that. Don't kid yourself that big corporations would give any of that from the goodness their hearts. Yes unions have gone too far at times, but as we have clearly seen with the financial collapse in the last few months, non-union financial "geniuses" are actually far more to blame for the current predicament than those who punch a clock every day. The real reason so many are pushing for chapter 11 is not to save the automakers, because that will almost assuredly not happen. They want to break the union contracts. The problem is doing that will ultimately cost this country a lot more than $70/hour. It's time to stop demonizing and start addressing the real root causes of this problem. That is the fundamentally flawed mechanism we have for paying for health care in this country and the ability for people to finance the purchase of vehicles. Until we put **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010) From pwright at prisonlegalnews.org Wed Dec 10 08:41:57 2008 From: pwright at prisonlegalnews.org (Paul Wright) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:41:57 -0500 Subject: [A-List] The media myth: Detroit's $70-an-hour autoworker In-Reply-To: <493F94D9.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <493F94D9.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: I think that all this ignores the question of imperialism. Whether GM's US workers make $30 or $80 an hour is largely immaterial. GM has shed 2/3 to 3/4 of its US work force in the past 30 years. Mexican GM workers assembling cars for sale in the US are making $2-3 dollars US an hour yet the company gives US buyers no comparable discount, they pocket that amount as additional profit. Nary a word has been said about saving the jobs of GM's Mexican, Venezuelan and other workers. The whole notion that millions of US jobs are at stake if the US auto industry goes under is, I think, fantasist. Not that many Americans have jobs in the auto industry and it also assumes Americans will stop buying cars. They won't, they will just buy cars made by Toyota, Honda, etc. many of which are made here in the US. So there will be a job migration. I have not seen any discussion of capital export when it is foreign auto companies with US assembly plants that make sales here and presumably send the surplus back to japan. On the international question, no one has asked why a US GM worker should make $30 an hour and a Mexican GM worker should make $3 an hour when they make the same product and it is being sold at the same price, it merely increases the surplus value and profit for the company. From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Dec 10 10:18:34 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:18:34 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Oversupply Fears Hurt European Bond Auctions Message-ID: Oversupply fears hurt European bond auctions By David Oakley Published: December 10 2008 00:00 | Last updated: December 10 2008 00:00 Governments faced fresh concerns over raising debt in the capital markets on Tuesday as Austria and the Netherlands saw weak demand for their bonds. The Dutch government failed to raise as much as it had targeted for three bonds ? maturing over five, six and seven years, respectively ? while the Austrian government saw one of the weakest auctions in years for 12-year paper. The difficulties highlight potential problems because of the vast pipeline of government and government-backed debt following the announcements of big fiscal packages to stimulate economies and bail out banks. Analysts stress sovereign bond issuance is not under serious pressure at the moment because of low interest rates and deflation fears, which have depressed yields to historic lows, and are the main drivers of the market. However, there has also been some switching out of bonds into the more stable stock markets this week, which has also put upward pressure on yields. Riccardo Barbieri, a strategist at Bank of America, said: "It was not the best time to tap the market as yields have been rising this week and we have seen the equity markets stabilise. There are concerns about supply, although it must be remembered that yields are at historic lows in many countries." Analysts warn, however, that these early signs of stress, just after many governments have unveiled big fiscal stimulus programmes, are a harbinger of potential problems next year when record volumes of debt are due to be issued. More than $1,000bn of government debt is expected to be raised in Europe in 2009, while close to $2,000bn is forecast in the US. This supply could start forcing yields substantially higher, undermining the finances of many governments as their interest rate costs rise. This could lead to curbs in public spending as debt stocks rise. Martin Weber, at Goldman Sachs, said: "Supply is a significant worry for the government bond markets, although the European markets are solid and deep enough to cope. But the relative supply pressures will have an effect on perfomance and prices. We have already seen significant cheapening in secondary spreads and ahead of certain bond auctions and this dynamic is likely to continue." The Austrian government was forced to pay 13 basis points more than comparable 12-year bonds for its ?1.1bn issue, while the Dutch government only managed to raise a total of ?2.46bn for the three bonds being sold after indicating that it wanted between ?2.5bn and ?3.5bn. The Netherlands is considered one of the strongest and safest credits, which does not usually run into problems meeting debt targets. It also took the Dutch Debt Agency nearly an hour to sell the desired amount, much longer than in past auctions. The UK, however, had fairly strong demand for its ?1.25bn offering of index linked bonds, due to mature in 2032. From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Dec 10 10:32:59 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:32:59 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Global Oil Demand to Collapse + Russia to Unveil Oil Output Cut Proposals Message-ID: Global oil demand to collapse By Javier Blas in London and Krishna Guha in Washington Published: December 10 2008 02:00 | Last updated: December 10 2008 02:00 Global oil demand will collapse next year and commodities will not return to the highs they reached this summer in the foreseeable future, two authoritative reports said yesterday as they forecast a long, painful worldwide recession. The stark conclusions came as the World Bank's chief economist predicted that the world faced "the worst recession since the Great Depression". The US energy department said global oil demand would drop this year and next - the first two consecutive years' fall in 30 years. "The increasing likelihood of a prolonged global economic downturn continues to dominate market perceptions, putting downward pressure on oil prices," it said, forecasting that demand would drop 50,000 barrels a day this year and a hefty 450,000 b/d in 2009. US oil demand will drop next year to the lowest level in 11 years. Meanwhile, the World Bank's Global Economic Prospects report said the commodities boom of the past five years - which drove up prices 130 per cent - had "come to an end". The World Bank's analysis contrasts with the prevalent view held among natural resources companies - and most Wall Street analysts - that the ongoing price drop is a correction within an upward trend. "As the rapid decline of commodity prices since mid-2008 attests, the current boom is best understood as yet another cycle in a long history of commodity prices cycles," the World Bank said. Although it ruled out a return to the torrid high prices of this summer, it said commodities prices would not fall back to the 1990s depressed levels. Oil prices would stay low next year but would return to about $75 a barrel within the next three years, it said, while food would trade 60 per cent higher than in 2003, but about half below this year's record. "Over the longer run, the price of extracted commodities should fall," the bank said; because of slower population and income growth, world demand for raw materials would ease. Andrew Burns, the leading author of the report, dismissed the idea - widely supported among the industry and international bodies such as the International Energy Agency - that the credit crunch could result in higher prices when the economy recovered as companies cancelled supply expansion projects. "I don't see the likelihood of supply side pressures in the next four to five years," he said, adding that any future pick-up in demand would first have slowly to absorb the build-up in dormant production capacity as the industry, from mining companies to the Opec oil cartel, cut its production in response to weaker demand. "First, we would absorb the idle capacity," he said, adding that the cushion would give companies time enough to invest in new supply when demand recovers. The bank said that even without counting on technological miracles, "the supply of commodities is likely to increase rapidly enough over the long run to meet anticipated increases in demand at prices that are lower than current levels". Justin Lin, the World Bank's chief economist, said the current downturn was likely to see simultaneous recessions in most of the industrialised world, these recessions were likely to last longer than in the early 1980s, and the decline in growth would be more universal around the world than in past episodes in recent decades. Crop crunch, Page 10 Analysis, Page 11 Lex, Page 16 Commodities, Page 4 Russia to unveil oil output cut proposals 1 hour ago MOSCOW (AFP) ? Russia said Wednesday it would announce proposals to reduce its oil output by December 17, signalling the energy superpower's readiness to cooperate with OPEC to prop up falling crude prices. "OPEC has serious plans in relation to a reduction" in oil production quotas, Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko told reporters, referring to the possibility of the cartel reducing its output quota. "We are preparing our own proposals that we will announce no later than December 17," the energy minister said. "All the decisions that OPEC countries are preparing will be very significant," he said, speaking on the sidelines of a meeting between the presidents of Russia and Argentina. The 13-member Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is due to hold its next meeting on December 17 at which it is widely expected to cut production in an effort to bolster prices which have fallen from record highs above 147 dollars in July. The cartel, which pumps 40 percent of world crude, has called on non-members to play a role in reducing output to stem the sharp slide in crude prices of the last five months. At the beginning of December, Algerian Energy Minister Chakib Khelil, the current president of OPEC, urged Russia, Norway and Mexico to join or cut their crude production to show solidarity with the group. Russia is not an OPEC member but ranks alongside Saudi Arabia, de facto leader of the cartel, as the world's largest oil exporter. Shmatko said that figures from oil companies showed in the past three months that extraction of oil in Russia was becoming less attractive and profitable. "This can lead to the fact that we will have some reduction in production," he said. However he said the most important issue was whether non-OPEC oil exporters would agree with the cartel's requests for them to act in a coordinated fashion to keep prices stable. Russia has in the last months called for greater cooperation with OPEC. Any closer cooperation would vastly increase the market power of the cartel, which frustrated Western countries earlier this year by refusing to hike production when oil prices were soaring to at record levels. Shmatko said last month that Russia would coordinate with OPEC to defend its interests amid the falling oil prices, which threaten the strong growth rates recorded by Russia over the last years. Russia enjoyed stellar growth of 8.1 percent in 2007 and 7.4 percent in 2006 on the back of soaring commodity prices, especially for oil and gas. OPEC is widely expected to announce another production cut of up to 2.0 million barrels per day at the meeting in Oran, Algeria on December 17. OPEC had already agreed to reduce output by a total of 2.0 million barrels per day in September and October but the cuts have had only a fleeting impact on the market. On Tuesday, OPEC member Libya called for a "substantial" reduction in output at the December meeting. But investors are concerned these cuts will have little effect amid plummeting demand. From Waistline2 at aol.com Wed Dec 10 11:25:28 2008 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:25:28 EST Subject: [A-List] The media myth: Detroit's $70-an-hour autoworker Message-ID: In a message dated 12/10/2008 10:41:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, _pwright at prisonlegalnews.org_ (mailto:pwright at prisonlegalnews.org) writes: >> On the international question, no one has asked why a US GM worker should make $30 an hour and a Mexican GM worker should make $3 an hour when they make the same product and it is being sold at the same price, it merely increases the surplus value and profit for the company. From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Dec 10 13:31:19 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:31:19 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Why is "Nationalization" A Dirty Word in America? Message-ID: <493FE0C8.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> From: Carrol Cox I'm not sure how dirty a word it is, but the answer to the question is that the illusion that "nationalization = Socialism" is not confined to posters on pen-l but is widely believed. So the question should be, why is socialism a dirty word in America. There is no necessary relationship between nationalizatio and socialism, but almost everyone believes there is. Carrol ^^^ CB: I agree with Carrol that opposition of Americans to nationalization and public ownership is the result of the heavy-duty anti-Communist brainwashing Americans had for especially the 70 years ending in the 1990 or so. However, I'd say Carrol is wrong on the Marxist version of socialism not being heavily nationalization and public ownership, public ownership of the basic means of production. Public ownership need not be by the national state, but may be by national subunit states, so in the strict sense not "_national_ization" , but "publicization". In the case of the auto companies, the State of Michigan might be the owner, I suppose , government ownership. See Marx and Engels discussion of private and public property , and numbers 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 of the sketched program from _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_ below. Nationalization and public ownership are a big part of socialism compared to capitalism. http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html#Proletarian The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily. Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property? But does wage labor create any property for the laborer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage labor, and which cannot increase except upon conditions of begetting a new supply of wage labor for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism. To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social STATUS in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion. Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power. When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character. These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Wed Dec 10 13:53:17 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:53:17 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Why is "Nationalization" A Dirty Word in America? In-Reply-To: <493FE0C8.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <493FE0C8.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <49402C3D.9080108@gmail.com> Charles Brown wrote: > From: Carrol Cox > > I'm not sure how dirty a word it is, but the answer to the question is > that the illusion that "nationalization = Socialism" is not confined > to posters on pen-l but is widely believed. So the question should be, > why is socialism a dirty word in America. There is no necessary > relationship between nationalizatio and socialism, but almost everyone > believes there is. > > Carrol > HOW MANY major banks are left in the US? Is it FOUR yet? WHO picks who we get to vote for in presidential election? Hint: What is the hottest employment opportunity in the US today (Not the best paying... the highest employment rate? The DHS and police state apparatus... all the way down to 7-11 security guard) I COULD go on (and on, and on, and...) Nationalization WILL EQUAL National Socialism in the US. That doesn't mean Socialism=National Socialism... but nevertheless... Leigh > ^^^ > CB: I agree with Carrol that opposition of Americans to nationalization and public ownership is the result of the heavy-duty anti-Communist brainwashing Americans had for especially the 70 years ending in the 1990 or so. > > However, I'd say Carrol is wrong on the Marxist version of socialism not being heavily nationalization and public ownership, public ownership of the basic means of production. Public ownership need not be by the national state, but may be by national subunit states, so in the strict sense not "_national_ization" , but "publicization". In the case of the auto companies, the State of Michigan might be the owner, I suppose , government ownership. > > See Marx and Engels discussion of private and public property , and numbers 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 of the sketched program from _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_ below. Nationalization and public ownership are a big part of socialism compared to capitalism. > > http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html#Proletarian > > > > The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. > > In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. > > We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. > > Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily. > > Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property? > > But does wage labor create any property for the laborer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage labor, and which cannot increase except upon conditions of begetting a new supply of wage labor for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism. > > To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social STATUS in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion. > > Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power. > > When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character. > > > > These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. > > Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. > > > 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. > > 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. > > 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. > > 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. > > 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. > > 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. > > 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. > > 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. > > 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. > > 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. > > When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. > > In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. > > > > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com > > > From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Dec 10 17:27:14 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:27:14 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Tariq Ali: Diary Message-ID: Diary Tariq Ali If cheating in bed was always settled by the bullet, many of us would be dead. Gerald Martin's new biography of Gabriel Garc?a M?rquez reveals that Chronicle of a Death Foretold was based on the murder of the novelist's friend Cayetano Gentile in Sucre in 1951. He had seduced, deflowered and abandoned Margarita Chica Salas. On her wedding day Margarita's husband was told that she was no longer a virgin. The bride was sent back to her family home. Her brothers then found Gentile and chopped his body into pieces. M?rquez blamed the socio-moral dictatorship of the Catholic Church. But of course it is usually women who are killed for breaking codes of sexual conduct. There have been several recent cases in Britain. Banaz Mahmod, a 20-year-old of Kurdish origin, was murdered in Surrey at the behest of her father because she'd left an arranged marriage and her father didn't approve of her new boyfriend. Iraq has lately seen a spate of such murders. Last month acid was thrown at three women in Basra who were talking to a male friend. Yet Iraq once had the highest proportion of women integrated into every level of society of any Arab country. And then there is Pakistan. In 2005 Pervez Musharraf pushed through legislation making honour killing a capital offence yet official statistics admit to 1261 honour killings in 2006 and half that number again the following year. The actual figures are probably much higher, since many deaths go unreported. 'Women are considered the property of the males in their family irrespective of their class, ethnic or religious group, and the owner of the property has the right to decide its fate,' Tahira Shahid Khan of Shirkat Gah, a group that campaigns for equal rights for women, reported in 1999. Domestic violence too, according to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, is 'considered normal . . . A sample survey showed 82 per cent of women in rural Punjab feared violence resulting from their husbands' displeasure over minor matters; in the most developed urban areas 52 per cent admitted being beaten by their husbands.' Consider the following. A man dreams his wife has betrayed him. He wakes up and sees her lying next to him. In a fury he kills her. This really happened in Pakistan and the killer escaped punishment. If dreams are to be treated as justification for an honour killing, what woman is safe? Since the police and the judicial system regard murder in the family as a private affair, most cases don't get to court even if they're reported. Society, it's said, needs to protect its foundations. So mostly we rely on the information collected by the Human Rights Commission and on courageous lawyers like Hina Jilani and Asma Jehangir, two sisters both of whom have received numerous death threats. In 1999, Hina Jilani was in her office with Samia Sarwar, a mother of two from Peshawar seeking a divorce from her husband, when Sarwar's mother burst into the room with two armed men in tow and had her daughter shot dead. In 1989 Samia Sarwar had married a first cousin. For six years he beat her and kicked her. But after he threw her downstairs when she was pregnant with their second child, she went back to her parents' house. The minute she told them she wanted a divorce they threatened to kill her. Yet they were educated and wealthy people. One widely reported murder this year was that of Tasleem Solangi, the 17-year-old daughter of a livestock trader in the Khairpur District of Sindh. She wanted to go to university and become a doctor like her uncle, but instead agreed to marry a cousin in order to settle a protracted family dispute over property. Her mother, Zakara Bibi, tried to stop her, but Tasleem was determined. Her father-in-law, Zamir Solangi, came to collect her and swore on the Koran that no harm would befall her. A month after the marriage, Zakara had a message from her daughter: 'Please forgive me, mother. I was wrong and you were right. I fear they will kill me.' On 7 March, they did. She was eight months pregnant. The Koran-swearer accused her of infidelity and said the baby was not his son's. She went into labour, her child was born and instantly thrown to the dogs. She pleaded for mercy, but the dogs were set on her as well and the terrified girl was then shot dead. On this occasion at least there was an inquiry. Her husband was charged with Tasleem's murder and is currently awaiting trial. Another case much discussed this year is that of five women in Baluchistan who were buried alive in Baba Kot village, about 250 miles east of Quetta, the Baluch capital. Three of the women were young and wanted to marry men they'd chosen for themselves; two older women were helping them. Three male relatives have been arrested. According to the local police chief, the brother of two of the girls has admitted that he shot three of the women and helped bury them, though they weren't even dead. The trial date is awaited. Traditionalists have always considered love to be something that brings shame on families: patriarchs should be the ones to decide who is to be married to whom, often for reasons to do with property. If you fall in love, the 18th-century Urdu poet Mir Hassan explained (more than once), you will be burned by its fire and perish. That is what happened in the Punjabi city of Wah in late October. Now Wah has half a million inhabitants and Pakistan's largest ordnance factories, but it was once an idyllic village almost floating on water. The streams and lakes that surrounded it attracted the Mughal emperor Jehangir, who stopped there on his way home from Kashmir, and is said to have exclaimed 'Wah!' or 'Wow!', thus giving the village its name. Before that it had been called Jalalsar after one of my forebears, Sardar Jalal Khan, a leader of the Khattar tribe around 800 years ago. His successors wanted to please the emperor and agreed to the name change. I can't imagine that the decision was taken without a fierce struggle (one faction is said to have been deeply hostile to the arriviste Mughals), but those speaking sweetnesses to power won the day. Jehangir built a beautiful, domed rest-house in Wah, surrounded on all sides by flowing water. In 1639, his son Shah Jehan supervised the landscaping of beautiful water gardens and pavilions. More than half a century ago, I used to play hide and seek here with my cousins. The pavilions were ruins by then, which made them even more magical on a moonlit night. A cousin swore that the ghosts of the Mughals could be seen in the mist on a winter night, but nobody believed her. The caretaker was extremely sharp-tongued, although when talking to my uncles and aunts, he masked his intelligence in language of exaggerated humility. We were never deceived and threatened to expose him if he gave us a hard time. Other ghosts lurk there now. A mile and a half from the old village, my youngest maternal uncle, Sardar Ghairat Hyat Khan, built himself a house and moved out of the decaying manor house we'd all shared. My Kashmiri great-grandmother, Ayesha, moved with him. Before she became completely blind she was the best cook in the world and my visits were always rewarding. Shortly before I left Pakistan for Britain I went to say goodbye to her. She said: 'I feel a moustache. Is it really you?' 'No,' I replied trying to make my voice deeper, 'I am a stranger here, but I was told your bakarkhanis tasted like heaven.' Bakarkhanis are a crumbly, Kashmiri version of the croissant. I've not been to his house for a long time but I'm told it's in a state of disrepair and crumbling like the bakarkhanis. In the last week of October, my uncle's granddaughter, Zainab, barely 18 years old, was shot dead by her brothers, Inam and Hamza Ahmed. Zainab apparently had a lover and despite repeated warnings refused to stop seeing him. She was on the phone to him in her grandfather's house when her brothers pumped seven bullets into her body. I don't know whether her mother, Ghairat's oldest daughter Roohi, whom I last saw when she was about ten, was part of the plot. Whether or not she was involved, I find it deeply shocking that my uncle allowed the young woman's body to be buried that same day without at least insisting that a First Information Report be lodged at the local police station, let alone demanding an autopsy. Zainab deserved at least that. I am told that Ghairat is old and frail, that he was angry and wanted to ring the police, but was talked out of it by his daughter and other members of his immediate family, who collectively recoiled at having to accept the consequences of what they had witnessed. Perhaps his faith in a just and merciful Allah was not as strong as he used to claim. Whatever the reason, it's unacceptable. The body should be exhumed, the murderers arrested and put on trial, as the law requires. Tariq Ali's latest book is The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power. Other articles by this contributor: In Princes' Pockets ? Saudi Oil Pakistan at Sixty ? The Trouble with Pakistan Daughter of the West ? the Bhuttos Mullahs and Heretics ? A Secular History of Islam Bitter Chill of Winter ? Kashmir The General in His Labyrinth ? Pakistan, Afghanistan and the US From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Wed Dec 10 19:47:58 2008 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:47:58 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The End of the US Piano Industry Message-ID: <49407F5E.4030509@ashisuto.co.jp> by Jeffrey A Tucker LewRockwell.com (December 10 2008) Today the highest-price good that people buy besides their houses is their car, and this reality leads people to believe that we can't possibly let the American car industry die. We couldn't possibly be a real country and a powerful nation without our beloved auto industry, which is so essential to our national well-being. What about the time before the car? Between 1870 and 1930, the biggest ticket item on every household budget besides the house itself was its piano. Everyone had to have one. Those who didn't have one aspired to have one. It was a prize, an essential part of life, and they sold by the millions and millions. Americans before 1850 mostly imported their pianos. American manufacturing was nearly nonexistent. After 1850, that changed dramatically. The Gilded Age saw a vast increase in popularity. By 1890, Americans fed half the world market for pianos. Between 1890 and 1928, sales ranged from 172,000 to 364,000 thousand per year. It was a case of relentless and astounding growth. They were used in classrooms everywhere in times when music education was considered to be the foundation of a good education. They were the concert instruments in homes before recorded music and iPods. They were essential for all entertainment. American buyers couldn't get enough, and private enterprise responded. There was the great Chickering piano made by a company founded in 1823 and which later led the world in beauty and sound. There was Hallet and Davis in Boston, J and C Fischer in New York, as well as Strich and Ziedler, Hazelton, William Knabe, Weber, Mason and Hamlin, Decker and Sons, Wurlitzer, Steck, Kimball in Chicago, and, finally Steinway. The American piano industry was the greatest in the world, not because the Americans came up with any new and great manufacturing techniques, though there were some innovations, but because the economic conditions made it most favorable to be manufactured here. It was widely believed that spending money on a piano wasn't really spending. It was an investment. The money you paid would be embedded right there in this beautiful and useful item. You can always sell it for more than you paid for it, and this was generally true. So people would make great sacrifices for these instruments. With the growth of this manufacturing came an explosion of shops that served the piano market all up and down the industry. Piano tuning was a big-time profession. Retail shops with pianos opened everywhere, and the sheet-music business exploded with them. Ever notice how in big cities the music stores are typically family owned and established forty, fifty, and even 100 years ago? This is a surviving remnant of our industrial past. All of this changed in 1930, which was the last great year of the American piano. Sales fell and continued to fall when times were tough. The companies that were beloved by all Americans fell on hard times and began to go belly up one by one. After World War II the trend continued, as ever more pianos began to be made overseas. In 1960, we began to see the first major international challenge to what was left of the US market position. Japan was already manufacturing half as many pianos as the US. By 1970, a revolution occurred as Japan's production outstripped the US, and it has been straight down ever sense. By 1980, Japan made twice as many as the US. Then production shifted to Korea. Today China is the center of world piano production. You probably see them in your local hotel bar. And what happened to the once-beloved and irreplaceable American piano industry? Only Steinway survives to make luxury instruments few can afford. The rest moved overseas under new ownership or were completely wiped out. Does any one care that much? Not too many. Have we been devastated as a nation and a people because of it? Not at all. It was just a matter of the economic facts. The demand went down and production costs for the pianos that were wanted were much cheaper elsewhere. Now, a piano aficionado reading this will say: buddy, you are crass. Listen to the sound of an older model Chickering and you can tell the difference. It was warm and wonderful, nearly symphonic. It is mellow and perfect for the best repertoire. By comparison, this new Chinese piano is sharp and angular and pointed. It sounds like a marimba. You can't play Schubert or Brahms on such junk. No one wants to hear that thing. Bring back the old days when pianos made sounds that sounded like real music! Well, you can still get that old Chickering sound, even from a piano made in New York. You can buy a Steinway. Of course you have to pay $50,000 plus and even as much as $120,000, but they are there. You say that is unaffordable? Says you. It is all a matter of priorities. You can forego your house and live in a tiny apartment and still own the most gorgeous instrument money can buy. In any case, it makes no economic sense for you to demand a magnificent piano at a very low price when reality does not make that possible. In the same way, many people will bemoan the loss of the US car industry and wax eloquent on the glory days of the 1957 Chevy or what have you. But we need to deal with the reality that this is in the past. Economics demands forward motion, a conforming to the facts on the ground and a relentless and realistic assessment of the relationship between cost and price, supply and demand. We must learn to love these forces in society because they are the only things that keep rationality alive in the way we use resources. Without them, there would be nothing but waste and chaos, and eventual starvation and death. We simply cannot live outside economic reality. Let's say that FDR had initiated a bailout of the piano industry and the even taken it over and nationalized it. The same firms would have made the same pianos for decades and decades. But that wouldn't have stopped the Japanese industry from taking off in the 1960s and 1970s. Americans would have far preferred them because they would be cheaper. American pianos, because they would be state-owned, would fall in quality, lower and lower to the point that they would become like a Soviet car in the 1960s. Of course you could set up tariff barriers. That would have forced American pianos on us. Except for one thing: demand would have still collapsed. The pianos still have to have a market. But let's say you find a workaround for that problem by requiring everyone to own a piano. You still can?t make people play them and value them. In the end you have to ask: is it really worth trillions in subsidies, vast tariffs, impositions all around, just to keep what you declare to be an essential industry alive? Well, eventually, as we have learned in the case of pianos, this is not essential. Things come and things go. Such is the world. Such is the course of events. Such is the forward motion of history in a world of relentless progress generated by the free market. Thank goodness that FDR didn't bother saving the US piano industry! As a result, Americans can get a huge range of instruments from all countries in the world at any price they are willing to pay. Today government is even more arrogant and absurd, and it actually believes that by passing legislation it can save the US car industry. It can subsidize and pay for uneconomic activities, and pay ever more every year. The government can also pay millions of people to make mud pies because mud pies are deemed to be an essential industry. You can do this, but at what cost and what could possibly be the point? Eventually, even the government will have to accord itself to the reality that economics reminds us of on a daily basis. _____ Jeffrey Tucker [jatucker at mindspring.com] is editorial vice president of www.Mises.org. Copyright (c) 2008 http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker115.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From tal1 at cogeco.ca Wed Dec 10 21:09:17 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:09:17 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Brasscheck TV: Selective attention in the Middle East Message-ID: <1C9B9773F0784B97A793EA7BE3BE693A@TonyPC> > One thing that becomes very apparent when you > leave the US news media bubble is that Americans > do not receive real news on conditions in Palestine. > > When Palestinians are portrayed in the US news > media its exclusively as poverty cases, malcontents, > and "terrorists." > > The fact that Palestinians have a history and > a culture, and that they were removed from their > lands and orchards at gunpoint and herded into > "refugee camps" is completely censored. > > With dual US-Israeli citizen Rahm Emmanuel, > son of a member of an Israeli group designated > as terrorist by the British government, acting > as Barrack Obama's right hand man, this moral > blindness is unlikely to change. > > Here's one of the stories you'll never see > on US TV. > > http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/492.html > > - Brasscheck > > P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and > videos with friends and colleagues. > > That's how we grow. Thanks. > - Brasscheck > > P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and > videos with friends and colleagues. > > That's how we grow. Thanks. > > ============================== > > > > Brasscheck TV > 2380 California St. > San Francisco, CA 94115 > > To unsubscribe or change subscriber options visit: > http://www.aweber.com/z/r/?zAxs7OwctMwcLIysjIzMtEa0LIyMTCwc7A== > > From pwright at prisonlegalnews.org Wed Dec 10 21:52:20 2008 From: pwright at prisonlegalnews.org (Paul Wright) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:52:20 -0500 Subject: [A-List] The End of the US Piano Industry In-Reply-To: <49407F5E.4030509@ashisuto.co.jp> References: <49407F5E.4030509@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: What was the last year a television set was manufactured in the US? Paul Wright, Editor Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 pwright at prisonlegalnews.org www.prisonlegalnews.org ? Seattle Office: 2400 NW 80th St. # 148 Seattle, WA 98117 206-246-1022 -----Original Message----- From: a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu [mailto:a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Totten Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:48 PM To: a-list Subject: [A-List] The End of the US Piano Industry by Jeffrey A Tucker LewRockwell.com (December 10 2008) Today the highest-price good that people buy besides their houses is their car, and this reality leads people to believe that we can't possibly let the American car industry die. We couldn't possibly be a real country and a powerful nation without our beloved auto industry, which is so essential to our national well-being. What about the time before the car? Between 1870 and 1930, the biggest ticket item on every household budget besides the house itself was its piano. Everyone had to have one. Those who didn't have one aspired to have one. It was a prize, an essential part of life, and they sold by the millions and millions. Americans before 1850 mostly imported their pianos. American manufacturing was nearly nonexistent. After 1850, that changed dramatically. The Gilded Age saw a vast increase in popularity. By 1890, Americans fed half the world market for pianos. Between 1890 and 1928, sales ranged from 172,000 to 364,000 thousand per year. It was a case of relentless and astounding growth. They were used in classrooms everywhere in times when music education was considered to be the foundation of a good education. They were the concert instruments in homes before recorded music and iPods. They were essential for all entertainment. American buyers couldn't get enough, and private enterprise responded. There was the great Chickering piano made by a company founded in 1823 and which later led the world in beauty and sound. There was Hallet and Davis in Boston, J and C Fischer in New York, as well as Strich and Ziedler, Hazelton, William Knabe, Weber, Mason and Hamlin, Decker and Sons, Wurlitzer, Steck, Kimball in Chicago, and, finally Steinway. The American piano industry was the greatest in the world, not because the Americans came up with any new and great manufacturing techniques, though there were some innovations, but because the economic conditions made it most favorable to be manufactured here. It was widely believed that spending money on a piano wasn't really spending. It was an investment. The money you paid would be embedded right there in this beautiful and useful item. You can always sell it for more than you paid for it, and this was generally true. So people would make great sacrifices for these instruments. With the growth of this manufacturing came an explosion of shops that served the piano market all up and down the industry. Piano tuning was a big-time profession. Retail shops with pianos opened everywhere, and the sheet-music business exploded with them. Ever notice how in big cities the music stores are typically family owned and established forty, fifty, and even 100 years ago? This is a surviving remnant of our industrial past. All of this changed in 1930, which was the last great year of the American piano. Sales fell and continued to fall when times were tough. The companies that were beloved by all Americans fell on hard times and began to go belly up one by one. After World War II the trend continued, as ever more pianos began to be made overseas. In 1960, we began to see the first major international challenge to what was left of the US market position. Japan was already manufacturing half as many pianos as the US. By 1970, a revolution occurred as Japan's production outstripped the US, and it has been straight down ever sense. By 1980, Japan made twice as many as the US. Then production shifted to Korea. Today China is the center of world piano production. You probably see them in your local hotel bar. And what happened to the once-beloved and irreplaceable American piano industry? Only Steinway survives to make luxury instruments few can afford. The rest moved overseas under new ownership or were completely wiped out. Does any one care that much? Not too many. Have we been devastated as a nation and a people because of it? Not at all. It was just a matter of the economic facts. The demand went down and production costs for the pianos that were wanted were much cheaper elsewhere. Now, a piano aficionado reading this will say: buddy, you are crass. Listen to the sound of an older model Chickering and you can tell the difference. It was warm and wonderful, nearly symphonic. It is mellow and perfect for the best repertoire. By comparison, this new Chinese piano is sharp and angular and pointed. It sounds like a marimba. You can't play Schubert or Brahms on such junk. No one wants to hear that thing. Bring back the old days when pianos made sounds that sounded like real music! Well, you can still get that old Chickering sound, even from a piano made in New York. You can buy a Steinway. Of course you have to pay $50,000 plus and even as much as $120,000, but they are there. You say that is unaffordable? Says you. It is all a matter of priorities. You can forego your house and live in a tiny apartment and still own the most gorgeous instrument money can buy. In any case, it makes no economic sense for you to demand a magnificent piano at a very low price when reality does not make that possible. In the same way, many people will bemoan the loss of the US car industry and wax eloquent on the glory days of the 1957 Chevy or what have you. But we need to deal with the reality that this is in the past. Economics demands forward motion, a conforming to the facts on the ground and a relentless and realistic assessment of the relationship between cost and price, supply and demand. We must learn to love these forces in society because they are the only things that keep rationality alive in the way we use resources. Without them, there would be nothing but waste and chaos, and eventual starvation and death. We simply cannot live outside economic reality. Let's say that FDR had initiated a bailout of the piano industry and the even taken it over and nationalized it. The same firms would have made the same pianos for decades and decades. But that wouldn't have stopped the Japanese industry from taking off in the 1960s and 1970s. Americans would have far preferred them because they would be cheaper. American pianos, because they would be state-owned, would fall in quality, lower and lower to the point that they would become like a Soviet car in the 1960s. Of course you could set up tariff barriers. That would have forced American pianos on us. Except for one thing: demand would have still collapsed. The pianos still have to have a market. But let's say you find a workaround for that problem by requiring everyone to own a piano. You still can?t make people play them and value them. In the end you have to ask: is it really worth trillions in subsidies, vast tariffs, impositions all around, just to keep what you declare to be an essential industry alive? Well, eventually, as we have learned in the case of pianos, this is not essential. Things come and things go. Such is the world. Such is the course of events. Such is the forward motion of history in a world of relentless progress generated by the free market. Thank goodness that FDR didn't bother saving the US piano industry! As a result, Americans can get a huge range of instruments from all countries in the world at any price they are willing to pay. Today government is even more arrogant and absurd, and it actually believes that by passing legislation it can save the US car industry. It can subsidize and pay for uneconomic activities, and pay ever more every year. The government can also pay millions of people to make mud pies because mud pies are deemed to be an essential industry. You can do this, but at what cost and what could possibly be the point? Eventually, even the government will have to accord itself to the reality that economics reminds us of on a daily basis. _____ Jeffrey Tucker [jatucker at mindspring.com] is editorial vice president of www.Mises.org. Copyright (c) 2008 http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker115.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From seanfischer at earthlink.net Wed Dec 10 22:46:31 2008 From: seanfischer at earthlink.net (Sean Fischer) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:46:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: [A-List] The End of the US Piano Industry Message-ID: <1518509.1228974391475.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Thanks Bill...this was a good read. The argument I see in your article is that taxpayer financed bailouts is essentially throwing good money after bad. To anyone else on the list: What are some real economic risks of providing bailouts to so many of the troubled US industries/markets all at once? Also does anyone think a combination of entrenched special interests, lack of regulation, and poor transparency is alone to blame, or is there something deeper at a foundational level I may be missing? What are other more efficient ways for a government to spend cash, in a cash strapped economy? Sean Fischer -----Original Message----- >From: Bill Totten >Sent: Dec 10, 2008 9:47 PM >To: a-list >Subject: [A-List] The End of the US Piano Industry > > >by Jeffrey A Tucker > >LewRockwell.com (December 10 2008) > > >Today the highest-price good that people buy besides their houses is >their car, and this reality leads people to believe that we can't >possibly let the American car industry die. We couldn't possibly be a >real country and a powerful nation without our beloved auto industry, >which is so essential to our national well-being. > >What about the time before the car? Between 1870 and 1930, the biggest >ticket item on every household budget besides the house itself was its >piano. Everyone had to have one. Those who didn't have one aspired to >have one. It was a prize, an essential part of life, and they sold by >the millions and millions. > >Americans before 1850 mostly imported their pianos. American >manufacturing was nearly nonexistent. After 1850, that changed >dramatically. The Gilded Age saw a vast increase in popularity. By 1890, >Americans fed half the world market for pianos. Between 1890 and 1928, >sales ranged from 172,000 to 364,000 thousand per year. It was a case of >relentless and astounding growth. > >They were used in classrooms everywhere in times when music education >was considered to be the foundation of a good education. They were the >concert instruments in homes before recorded music and iPods. They were >essential for all entertainment. American buyers couldn't get enough, >and private enterprise responded. > >There was the great Chickering piano made by a company founded in 1823 >and which later led the world in beauty and sound. There was Hallet and >Davis in Boston, J and C Fischer in New York, as well as Strich and >Ziedler, Hazelton, William Knabe, Weber, Mason and Hamlin, Decker and >Sons, Wurlitzer, Steck, Kimball in Chicago, and, finally Steinway. > >The American piano industry was the greatest in the world, not because >the Americans came up with any new and great manufacturing techniques, >though there were some innovations, but because the economic conditions >made it most favorable to be manufactured here. > >It was widely believed that spending money on a piano wasn't really >spending. It was an investment. The money you paid would be embedded >right there in this beautiful and useful item. You can always sell it >for more than you paid for it, and this was generally true. So people >would make great sacrifices for these instruments. > >With the growth of this manufacturing came an explosion of shops that >served the piano market all up and down the industry. Piano tuning was a >big-time profession. Retail shops with pianos opened everywhere, and the >sheet-music business exploded with them. Ever notice how in big cities >the music stores are typically family owned and established forty, >fifty, and even 100 years ago? This is a surviving remnant of our >industrial past. > >All of this changed in 1930, which was the last great year of the >American piano. Sales fell and continued to fall when times were tough. >The companies that were beloved by all Americans fell on hard times and >began to go belly up one by one. After World War II the trend continued, >as ever more pianos began to be made overseas. > >In 1960, we began to see the first major international challenge to what >was left of the US market position. Japan was already manufacturing half >as many pianos as the US. By 1970, a revolution occurred as Japan's >production outstripped the US, and it has been straight down ever sense. >By 1980, Japan made twice as many as the US. Then production shifted to >Korea. Today China is the center of world piano production. You probably >see them in your local hotel bar. > >And what happened to the once-beloved and irreplaceable American piano >industry? Only Steinway survives to make luxury instruments few can >afford. The rest moved overseas under new ownership or were completely >wiped out. > >Does any one care that much? Not too many. Have we been devastated as a >nation and a people because of it? Not at all. It was just a matter of >the economic facts. The demand went down and production costs for the >pianos that were wanted were much cheaper elsewhere. > >Now, a piano aficionado reading this will say: buddy, you are crass. >Listen to the sound of an older model Chickering and you can tell the >difference. It was warm and wonderful, nearly symphonic. It is mellow >and perfect for the best repertoire. By comparison, this new Chinese >piano is sharp and angular and pointed. It sounds like a marimba. You >can't play Schubert or Brahms on such junk. No one wants to hear that >thing. Bring back the old days when pianos made sounds that sounded like >real music! > >Well, you can still get that old Chickering sound, even from a piano >made in New York. You can buy a Steinway. Of course you have to pay >$50,000 plus and even as much as $120,000, but they are there. You say >that is unaffordable? Says you. It is all a matter of priorities. You >can forego your house and live in a tiny apartment and still own the >most gorgeous instrument money can buy. In any case, it makes no >economic sense for you to demand a magnificent piano at a very low price >when reality does not make that possible. > >In the same way, many people will bemoan the loss of the US car industry >and wax eloquent on the glory days of the 1957 Chevy or what have you. >But we need to deal with the reality that this is in the past. Economics >demands forward motion, a conforming to the facts on the ground and a >relentless and realistic assessment of the relationship between cost and >price, supply and demand. We must learn to love these forces in society >because they are the only things that keep rationality alive in the way >we use resources. Without them, there would be nothing but waste and >chaos, and eventual starvation and death. We simply cannot live outside >economic reality. > >Let's say that FDR had initiated a bailout of the piano industry and the >even taken it over and nationalized it. The same firms would have made >the same pianos for decades and decades. But that wouldn't have stopped >the Japanese industry from taking off in the 1960s and 1970s. Americans >would have far preferred them because they would be cheaper. American >pianos, because they would be state-owned, would fall in quality, lower >and lower to the point that they would become like a Soviet car in the >1960s. Of course you could set up tariff barriers. That would have >forced American pianos on us. Except for one thing: demand would have >still collapsed. The pianos still have to have a market. But let's say >you find a workaround for that problem by requiring everyone to own a >piano. You still can?t make people play them and value them. > >In the end you have to ask: is it really worth trillions in subsidies, >vast tariffs, impositions all around, just to keep what you declare to >be an essential industry alive? Well, eventually, as we have learned in >the case of pianos, this is not essential. Things come and things go. >Such is the world. Such is the course of events. Such is the forward >motion of history in a world of relentless progress generated by the >free market. Thank goodness that FDR didn't bother saving the US piano >industry! As a result, Americans can get a huge range of instruments >from all countries in the world at any price they are willing to pay. > >Today government is even more arrogant and absurd, and it actually >believes that by passing legislation it can save the US car industry. It >can subsidize and pay for uneconomic activities, and pay ever more every >year. The government can also pay millions of people to make mud pies >because mud pies are deemed to be an essential industry. You can do >this, but at what cost and what could possibly be the point? Eventually, >even the government will have to accord itself to the reality that >economics reminds us of on a daily basis. > >_____ > >Jeffrey Tucker [jatucker at mindspring.com] is editorial vice president of >www.Mises.org. > >Copyright (c) 2008 > >http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker115.html > > >http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com >http://www.ashisuto.co.jp > > > From nmgoro at gmail.com Thu Dec 11 09:52:53 2008 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:52:53 -0600 Subject: [A-List] The Greek early warning Message-ID: <2fa158550812110852k633d7e68p4691a2edcf8e7c0d@mail.gmail.com> A momentous earthqwake may well be under preparation in Eastern Europe. If I am not wrong, the Greek events may be an early warning -- N?stor Gorojovsky El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Dec 11 10:36:41 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:36:41 -0500 Subject: [A-List] The Greek early warning In-Reply-To: <2fa158550812110852k633d7e68p4691a2edcf8e7c0d@mail.gmail.com> References: <2fa158550812110852k633d7e68p4691a2edcf8e7c0d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I hope so, but do you see any signs in Eastern Europe? On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:52 AM, N?stor Gorojovsky wrote: > A momentous earthqwake may well be under preparation in Eastern Europe. > > If I am not wrong, the Greek events may be an early warning > > -- > > N?stor Gorojovsky > El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a > From noreply at coha.org Wed Dec 10 10:09:43 2008 From: noreply at coha.org (Council on Hemispheric Affairs) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:09:43 -0500 Subject: [A-List] OPEN LETTER FROM U.S. ACADEMICS ON SALVADORAN ELECTIONS Message-ID: <20081210170924.BC3B83E4706@mx-out2.daemonmail.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 14260 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081210/b36b09a8/attachment.txt From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Dec 11 12:15:43 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:15:43 -0500 Subject: [A-List] The media myth: Detroit's $70-an-hour autoworker Message-ID: <49412090.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> From: "Paul Wright" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think that all this ignores the question of imperialism. Whether GM's US workers make $30 or $80 an hour is largely immaterial. GM has shed 2/3 to 3/4 of its US work force in the past 30 years. Mexican GM workers assembling cars for sale in the US are making $2-3 dollars US an hour yet the company gives US buyers no comparable discount, they pocket that amount as additional profit. Nary a word has been said about saving the jobs of GM's Mexican, Venezuelan and other workers. The whole notion that millions of US jobs are at stake if the US auto industry goes under is, I think, fantasist. Not that many Americans have jobs in the auto industry and it also assumes Americans will stop buying cars. ^^^ CB: Imperialism is a highly socialized form of production, i.e. the auto industry is the end point for a lot of other jobs in steel, parts production, et al. Also, many jobs in sales of goods and services depend upon the money that autoworkers, steelworkers et al spend. Industrial production is a complex and extensive web of labor, and the loss of major auto companies would cost millions of jobs in enterprises in the auto industry web outside of direct auto jobs. ^^^^ They won't, they will just buy cars made by Toyota, Honda, etc. many of which are made here in the US. So there will be a job migration. I have not seen any discussion of capital export when it is foreign auto companies with US assembly plants that make sales here and presumably send the surplus back to japan. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Dec 11 12:20:06 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:20:06 -0500 Subject: [A-List] The media myth: Detroit's $70-an-hour autoworker Message-ID: <49412196.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: a-list at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [A-List] The media myth: Detroit's $70-an-hour autoworker From: Waistline2 at xxxxxxx Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:25:28 EST -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 12/10/2008 10:41:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, _pwright at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:pwright at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes: >> On the international question, no one has asked why a US GM worker should make $30 an hour and a Mexican GM worker should make $3 an hour when they make the same product and it is being sold at the same price, it merely increases the surplus value and profit for the company. >From an anti imperialist perspective, do we want a well managed, profitable economy? People who are well paid and well fed don't revolt. <<<< ^^^ CB: What lefts, progressives, socialists and communists and anti-imperialists try to develop is a fight to raise Mexican workers' incomes to that of the USian workers, not to lower USian workers incomes to the level of the Mexican workers. This is A,B,C of working class consciousness. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Thu Dec 11 18:01:27 2008 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:01:27 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Agent Orange's toxic legacy lingers on Message-ID: <4941B7E7.2000303@ashisuto.co.jp> www.russiatoday.com (November 17 2008) More than thirty years after it ended, the Vietnam War is still having a devastating impact on the lives of ordinary people. Up to five million Vietnamese were exposed to Agent Orange, a deadly herbicide sprayed by the US Army over wide areas. The chemical killed tens of thousands but has left a tragic legacy of birth defects and disabilities in those born long after the war. Almost eighty million litres of the poisonous herbicide was sprayed by the US military during the war in Vietnam. The aim was to destroy the jungle that provided cover for the Vietnamese army. But the powerful weed killer contained one of the world's most toxic chemicals - dioxin. Cancer, birth defects, psychiatric disorders and diabetes are just a few of the diseases caused by it. Vu Tan Kim was a soldier during the war. He says when the chemical was sprayed on their base, they didn't know how dangerous it was. Only after his daughter was born he was told by doctors the dioxin he was exposed to had affected his genes. His daughter is blind, her arms and legs are deformed and she is mentally handicapped. "If I had my leg cut or went blind, that's ok. But here my blood was poisoned and even though the war ended in Vietnam, every time I come home I feel very sad when I see my daughter", he says. He says the one dollar a day he gets from his government is not enough and that it's the US who should compensate. However, America's constitution protects those who were responsible at the time, so the victims took the companies who developed Agent Orange to court. But the judge, who had previously awarded millions of dollars to American veterans who suffered from the poison, threw the case out. Nguyen Trong Nhan is a leading official of the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange (VAVA). He says that, despite having little faith in America's legal system, the battle continues and they hope to win their appeal. Da Nang International Airport is now a gateway for millions of tourists. What they don't know is that it's also one of Vietnam's three toxic hot spots. The American military stored unused dioxin at this former airbase. Lev Fedorov, Doctor of Chemical Science says: "Local people here are still being chronically poisoned. The dioxin that was sprayed on the territory doesn't' go anywhere. It's very resistant." Residents nearby were warned only last year that vegetables grown here and fish caught in the lake are poisonous. _____ To learn more, please click http://www.russiatoday.com/features/news/33361/video . NOTE: The story contains images which you might find disturbing. http://www.russiatoday.com/features/news/33361 http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Dec 11 21:31:30 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:31:30 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Taking Evolution Seriously In-Reply-To: <493E7BEB.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <493E7BEB.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <275BDD8850744DA392553E35C1018ABD@TonyPC> A reduction in numbers, in species, but not in complexity (i.e. mammals were already on the scene). In any case, the demise of the dinosaurs was the result of - well at least thought largely to be the result of - a catastrophic extinction event (though, I suppose, this too must be considered part of 'evolutionary' process seen from a certain perspective). As I said in a previous posting, evolution is not a linear process, but given its *global contextual* nature it is an inexorably 'progressive' one (organizationally speaking) with the (perhaps not so obvious) proviso of niche dependency (i.e. bacteria are clearly not as organizationally complex as humans even whilst having been around much longer - indeed, almost from the beginning of the Earth itself.. This is because bacteria occupy niches where such organizational complexity is either not necessary or is prohibited by such transparent parameters as size etc. Listen, this is not rocket science, this despite the fact that many an 'expert' has become so enthralled by the dogma, the doctrine, that "evolution has no intrinsic direction". But, of course, this is to ignore, first the clear and overwhelming evidence (literally before one's very eyes) of the rise of organizational complexity - and in successive, well defined stages - over the last 600 million years. I mean, how else do you explain all the organizational complexity you see around you? As some sort of accident!? ..I mean really. *If* you postulate no intrinsic *overall* direction to evolution (and I mean, naturally, 'direction' in terms of organizationally complexity, not any specific form) how then do you account for the spectacular rise of such? Of trees, birds, bees, and human beings? What principle then do you invoke? Second, the notion of evolution as being contextually neutral is, as I said earlier, logically incoherent. Evolution works via (among other significant factors) natural selection working on mutation (itself a product of self-reproduction). But this 'selection' must per force take place with respect to an environment. Now that environment can consist of micro and / or macro components - but the point is, that this is intrinsically a *contextual* process. There is no 'evolutionary process' in a vacuum, that is apart from the context of molding, environmental forces. And do to the nature of the inevitable competition (and co-operation..but that is another, more sophisticated matter) involved, 'evolution' will, given enough time and suitable contexts, force the design of ever more organizationally complex organisms...not all of them, and many of them to varying degrees, and not invariably over the planets surface, but from an organizational point of view, an increasingly more 'advanced' apex of organizational This is not the first time (even within evolutionary biology*) that many a 'professional in the field' has been blinded by a rigid adherence to a criterion that even a child can see through....[One need only look at the absolutely preposterous stance of a whole generation of comparative linguists who lined up (and probably still do) against Joseph Greenberg in his quite reasonable demand to place 'classification' ahead of 'reconstruction' as the basis for historical linguistics]. *As an example, the 'rate of living' paradigm (i.e. organisms that have slower metabolic rates live longer) - clearly a reasonable hypothesis - has been totally thrown out with the theoretical bathwater by most practicing biologists; this despite the fact that a modified 'rate of living paradigm' (taking into account certain, more or less, easily understandable qualifications, i.e. body size, organizational complexity in relation to energetic trade-off structures, allometry etc) *clearly and overwhelmingly* demonstrate a powerful relationship (and across phylogenies) between metabolic rate and longevity. Still, the automatic, reflexive rejection persists. The old, simple verbal mantras hold sway....For now. Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Brown" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 2:08 PM Subject: [A-List] Taking Evolution Seriously Taking Evolution Seriously From: "Tony B." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- While appreciating the social message here, Greer is, at the same time, guilty of mis-representing - or misunderstanding - evolutionary 'progress'. Thus: "In nature, though, evolution has no levels, it just has adaptations. There is no straight line of progress along which living things can be ranked. Instead, evolutionary lineages splay outward like the branches of an unruly shrub. Sometimes those branches take unexpected turns, but these evolutionary breakthroughs can no more be ranked in an ascending hierarchy than organisms can. " Nonsense. ^^^ CB: I'm sure you are familiar with Stephen Jay Gould's thinking and writing on this. The extinction of the "dinosaurs" and coincident species was a reduction in "complexity", wasn't it. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Dec 12 08:02:02 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:02:02 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Kapital: manga version References: <493B3FAB.1050908@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4942369A.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> > > > When Karl Marx alerted economists to the "the knell of capitalist > private property" he probably didn't imagine the phrase cropping-up as > a speech bubble in a comic strip for Japanese commuters. > > But across the world's second biggest economy, bookstores from > Hiroshima to Hokkaido are preparing for what they expect to be the > publishing phenomenon of the year: Das Kapital -- the manga version. > > The comic, which goes on sale early next month, plays into a growing > fascination among Japan's hard-working labour force with socialist > literature and joins a collection of increasingly fierce literary > critiques of the global capitalist system. > > In recent decades, while Japan Inc was still delivering collective > prosperity to the nation, public criticism of companies has been > muted. Unions were weak and acquiescent. But now, as the country sinks > into its second recession in seven year, the sackings begin and the > gap widens between rich and poor, a growing number of Japanese believe > the problem lies with capitalism itself. > > The ambitious comic rendering of Das Kapital is designed to parcel the > complex economic theories of Marx's hefty original in a format which > Japanese adore digesting their information from; it will also be > compressed into a size that can be slipped discretely into a Chanel > evening bag, or slid into the top drawer of a desk when the bosses are > looking. A sneak preview given to The Times reveals that Marx's > central themes are relayed in the comic via a cast of suitably > down-trodden workers. > > Japanese publishers have historically used cartoons to explain thorny > diplomatic relations with China, advanced wine-tasting and even the > spread of bird flu: the manga version of Das Kapital takes on even the > toughest concepts thrown up in the original, from "commodity > fetishism" to the precise process by which "the expropriators are > expropriated". > > The comic is expected to sell tens of thousands of copies in its first > weeks on sale, but is up against stiff competition: _anti-capitalist > books are the hottest sellers in capitalist Japan at the moment,_ and > it will take something extraordinary to beat the sales of _Hideki > Mitani's "Greedy Capitalism and the Self Destructiveness of Wall > Street._" > > A former Goldman Sachs high-flyer, Mr Mitani now vigorously deplores > the destruction of Japanese business values on the altar of > Anglo-Saxon capitalism and describes Wall Street itself as one of > Dante's circles of hell. Phrases like "unbridled mammonism" and > "uncontrolled greed" abound in his work. Japanese readers, meanwhile, > are lapping it up, and the book has become the fastest-selling > non-fiction title for many years. > > The dramatic shift to the left in Japanese literary tastes has even > revived domestic socialist tracts of the 1930s: one of the strongest > selling books of the year, at nearly half a million copies, is > Kanikosen - a savagely bleak, novel depicting violence, exploitation > and revolution aboard a crabmeat canning ship. [Hmmm - Japanese 'Death > Ship?] > > The book has somehow pinched a nerve in 21st Century Japan. When > Kanikosen was reprinted earlier this year, Tokyo's largest bookshop > put a poster at the front of the store reading: "Revival of the book > that describes the cruel labour environment of the past: an > environment similar to that of the current working poor in 2008." > > Daisuke Asao, a senior officer in the National Confederation of Trades > Unions, said of Japan's resurgent interest in socialist literature: > "the situation of those labourers in the book is very similar to > modern temporary workers: the unpredictable contracts, the working > under heavy supervision, violence from supervisors, the widespread > sexual harassment and the pressure against unionisation are all things > that modern Japanese recognise every day." > http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/japan/article5175853.ece This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Dec 12 08:57:38 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:57:38 -0500 Subject: [A-List] VIII. PARASITISM AND DECAY OF CAPITALISM Message-ID: <494243A2.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> VIII. PARASITISM AND DECAY OF CAPITALISM We now have to examine yet another significant aspect of imperialism to which most of the discussions on the subject usually attach insufficient importance. One of the shortcomings of the Marxist Hilferding is that on this point he has taken a step backward compared with the non-Marxist Hobson. I refer to parasitism, which is characteristic of imperialism. As we have seen, the deepest economic foundation of imperialism is monopoly. This is capitalist monopoly, i.e., monopoly which has grown out of capitalism and which exists in the general environment of capitalism, commodity production and competition, in permanent and insoluble contradiction to this general environment. Nevertheless, like all monopoly, it inevitably engenders a tendency of stagnation and decay. Since monopoly prices are established, even temporarily, the motive cause of technical and, consequently, of all other progress disappears to a certain extent and, further, the economic possibility arises of deliberately retarding technical progress. For instance, in America, a certain Owens invented a machine which revolutionised the manufacture of bottles. The German bottle-manufacturing cartel purchased Owens?s patent, but pigeon-holed it, refrained from utilising it. Certainly, monopoly under capitalism can never completely, and for a very long period of time, eliminate competition in the world market (and this, by the by, is one of the reasons why the theory of ultra-imperialism is so absurd). Certainly, the possibility of reducing the cost of production and increasing profits by introducing technical improvements operates in the direction of change. But the tendency to stagnation and decay, which is characteristic of monopoly, continues to operate, and in some branches of industry, in some countries, for certain periods of time, it gains the upper hand. The monopoly ownership of very extensive, rich or wellsituated colonies operates in the same direction. Further, imperialism is an immense accumulation of money capital in a few countries, amounting, as we have seen, to 100,000-50,000 million francs in securities. Hence the extraordinary growth of a class, or rather, of a stratum of rentiers, i.e., people who live by ?clipping coupons?, who take no part in any enterprise whatever, whose profession is idleness. The export of capital, one of the most essential economic bases of imperialism, still more completely isolates the rentiers from production and sets the seal of parasitism on the whole country that lives by exploiting the labour of several overseas countries and colonies. ?In 1893,? writes Hobson, ?the British capital invested abroad represented about 15 per cent of the total wealth of the United Kingdom.? [1] Let me remind the reader that by 1915 this capital had increased about two and a half times. ?Aggressive imperialism,? says Hobson further on, ?which costs the tax-payer so dear, which is of so little value to the manufacturer and trader ... is a source of great gain to the investor.... The annual income Great Britain derives from commissions in her whole foreign and colonial trade, import and export, is estimated by Sir R.Giffen at ?18,000,000 (nearly 170 million rubles] for 1899, taken at 2 1/2 per cent, upon a turnover of ?800,000,000.? Great as this sum is, it cannot explain the aggressive imperialism of Great Britain, which is explained by the income of ?90 million to ?100 million from ?invested? capital, the income of the rentiers. The income of the rentiers is five times greater than the income obtained from the foreign trade of the biggest ?trading? country in the world! This is the essence of imperialism and imperialist parasitism. For that reason the term ?rentier state? (Rentnerstaat), or usurer state, is coming into common use in the economic literature that deals with imperialism. The world has become divided into a handful of usurer states and a vast majority of debtor states. ?At the top of the list of foreign investments,? says Schulze-Gaevernitz, ?are those placed in politically dependent or allied countries: Great Britain grants loans to Egypt, Japan, China and South America. Her navy plays here the part of bailiff in case of necessity. Great Britain?s political power protects her from the indignation of her debtors.? [2] Sartorius von Waltershausen in his book, The National Economic System of Capital Investments Abroad, cites Holland as the model ?rentier state? and points out that Great Britain and France are now becoming such. [3] Schilder is of the opinion that five industrial states have become ?definitely pronounced creditor countries?: Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium and Switzerland. He does not include Holland in this list simply because she is ?industrially little developed?. [4] The United States is a creditor only of the American countries. ?Great Britain,? says Schulze-Gaevernitz, ?is gradually becoming transformed from an industrial into a creditor state. Notwithstanding the absolute increase in industrial output and the export of manufactured goods, there is an increase in the relative importance of income from interest and dividends, issues of securities, commissions and speculation in the whole of the national economy. In my opinion it is precisely this that forms the economic basis of imperialist ascendancy. The creditor is more firmly attached to the debtor than the seller is to the buyer. [5] In regard to Germany, A. Lansburgh, the publisher of the Berlin Die Bank, in 1911, in an article entitled ?Germany?a Rentier State?, wrote the following: ?People in Germany are ready to sneer at the yearning to become rentiers that is observed in France. But they forget that as far as the bourgeoisie is concerned the situation in Germany is becoming more and more like that in France.? [6] - The rentier state is a state of parasitic, decaying capitalism, and this circumstance cannot fail to influence all the socio-political conditions of the countries concerned, in general, and the two fundamental trends in the working-class movement, in particular. To demonstrate this in the clearest possible manner let me quote Hobson, who is a most reliable witness, since he cannot be suspected of leaning towards Marxist orthodoxy; on the other hand, he is an Englishman who is very well acquainted with the situation in the country which is richest in colonies, in finance capital, and in imperialist experience. With the Anglo-Boer War fresh in his mind, Hobson describes the connection between imperialism and the interests of the ?financiers?, their growing profits from contracts, supplies, etc., and writes: ?While the directors of this definitely parasitic policy are capitalists, the same motives appeal to special classes of the workers. In many towns most important trades are dependent upon government employment or contracts; the imperialism of the metal and shipbuilding centres is attributable in no small degree to this fact.? Two sets of circumstances, in this writer?s opinion, have weakened the old empires: (1) ?economic parasitism?, and (2) the formation of armies recruited from subject peoples. ?There is first the habit of economic parasitism, by which the ruling state has used its provinces, colonies, and dependencies in order to enrich its ruling class and to bribe its lower classes into acquiescence.? And I shall add that the economic possibility of such bribery, whatever its form may be, requires high monopolist profits. As for the second circumstance, Hobson writes: ?One of the strangest symptoms of the blindness of imperialism is the reckless indifference with which Great Britain, France and other imperial nations are embarking on this perilous dependence. Great Britain has gone farthest. Most of the fighting by which we have won our Indian Empire has been done by natives; in India, as more recently in Egypt, great standing armies are placed under British commanders; almost all the fighting associated with our African dominions, except in the southern part, has been done for us by natives.? Hobson gives the following economic appraisal of the prospect of the partitioning of China: ?The greater part of Western Europe might then assume the appearance and character already exhibited by tracts of country in the South of England, in the Riviera and in the tourist-ridden or residential parts of Italy and Switzerland, little clusters of wealthy aristocrats drawing dividends and pensions from the Far East, with a somewhat larger group of professional retainers and tradesmen and a larger body of personal servants and workers in the transport trade and in the final stages of production of the more perishable goods; all the main arterial industries would have disappeared, the staple foods and manufactures flowing in as tribute from Asia and Africa. . . . We have foreshadowed the possibility of even a larger alliance of Western states, a European federation of great powers which, so far from forwarding the cause of world civilisation, might introduce the gigantic peril of a Western parasitism, a group of advanced industrial nations, whose upper classes drew vast tribute from Asia and Africa, with which they supported great tame masses of retainers, no longer engaged in the staple industries of agriculture and manufacture, but kept in the performance of personal or minor industrial services under the control of a new financial aristocracy. Let those who would scout such a theory (it would be better to say: prospect) as undeserving of consideration examine the economic and social condition of districts in Southern England today which are already reduced to this condition, and reflect upon the vast extension of such a system which might be rendered feasible by the subjection of China to the economic control of similar groups of financiers, investors, and political and business officials, draining the greatest potential reservoir of profit the world has ever known, in order to consume it in Europe. The situation is far too complex, the play of world forces far too incalculable, to render this or any other single interpretation of the future very probable; but the influences which govern the imperialism of Western Europe today are moving in this direction, and, unless counteracted or diverted, make towards some such consummation.? [7] The author is quite right: if the forces of imperialism had not been counteracted they would have led precisely to what he has described. The significance of a ?United States of Europe? in the present imperialist situation is correctly appraised. He should have added, however, that, also within the working-class movement, the opportunists, who are for the moment victorious in most countries, are ?working? systematically and undeviatingly in this very direction. Imperialism, which means the partitioning of the world, and the exploitation of other countries besides China, which means high monopoly profits for a handful of very rich countries, makes it economically possible to bribe the upper strata of the proletariat, and thereby fosters, gives shape to, and strengthens opportunism. We must not, however, lose sight of the forces which counteract imperialism in general, and opportunism in particular, and which, naturally, the social-liberal Hobson is unable to perceive. The German opportunist, Gerhard Hildebrand, who was once expelled from the Party for defending imperialism, and who could today be a leader of the so-called ?Social-Democratic? Party of Germany, supplements Hobson well by his advocacy of a ?United States of Western Europe? (without Russia) for the purpose of ?joint? action ... against the African Negroes, against the ?great Islamic movement?, for the maintenance of a ?powerful army and navy?, against a ?Sino-Japanese coalition?, [8] etc. The description of ?British imperialism? in Schulze-Gaevernitz?s book reveals the same parasitical traits. The national income of Great Britain approximately doubled from 1865 to 1898, while the income ?from abroad? increased ninefold in the same period. While the ?merit? of imperialism is that it ?trains the Negro to habits of industry? (you cannot manage without coercion ... ), the ?danger? of imperialism lies in that ?Europe will shift the burden of physical toil?first agricultural and mining, then the rougher work in industry?on to the coloured races, and itself be content with the role of rentier, and in this way, perhaps, pave the way for the economic, and later, the political emancipation of the coloured races?. An increasing proportion of land in England is being taken out of cultivation and used for sport, for the diversion of the rich. As far as Scotland?the most aristocratic place for hunting and other sports?is concerned, it is said that ?it lives on its past and on Mr. Carnegie? (the American multimillionaire). On horse racing and fox hunting alone England annually spends ?14,000,000 (nearly 130 million rubles). The number of rentiers in England is about one million. The percentage of the productively employed population to the total population is declining: Population England and Wales (000,000) Workers in basic industries (000,000) Per cent of total popula- tion 1851..... 17.9 4.1 23 1901..... 32.5 4.9 15 And in speaking of the British working class the bourgeois student of ?British imperialism at the beginning of the twentieth century? is obliged to distinguish systematically between the ?upper stratum? of the workers and the ?lower stratum of the proletariat proper?. The upper stratum furnishes the bulk of the membership of co-operatives, of trade unions, of sporting clubs and of numerous religious sects. To this level is adapted the electoral system, which in Great Britain is still ?sufficiently restricted to exclude the lower stratum of the proletariat proper"! In order to present the condition of the British working class in a rosy light, only this upper stratum?which constitutes a minority of the proletariat?is usually spoken of. For instance, ?the problem of unemployment is mainly a London problem and that of the lower proletarian stratum, to which the politicians attach little importance...? [9] He should have said: to which the bourgeois politicians and the ?socialist? opportunists attach little importance. One of the special features of imperialism connected with the facts I am describing, is the decline in emigration from imperialist countries and the increase in immigration into these countries from the more backward countries where lower wages are paid. As Hobson observes, emigration from Great Britain has been declining since 1884. In that year the number of emigrants was 242,000, while in 1900, the number was 169,000. Emigration from Germany reached the highest point between 1881 and 1890, with a total of 1,453,000 emigrants. In the course of the following two decades, it fell to 544,000 and to 341,000. On the other hand, there was an increase in the number of workers entering Germany from Austria, Italy, Russia and other countries. According to the 1907 census, there were 1,342,294 foreigners in Germany, of whom 440,800 were industrial workers and 257,329 agricultural workers. [10] In France, the workers employed in the mining industry are, ?in great part?, foreigners: Poles, Italians and Spaniards. [11] In the United States, immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe are engaged in the most poorly paid jobs, while American workers provide the highest percentage of overseers or of the better-paid workers. [12] Imperialism has the tendency to create privileged sections also among the workers, and to detach them from the broad masses of the proletariat. It must be observed that in Great Britain the tendency of imperialism to split the workers, to strengthen opportunism among them and to cause temporary decay in the working-class movement, revealed itself much earlier than the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries; for two important distinguishing features of imperialism were already observed in Great Britain in the middle of the nineteenth century?vast colonial possessions and a monopolist position in the world market. Marx and Engels traced this connection between opportunism in the working-class movement and the imperialist features of British capitalism systematically, during the course of several decades. For example, on October 7, 1858, Engels wrote to Marx: ?The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world this is of course to a certain extent justifiable.?[15] Almost a quarter of a century later, in a letter dated August 11, 1881, Engels speaks of the ?worst English trade unions which allow themselves to be led by men sold to, or at least paid by, the middle class?. In a letter to Kautsky, dated September 12, 1882, Engels wrote: ?You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general. There is no workers? party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England?s monopoly of the world market and the colonies.? [13] (Engels expressed similar ideas in the press in his preface to the second edition of The Condition of the Working Class in England, which appeared in 1892.) This clearly shows the causes and effects. The causes are: (1) exploitation of the whole world by this country; (2) its monopolist position in the world market; (3) its colonial monopoly. The effects are: (1) a section of the British proletariat becomes bourgeois; (2) a section of the proletariat allows itself to be led by men bought by, or at least paid by, the bourgeoisie. The imperialism of the beginning of the twentieth century completed the division of the world among a handful of states, each of which today exploits (in the sense of drawing superprofits from) a part of the ?whole world? only a little smaller than that which England exploited in 1858; each of them occupies a monopolist position in the world market thanks to trusts, cartels, finance capital and creditor and debtor relations; each of them enjoys to some degree a colonial monopoly (we have seen that out of the total of 75,000,000 sq. km., which comprise the whole colonial world, 65,000,000 sq. km., or 86 per cent, belong to six powers; 61,000,000 sq. km., or 81 per cent, belong to three powers). The distinctive feature of the present situation is the prevalence of such economic and political conditions that are bound to increase the irreconcilability between opportunism and the general and vital interests of the working-class movement: imperialism has grown from an embryo into the predominant system; capitalist monopolies occupy first place in economics and politics; the division of the world has been completed; on the other hand, instead of the undivided monopoly of Great Britain, we see a few imperialist powers contending for the right to share in this monopoly, and this struggle is characteristic of the whole period of the early twentieth century. Opportunism cannot now be completely triumphant in the working-class movement of one country for decades as it was in Britain in the second half of the nineteenth century; but in a number of countries it has grown ripe, overripe, and rotten, and has become completely merged with bourgeois policy in the form of ?social-chauvinism?. [14] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes [1] Hobson, op. cit., pp. 59, 62. ?Lenin [2] Schulze-Gaevernitz, Britischer Imperialismus, S. 320 et seq. ?Lenin [3] Sartorius von Waltershausen, Das volkswirtschaftliche System, etc., Berlin, 1907, Buch IV. ?Lenin [4] Schilder, op. cit., S. 393. ?Lenin [5] Schulze-Gaevernitz, op. cit., S. 122. ?Lenin [6] Die Bank, 1911, 1, S. 10-11. ?Lenin [7] Hobson, op. cit., pp. 103, 205, 144, 335, 386. ?Lenin [8] Gerhard Hildebrand, Die Ersch?tterung der Industrieherrschaft und des Industriesozialismus, 1910, S. 229 et seq. ?Lenin [9] Schulze-Gaevernitz, Britischer Imperialismus S. 301. ?Lenin [10] Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Bd. 211. ?Lenin [11] Henger, Die Kapitalsanlage der Franzosen, Stuttgart, 1913. ?Lenin [12] Hourwich, Immigralion and Labour, New York, 1913. ?Lenin [13] Briefwechsel von Marx und Engels, Bd. II, S. 290; 1V, 433?Karl Kautsky, Sozialismus und Kolonialpolitik, Berlin, 1907, S. 79; this pamphlet was written by Kautsky in those infinitely distant days when he was still a Marxist. ?Lenin [14] Russian social-chauvinism in its overt form, represented by the Potresovs, Chkenkelis, Maslovs, etc., and its covert form (Chkeidze, Skobelev, Axelrod, Martov, etc.) also emerged from the Russian variety of opportunism, namely, liquidationism. ?Lenin [15] [PLACEHOLDER.] VII. IMPERIALISM AS A SPECIAL STAGE OF CAPITALISM | IX. CRITIQUE OF IMPERIALISM This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From nmgoro at gmail.com Fri Dec 12 10:00:54 2008 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:00:54 -0300 Subject: [A-List] The Greek early warning In-Reply-To: References: <2fa158550812110852k633d7e68p4691a2edcf8e7c0d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2fa158550812120900g183d9f0an7af72b998688373f@mail.gmail.com> Not exactly. Not yet. But I am human, I cannot foresee earthqwakes 2008/12/11 Yoshie Furuhashi : > I hope so, but do you see any signs in Eastern Europe? > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:52 AM, N?stor Gorojovsky wrote: >> A momentous earthqwake may well be under preparation in Eastern Europe. >> >> If I am not wrong, the Greek events may be an early warning >> >> -- >> >> N?stor Gorojovsky >> El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a >> > > -- N?stor Gorojovsky El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Fri Dec 12 10:49:20 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 09:49:20 -0800 Subject: [A-List] =?windows-1252?q?=91Last_Year=92s_Model=92_-_Viewing_The?= =?windows-1252?q?_Automotive_History_Of_Our_Times_Thru_The_Glass_Darkly?= Message-ID: <4942A420.2050003@gmail.com> [December 12 2008] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: ?Last Year?s Model? - Screw The ?Big Three? And Their ?Greed-Based? Capitalist Model? Viewing The Automotive History Of Our Times Thru The Glass Darkly My site: http://leighm.net/wp/2008/12/12/tth_081212/ ArchiveDOTorg: http://www.archive.org/details/tth_081212 What happened to Tucker (Ball-bearing mounted crankshafts and much much more?) Studebaker (Built originally in Placerville California?) and so many others An industry that 'ate it's own' and died from it's own excesses, greed and ignorance That's what happened. The times they DO keep changing. Sorry about that $38 dollars an hour Charles, and the mentally ill penchant for measuring the 'size of your dick' (I dunno... depth of 'pussy'?) by the size of your paycheck. It means nothing if the money they pay you with is worthless. Bailing out the US auto industry will do just that. Make the US dollar even LESS tenable Globally (Who the fuck buys US cars overseas?), and at home. We STILL need more food farmers, the people who cook the meals for the farmers, the people who 'count the beans' for those farmers, and the people who fix the tractors, and people who build the tractors, AND MAYBE if there's more demand at home for Caterpillar tractors (for instance), they won't have the economic 'necessity' of selling weaponized bulldozers to Israel. Ditto for Ford's big money maker hydrogen powered UAVs, and GM's Million dollar plus Stryker battlewagons. There's ONE option for the retraining of Michigan's workers... There must be thousands of opportunities just like that for what's left of the obsolete US auto industry. One CAN dream. Dreams CAN become realities. But FIRST, you have to "Be realistic, DEMAND the impossible." ...And MOST of all, you need to be able to think 'outside the box'. Something American marxists are categorically incapable of. In... "Other" news: Secretary of DHS Chertoff has been ?busted? (If Only! Be still my heart? AP?s story posits ?unknowingly?.) hiring a house-cleaning firm to clean his home which hired illegal aliens to do the job. They made it through one of the tightest security perimeters in the non-wartorn world unmolested (?and un-?busted?). [After the Commentary, a lament for a US automobile that all of us should be familiar with, courtesy of The Bottle Rockets, and KPIG radio, Freedom California? Earth.] More From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Dec 12 11:14:03 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:14:03 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Taking Evolution Seriously Message-ID: <4942639B.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> -------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tony B." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A reduction in numbers, in species, but not in complexity (i.e. mammals were already on the scene). ^^^ CB: Good discussion, Tony ! Aren't dinosaurs more complex than mammals ? More parts, bigger parts. How are you defining "complexity" here ? ^^^^^ In any case, the demise of the dinosaurs was the result of - well at least thought largely to be the result of - a catastrophic extinction event (though, I suppose, this too must be considered part of 'evolutionary' process seen from a certain perspective). ^^^ CB: That's correct. That catastrophic event _is_ a prime instance and substantiation of Darwin's principles ! It is proof of Darwinism. The radical change in the environment, flipped the script on what was adaptive and what wasn't. The bigger, more complex dinosaurs, became less adaptive to the radically changed environment than the smaller less complex mammals and other less complex species. In Gould's more general terms, it is a "punctuation" in a long standing equilibrium. An equilibrium is a certain relatively stable biosphere/web of eco-systems/ "food chain" The one that had stabilized/equilibrated in the ( I forgot the geological age name) got "punctuated" when the meteor hit. There had been prior mass extinctions of dinosaur like species groups. For example, the Jurassic ended in a mass extinction of dinosaur like species. But then another dinosaur type era followed. The names of the geological eras are very googlable. Anyway there have been a number of mass extinctions, and the dinosaur one was a relatively small one in natural history ( See essay on mass extinctions in _Ever Since Darwin_). One of the earliest punctuations was when species that reproduce sexually substantially came to dominate over the original earthly species that all reproduced by cloning. That was a real fundamental qualitative change. ^^^ As I said in a previous posting, evolution is not a linear process, but given its *global contextual* nature it is an inexorably 'progressive' one (organizationally speaking) ^^^ CB: This is the proposition in dispute here (smile). I'm saying there is no criterion of "progress" that can consistently applied to the evolution of species ( lifeforms) on earth so as to claim that there is "inexorable" progress. Right now I am disputing that the notion of "increasing complexity of organization" is a criterion of progress toward which earth species have evolved. Organizational complexity was defined by Sahlins and Service in _Evolution and Culture_, by the way, analogously for the purpose you use it here. So, I have extensive familiarity with what "complexity of organization" means. We can go right from the word "organization" to "organs" in this case. More complex organisms have more and larger _organs_, physiological organs. They have more parts, and more "division of function" among their parts. There "organs" are more so they _have_ more "organization". ^^^ with the (perhaps not so obvious) proviso of niche dependency (i.e. bacteria are clearly not as organizationally complex as humans even whilst having been around much longer - indeed, almost from the beginning of the Earth itself.. This is because bacteria occupy niches where such organizational complexity is either not necessary or is prohibited by such transparent parameters as size etc. ^^ CB: Yes, and this basically refutes your main point. Those niches are just as much niches as the niches the more complex organisms have. The fact that bacteria are better adapted to their niches and for longer _is_ what defines evolutionary success. So, evolution has gone in the direction or preserved less complexity in a substantial number of very successful species. By the way, this whole "complexity" thing was originally defined with humans, of course, as the most "complex" species ( because we "think" a lot, ergo _sapiens_, meaning rational, thinking). The whole "progress" idea originates and reduces to a form of anthropocentric teleology, "Man"(sic) as the end and purpose , and therefore pinnacle of progress in evolution. ^^^^ Listen, this is not rocket science, this despite the fact that many an 'expert' has become so enthralled by the dogma, the doctrine, that "evolution has no intrinsic direction". ^^ CB: Well, you are correct it is not "rocket science" , which is mainly physics and chemistry. This is biology. But yes, it is imminently understandable, especially if you have been studying it for forty years(smile) ^^^ But, of course, this is to ignore, first the clear and overwhelming evidence (literally before one's very eyes) of the rise of organizational complexity - and in successive, well defined stages - over the last 600 million years. ^^^ CB: Well, of course, it is not right before everybody's eyes at all. As Marx says, if everything was so obvious and directly observable, , there'd be no need for science. And the scientific investigation of Paleontology demonstrates something different from your conclusion, as especially articulated by Gould. He very empirically refutes your claim. The clear and convincing , overwhelming evidence is that there arose more complex species than the original life forms, but the development of new species down through the epochs has also seen the origin of many new species with the same level of simplicity as the early species. And many of the more complex species have been less successful than the simpler ones in terms of longevity , population size. Gould graphically says it by saying evolution is more of a bush than a tree. ^^^^ I mean, how else do you explain all the organizational complexity you see around you? ^^^ CB: Guess what ? There's a whole lot of organizational simplicity all around you that you can't see. Part of the nature of organizational simplicity and smallness is that you can't "see", hear,feel it as easily as the big stuff. But a lot of the simple stuff you can see, like plants. ^^^ As some sort of accident!? ..I mean really. ^^^ CB: It is something of an accident. Darwinian evolution is "intelligible happenstance" in contrast with "intelligent design". But it is not an accident in the sense that it is the result of a process of natural selection in the "struggle for existence". ^^^ *If* you postulate no intrinsic *overall* direction to evolution (and I mean, naturally, 'direction' in terms of organizationally complexity, not any specific form) how then do you account for the spectacular rise of such? Of trees, birds, bees, and human beings? What principle then do you invoke? ^^^ CB: I invoke natural selection ,of course, with changes in environment causing changes in the selection process. Basically, the "direction_s_" the ever changing origin of species takes is determined by changes in the selecting natural environment of the species. The meteor hit on dinosaurs is just one example of many of changes in the environment that extinguished certain species ( rendered them unfit) and nurtured other species ( rendered them fit ). Fitness is always _relative_ to a specific environment. This is the principle of environmental relativity of natural selection. There is no universal or absolute fitness , such as "complexity". ^^^ Second, the notion of evolution as being contextually neutral is, as I said earlier, logically incoherent. ^^^ CB: That's correct. Natural selection is concrete, it is essentially contextual, or as I put it above always must be construed _relative_ to a specific environment. ^^^ Evolution works via (among other significant factors) natural selection working on mutation (itself a product of self-reproduction). But this 'selection' must per force take place with respect to an environment. Now that environment can consist of micro and / or macro components - but the point is, that this is intrinsically a *contextual* process. There is no 'evolutionary process' in a vacuum, that is apart from the context of molding, environmental forces. ^^^ CB: This is correct. See above. ^^^ And do to the nature of the inevitable competition (and co-operation..but that is another, more sophisticated matter) involved, 'evolution' will, given enough time and suitable contexts, force the design of ever more organizationally complex organisms.. ^^^ CB: Wrong. ^^^^ .not all of them, and many of them to varying degrees, and not invariably over the planets surface, but from an organizational point of view, an increasingly more 'advanced' apex of organizational ^^^^ CB: Wrong. See Gould. There is no overall direction toward greater complexity. It's case by case relative to the specific environments that Nature throws on Earth down through the epochs. Everything changes. There is nothing but matter , and it's mode of existence is motion (change) (smile). That's materialist dialectics. ^^^ This is not the first time (even within evolutionary biology*) that many a 'professional in the field' has been blinded by a rigid adherence to a criterion that even a child can see through.... ^^^ CB: Perhaps, but in this one I am seeing clearly to what is, not in the least blind. A child can understand what I'm saying. It is like many profound truths, elegant, simple ,not complex (smile). ^^^^ [One need only look at the absolutely preposterous stance of a whole generation of comparative linguists who lined up (and probably still do) against Joseph Greenberg in his quite reasonable demand to place 'classification' ahead of 'reconstruction' as the basis for historical linguistics]. ^^^ CB: That's another discussion. ^^^ *As an example, the 'rate of living' paradigm (i.e. organisms that have slower metabolic rates live longer) - clearly a reasonable hypothesis - has been totally thrown out with the theoretical bathwater by most practicing biologists; this despite the fact that a modified 'rate of living paradigm' (taking into account certain, more or less, easily understandable qualifications, i.e. body size, organizational complexity in relation to energetic trade-off structures, allometry etc) *clearly and overwhelmingly* demonstrate a powerful relationship (and across phylogenies) between metabolic rate and longevity. Still, the automatic, reflexive rejection persists. The old, simple verbal mantras hold sway....For now. ^^^ CB: I'm not sure if you are relating this to the issue under discussion. Longevity of individual organisms is not correlated with longevity of a species, as far as I know... so.... Tony This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Dec 12 11:52:33 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:52:33 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Means of Political Production Message-ID: The LA Times article below says that the Obama campaign collected "13 million e-mail addresses, hundreds of trained field organizers and tens of thousands of neighborhood coordinators and phone bank volunteers." That's a great deal of political assets, which the Democratic Party establishment owns and controls, not its grassroots organizers and volunteers, some of whom are already becoming frustrated by Obama. Some leftists say, especially during the crunch time of election campaigns, that the base of the DP is different from that of the GOP, so we have to "work with" Democrats. They have a point there. But in reality what has happened is not leftists "working with" Democrats to win them effectively over to the work of building a left-wing alternative but more people, including a good number of leftists, "working for" the DP than before, re-injecting social capital into a bankrupt political party, rather than the working class accumulating our own political assets to build a Left. Once again, the question is the ownership of means of production, in this case means of political production! -- Yoshie Role for Barack Obama's volunteer network still in flux Talks upcoming on how to mobilize movement; volunteer base 'hungry' for work on issues By Peter Wallsten | Washington Bureau December 5, 2008 WASHINGTON ? James Dillon, a onetime Republican activist who grew disgusted with politics, was so inspired by Barack Obama's candidacy that he joined the campaign's massive volunteer army, hosting house parties and recruiting supporters. But beyond influencing the November election, Dillon thought he was joining a new political movement that would be mobilized for big goals?to end poverty or help distressed homeowners, or maybe end U.S. reliance on oil. So Dillon, a Florida real estate developer, was discouraged by the suggestion that arrived by e-mail last week from Obama's campaign manager: "Excited about the much anticipated First Dog?" it read, referring to the Obama daughters' quest for a new puppy. "Support your local animal shelter to give animals in your area a chance." Amid Obama's transition to power, a spirited and often secretive debate has broken out among top campaign staff members over how to refashion the broad network of motivated volunteers into a force that can help Obama govern. With 13 million e-mail addresses, hundreds of trained field organizers and tens of thousands of neighborhood coordinators and phone bank volunteers, the network is now one of the most valuable assets in politics. Obama's team may choose to deploy it to elect other Democratic officials, or to lobby Congress for his toughest legislative goals, or even to apply pressure on local and state policymakers across the country. This weekend, hundreds of field staffers and some key volunteers are planning a marathon closed-door summit in a Chicago hotel to begin negotiating details of what the network might look like when Obama takes office in January. A group of field organizers from battleground states has been enlisted to draw up a plan. But while aides sort out the details, the Obama team's early hints about how the network should be used?as well as its tight-lipped planning process?have struck some supporters as missteps. Among the critics is Marshall Ganz, a legendary figure in the field of community organizing who from his post at Harvard University helped train Obama's campaign organizers and volunteers. Ganz has publicly questioned the campaign for not conducting a more open deliberation over how to sustain the network. "Is this really what 'building on the movement to elect Barack Obama' is going to look like?" Ganz asked. "I can't believe this was put out by the same people who trained organizers in how to do house meetings in the campaign over the past two years." Of the reference to the "First Dog," Ganz concluded: "Give me a break." The campaign has taken some steps to open the process. It distributed surveys asking supporters for guidance on the next steps. It has used the network to call for donations to help victims of California wildfires. And, at campaign manager David Plouffe's urging, some 1,500 volunteers will hold house parties this month at which volunteers will be asked to help plan for the future. Ben LaBolt, an Obama spokesman, said the deliberations have been inclusive. He said the campaign has received about 500,000 responses to the e-mail survey while holding "hundreds of conference calls, individual one-on-one calls, online surveys, and conversations with field organizers, allied groups and volunteer supporters." The campaign's "host guide" for the upcoming house parties contained the suggestion that volunteers begin revving up the new Obama movement with community service projects such as helping the Humane Society. The guide suggested that volunteers try other forms of community engagement, as well, such as helping with holiday food or toy drives, or helping the Red Cross or the Salvation Army. Some volunteers were hoping for bigger goals. "I'm not trying to discourage anyone from helping animals, but there are a lot of people hurting right now," said Dillon. "If this movement is going to sustain itself, it has to have as grand a mission as electing Barack Obama." Temo Figueroa, a former top Obama field organizer, said the volunteer base is "hungry" to be engaged on the most important issues. "I don't think e-mails or YouTube videos from the president-elect are going to be enough," Figueroa said. "These people want to continue to be a part of whatever agenda comes out of the White House, and they want to be active participants in this government that they feel they have ownership of." Among the questions to be sorted out by Obama's aides: Who will lead the network, will it become part of the Democratic Party infrastructure, and should it focus on local service projects or more lofty national goals. Some Democratic officials believe that Obama should make his network available to other Democratic candidates and house it at the Democratic National Committee. Plouffe has used the campaign e-mail list for at least one partisan purpose: raising money to help retire the DNC's debt. But Dillon, a GOP anti-tax organizer in New York before moving to St. Petersburg, Fla., said he hoped the grass-roots network would be separated from the party. "The notion that we are going to have to sanitize this thing because, God forbid, we step on a local Democratic Party official's toes or step onto his turf is going to turn people like me off," he said. pwallsten at tribune.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Dec 12 12:29:33 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:29:33 -0500 Subject: [A-List] CALL TO ACTION Message-ID: <4942754C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> CALL TO ACTION It is time for progressives and all supporters of democracy to act. The political crisis in this country demands action of every type from the study of history, particularly the Hayes/Tilden election, to demonstrations in the streets. As everyone has heard a thousand times, a crisis is the simultaneous presentation of danger and opportunity. It is literally true that the history of the 21st century will be defined by what happens in the next 6 to 12 months. For all the tired use of clich?s, nevertheless, it is true that those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Even the New York Times, that bastion of power representing a certain section of the ruling class in the world, took the time to analyze the Hayes/Tilden election. The New York Times, however, took the most conservative possible interpretation of that constitutional crisis. After cursory discussion of the election and Florida's crucial role, the New York Times (11/12/00) stated: "That gave Hayes 185 electoral votes and left Tilden with 184. The incensed Democrats threatened retaliation. They said they would engage in a filibuster that would prevent the completion of the electoral count until Inauguration Day came and there was no president. They vowed to congest the streets of Washington and prevent Hayes from being inaugurated. Democrats organized armed bands and, threatening 'Tilden or blood', said they would physically put Tilden in the White House. There was real fear that war would break out. Then something happened. Historians disagree on exactly what it was. Some believe that a compromise was reached at a hotel meeting between emissaries of the two parties. At that meeting, a deal was supposedly brokered that, among other things, stipulated that if Hayes became president, he would remove the remaining federal troops stationed in the South, effectively ending Reconstruction, a matter of great importance to the Southern states. That did in fact happen, but whether it was a formal quid pro quo linked to Hayes's assumption of office is unclear." (Emphasis added) The ruling class in this country is severely divided. In fact, the entire country is divided. A deal will be made to calm things down. The content and direction of that deal will be substantially affected by the strength and presence of progressives during the coming struggle. Over one-half of the voting population, who by themselves, are a conservative grouping of people, came down on the side of Al Gore. It is clear that the overwhelming majority of trade unionists, national minorities and women voted for Gore. If this election is stolen in Florida, Jeb Bush, George's brother, who has vowed to eliminate all affirmative action in Florida, and who is an open enemy of the working class, implemented that theft. Rick Shenkman, Tom Paine.com, has described the extent of the corruption: "As has been widely reported, there were many irregularities in Palm Beach County. Over 19,000 ballots were thrown out because voters allegedly punched holes for two candidates. And the ballot design may have led people to accidentally vote for Reform Party candidate Patrick Buchanan, who received an unusually high tally, though he neither campaigned nor advertised in the area. Buchanan himself has remarked that the votes he received in this liberal community apparently went to him unintentionally. He concludes: 'I don't want any votes that I did not receive and I don't want to win any votes by mistake.' He added: 'It seems to me that these 3,000 votes people were talking about - most of those are probably not my vote and that may be enough to give the margin to Mr. Gore.' Were these votes to be added to Gore's column Gore would be the universally acknowledged winner of the election at present. That the election in Florida has been marked by numerous instances of fraud and irregularity is by now well established. 'The NAACP chairman Julian Bond says he has collected evidence that the vote of minorities, presumably more inclined to vote for Gore than Bush, was suppressed in several places through unwholesome means. In communities outside Orlando, for instance, voters were given pencils instead of pens, which gives rise to the suspicion that their votes may possibility have been altered later. (State law requires that pens be used.) In Hillsborough County some officials apparently denied some citizens access to the polls, claiming that the race on their voter cards didn't match state records. And in the same county, a sheriff's deputy allegedly asked black men for identification, turning them away on the unproven grounds that they were convicted felons.'" The ballot in Palm Beach County was illegal and the deal made by the Democratic Party in that county to accept that ballot was likewise illegal. No one has the right to make a deal to violate the law, certainly not when it comes to the right to vote, or depriving someone of the right to vote. In describing the deal made in 1876, the New York Times glossed over the arrangement that was made. In 1876, the Republican Party sold out the former slaves of the South. It cooperated in the implementation of Jim Crow segregation throughout the South. It permitted the rise of Klu Klux Klan terrorism against the Negro people. That is, that deal set the history of this country for one hundred years. Notably, the whole concept of an electoral college instead of a popular vote was a compromise with southern states that also demanded that slaves be counted as 3/5 a person. The history of this country is governed by compromises with slaveholders, segregationists, and now reactionaries who claim the mantel of their forbearers. It is clear that trade unionists, women and national minorities stand to lose every gain fought for during the 20th century if the progressives who fought for those gains sit on the sidelines. Many of those gains were obtained when there was a split in the ruling class. The trade union movement developed its strength during the 1930's when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was attacked as a traitor to his class and progressives declared he was merely saving capitalism. Certainly, the Civil Rights movement's successes depended on the fact that many powerful forces in this country wanted an end to segregation. Admittedly, many capitalists wanted to move plants to the South to break trade union shops but that is the nature of our movement. To the credit of the union movement, they overwhelmingly supported desegregation. When a deal gets made that sets the direction of this country and therefore the world for the 21st century, that deal certainly will involve the Supreme Court where every progressive piece of legislation and every constitutional right is in jeopardy if the Scalia/Thomas type take over. We must take the position that Al Gore and the Democratic Party do not have the right to compromise the election. The majority of voters in this country chose Al Gore, and he, as an individual, has no right to thwart their choice. The stronger the progressive presence, the better the deal that will be made. We must fight to prevent the sellout that has occurred in the past. Our principled and disciplined fight sets the basis for our own self-respect. We must provide a legal presence in Florida where the corruption and denial of the right to vote was pervasive. We must provide demonstrations in Florida to support the voters who were in favor of Al Gore. We must have demonstrations in Washington, D.C. where the deal making will go on. Anything less will allow the reactionaries to take over this country for another hundred years. Yours in Struggle, Ronald D. Glotta This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From rainy at tellas.gr Fri Dec 12 12:34:28 2008 From: rainy at tellas.gr (Stathis Stassinos) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:34:28 +0200 Subject: [A-List] The Greek Events, a chronology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4942BCC4.5060907@tellas.gr> I dont know how familiar you are with the situation in Greece. Im writing one armed, cause I broke my elbow in the Sunday protest. Im not a fighter of course, I just stumbled after a chemical attack from the riot police. So excuse me if I leave questions unanswered , I will try to do so, in the following days. day 1 Saturday 6/12. In a very popular corner in the center of athens with bars and youth drinking beers, a police car passes by. It stops, policemen gaze a little and some youths throw plastic water bottles and a reported asstray. The police car drives away. After some time the policemen come back on foot, having warned a riot squad sitting around the corner. They exchange insults with the youths, in a typical Greek machismo, where the car, the chick, and one's mama are sacred taboos. The first policeman draws a gun and fires 3 shots. One of them hit the hart of a 15year old. The policemen walk away. The boy is transfered to a hospital and proclaimed dead. Youths from around athens hearing the news, gather spontaneously in the center with real anger. Police takes a passive stance, trying to avoid conflict. Minister of Interior affairs (and political head of the police) appears apologetic to the public, stating that the policemen will face the justice. Small riots break out in the first hours of Sunday. day 2 Sunday 7/12. A fazed government , starts to act but unexpectedly in a very opposite way than a good communicator would have. The main media strategist of the government resigned in bitterness a month ago, facing big scandals around real estate. Prime Minister declares his condolences to the family but in a very dehumanizing way, talking is if the boy was a thing (in greek we have a separate gender for objects). Greek media copycat the press releases of the police, talking about a riot before the shooting, claiming that the policeman has shot in the air, etc. That reaction angers more the people of athens, who by noon they gather spontaneously for a march towards the police headquarters. The march starts, around 200 we call them riotists (mostly youths with a vice of breaking things, without any real theoritical background) start to break shop windows. That was an excellent excuse for riot police to intervene , suffocating us wiith huge quantities of CN gas. The aim was clear. The march wouldnt reach police headquarters at any cost, but without close contact between marchers and riot police. In the evening we learn the first info about the boy. He was from a well off family living in the good suburbs of athens and going to a richkid private school. Then the Minister of education proclaims business as usual, the schools will be open monday. that was a huge tactical mistake from the government. Sarkozy line maybe was successful when dealing with brownies second class citizens, but Alexis wasnt one of them. It was one of the kids of the establishment. The first blowback is heard when one of the 3 layers defending the killer resigns stating of the record that the killer was showing no remorse and that he had a son about the same age. But they dont stop. Conservative voices are starting to talk about the broken properties, about law and order. The Media comply. But even the president of the small shop owners association declares that you cant talk about broken glasses, when a boy is killed. day 3 Monday 8/12 That day was huge. thousands over thousands of high school students gather at their schools and with SMS text messages deploy a strategical and tactical triumph. Schools start at 8.30, by 9 o clock thousands of students from all around athens are on the streets marching. The city is learning about them by the traffic police trying to figure out where are they heading. Many of them pay a visit to their local police station throwing stones and oranges. Riot police is overwhelmed by so many calls around athens. Police stations are left undefended as policemen lock themselves inside. The students after the viit to the local stations head for the headquarters of police. Athens is coming to a halt. Every road, one by one is closed by youths. Riot police doesnt attack the students near the police headquarters. Dehumanizing Alexis, the sarkozy line is dead on arrival. Copycat moves are spreading all over greece. No big city has its police station unbroken. Police cars are moved to army baracks in order to be protected from the crowd. Prime minister starts to talk about his dear friend dead alexis, trying to undo the damage. Of course no-one believes him. The political class is trying to control the situation asking people to show reserve. The media play along. Poeple use the internet as the only non controlled alternative. By evening a huge crowd of students and people is gathered in the center. The Media are trying to play it down. Riot police starts firing CN gas at the crowd trying to disperse it. The excuse was kids throwing cristmass balls to them. Rioters start by breaking banks, the center is full of them. Most of the people disperse , rioters continue to set ablaze with firebombs anything resembling a financial institution or a government building. Police is busy dispersing the peacefull demonstrators, because by prime time, Athens must be on fire. Rumors go around about rioters breaking in, in a gun store. of course it was a replica gun store . A riotoer is shown by TV carring a medieval shield. Surreal scenes continue. TV is trying to instill fear, that a riot is coming after your car. In reality by monday most rioters are focused on financial institutions. The big christmass tree in constitution square is set ablaze. TV transmits images of inferno. Rumors go around that the country will be set at a state of alarm. Prime minister announces a visit to the president, early next morning and to the leaders of all parties , at noon. day 4 Tuesday 9/12 Parties. New Democracy . Conservative party and government. Law and order is the motto of the day. A few rioters wont break us. PASOK, socialdemocrats. They are all absent. Only their leader Papandreou calls for peacefull demonstrations trying to please everybody. "We are against the killer, we are against the rioters, as ifthose things were ever equal". Most consider him as a person with a distant relationship with social reality. He didnt do anything to deflect this opinion . SYRIZA. Coalition of left reformists and smaller revolutionary groups (trotskysts, maoists etc). This is the only party that supports the stundents from the beginning. While not supporting broken banks, SYRIZA tryies to deflect the whole issue from the broken glasses to the issues of the youth. Quite mild for my taste, but then again they are a stain in the consensus. KKE, greek communist stalinist party with a great tradition of opting out and sabotaging popular protests not controlled by them (they even sabotaged the mythed protest of Polytechnic's school in 1973 during the dictatorship). Well that was a surprise even by their own standards. KKE declared that the protests are controlled by people with hideous motives (off the record talking about jihadists etc), calling for no more protests not centered around them . LAOS, mild fascist , far-right spin-off from new democracy. They set the tone about law and order. And all of them were trying to vilify SYRIZA for supporting the protests, stating that they support the hooded rioters. But today is the funeral of the 15year old boy. Again thousands of stundents make a pass from the local police station, trying to break what was left unbroken. Most of them are gathering around the parliament. Many of them go to the funeral. everyone is sad , no riots today. A photo from associated press goes around, showing a policeman training his gun at the protesters during the sunday march. So much for the isolated incident which was the defending line of the police. In a court where some other policemen are standing to trial following the assault on a student last year (the camera caught 7 of them hitting him again and again with no apparent reason), the defenders claim no remorse. The DA changes the charges from heavy unprovoked assault, to heavy assault. The decision of the court is delayed but everyone understands that the assaulting policemen are up to minimal penalties. Rumors go around that the ballistic test showed that the bullet that killed the boy was deflected. Well in greece this phrase is very heavy. Because the last 20 years nearly every incident concerning a cop killing a citizen, a bullet was deflected. Legally it has a huge meaning. A deflected bullet mean shooting with no intention to kill, rather than the cold blooded execution that it was. Of course every deflected bullet hits the unfortunate victim in a vital part. People get angrier. Greece is torn in two. Those that want law and order and those that want justice. Many times the same person declares both opinions. Media are trying to instill fear. People start to think if a broken bank is such a grave incident. The funeral takes place. Riot police show up without any reason, firing CN gas inside the graveyard. Youths answer with stones. In a street around 10 policemen in motorcycles are trying to attack 20 or so youths. But these were only the first from a big crowd coming from the funeral from around the corner. Cops are throwing back stones. The crowd is angry. Then the cops draw guns and fire 15 shots inthe air and then drive away. A camera caught the incident, yet police inquiry show that only one bullet was fired. Some analysts say that many cops have second undeclared guns. All those actions show that the police has declared independence from their political supervisors. Feeling betrayed by the party most admired by them, they start to act alone. Drawing guns all the time, shooting, not showing remorse for the killing, rigging the ballistic examination , they are doing anything even if they know that this will hurt the government. Acting as a community they support the killer, who shows no remorse and stating that he acted with duty in a dangerous situation. ...to be continued a-list-request at lists.econ.utah.edu wrote: > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:52:53 -0600 > From: " N?stor Gorojovsky " > Subject: [A-List] The Greek early warning > To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition" > , "The A-List" > > Message-ID: > <2fa158550812110852k633d7e68p4691a2edcf8e7c0d at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > A momentous earthqwake may well be under preparation in Eastern Europe. > > If I am not wrong, the Greek events may be an early warning. > From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Dec 12 12:36:41 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:36:41 -0500 Subject: [A-List] CHICAGO WORKERS TO REST OF COUNTRY: "DON'T LET IT DIE!" Message-ID: <494276F8.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> CHICAGO WORKERS TO REST OF COUNTRY: "DON'T LET IT DIE!" By David Bacon New America Media, 12/11/08 http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=a3d3cc49a93f6bfac1b3f22114371524 When the day finally comes that Raul Flores loses his job, he will face a bitter search for another one. "I've got a family to support, so I've got to do whatever it takes," he says. "It's going to be hard. The economic situation is not good, but I can't just wait for something to happen to me." That puts Flores in the same boat as millions of other U.S. workers. Last month alone 533,000 workers lost their jobs, the highest figure in 34 years. A week ago, the heads of the big three auto companies were in Washington DC, pleading for loans to keep their companies afloat. As a price, lawmakers and pundits told them they had to become "leaner and meaner," and in response, General Motors announced it would close nine plants and put tens of thousands of workers in the street. Ford and Chrysler described a similar job-elimination strategy. What makes Flores special? He didn't just accept the elimination of his job. Instead, he sat in at the Chicago plant where he worked for six days, together with 240 other union members at Republic Windows and Doors. Republic workers were not demanding the reopening of their closed factory. They've been fighting for severance and benefits to help them survive the unemployment they know awaits them. Yet their occupation can't help but raise deeper questions about the right of workers to their jobs. Can a return to the militant tactics of direct action, that produced the greatest gains in union membership, wages and job security in U.S. history, overturn "the inescapable logic of the marketplace"? Can employers, and the banks that hold their credit lines, be forced to keep plants open? Unlike the auto giants, Republic was not threatening bankruptcy. It makes a "green product," Energy-Star compliant doors and windows that should be one of the bedrock industries for a new, more environmentally sustainable economy. But Bank of America, as it was receiving $25 billion in Federal bailout funds, pulled the company's credit line. Perhaps that alone led President-elect Obama to support the workers. The bank-enforced closure undermines his program for using environmentally sustainable jobs to replace those eliminated in the spiraling recession. He called Republic workers "absolutely right. What's happening to them is reflective of what's happening across this economy." Federal law requires companies to give employees 60 days notice of a plant closure, or pay them 60 days severance pay, to give them breathing room to find other jobs. Republic workers got three days, and no money. "They knew they'd be out on the street penniless," says Leah Fried, organizer for Local 1110 of the United Electrical Workers. "When the negotiating committee came back to the factory to report that the company didn't even show up to talk with them, the workers were so enraged they voted unanimously not to leave until they got their severance and vacation pay." While the workers' acted to gain their legally-mandated rights, the plant occupation resurrects a tactic with a radical history. In 1934, auto workers occupied the huge Fisher Body plants in Flint, Michigan, and when the battle was over, the United Auto Workers was born. Sitdown strikes spread across the country like wildfire. Occupying production lines in plant after plant, workers won unions, better wages, and real changes in their lives. Seventy years later, the workers who have inherited that legacy of unionization and security are on the brink of losing everything. Just since 2006 the United Auto Workers has lost 119,000 members. The threat of plant closure has been used to cut the wages of new hires in half, to $14.50, the same wage paid on the window lines at Republic, where the union is only four years old. Flores certainly hopes that those whose livelihoods are in peril will rediscover the tactic. "This is the start of something," he urges. "Don't let it die. Learn something from it." And the sitdown was successful. After six days sitting-in, and a rally of 1000 people in front of the bank, JP Morgan, another beneficiary of Federal assistance that owns 40% of Republic, put up $400,000, and Bank of America another $1.35 million. That was enough to pay the legally-mandated severance, the workers' accrued vacation, and two months of health care. Flores and his coworkers then voted to end the occupation. Fran Tobin, midwest organizer for Jobs with Justice, a coalition of labor and community groups with chapters around the country, shares Flores' optimism. "I think this is not the last time we're going to see American workers occupying American plants, as part of a move to save jobs and turn things around," he says. Organizers for Jobs with Justice are fanning out with a program they call a "Peoples' Bailout." "We need to ask, 'What kind of an economy and recovery do we want?'" Tobin emphasizes. He lists funds for a jobs program, rather than huge loans to banks, a moratorium on home foreclosures, investment in infrastructure repair, and helping local and state governments (and public worker) survive the crisis without massive budget cuts. Flores, Tobin and Fried all agree that none of those demands can be won without unions and workers willing to fight for them. That makes the Republic plant occupation more than just a local confrontation. "This might not be the right tactic in every situation, but people know we need to be fighting back," Fried says. Will the unions in auto plants and other workplaces hit by layoffs take up the challenge of the Republic workers? To Flores, they have to do something more than just watch the elimination of their jobs. "We've got to fight for our rights," he emphasizes. "It's not fair that they just kick us out on the street with nothing. Somebody has to respond." For more articles and images, see http://dbacon.igc.org Just out from Beacon Press: Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants http://www.beacon.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=2002 See also the photodocumentary on indigenous migration to the US Communities Without Borders (Cornell University/ILR Press, 2006) http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=4575 See also The Children of NAFTA, Labor Wars on the U.S./Mexico Border (University of California, 2004) http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9989.html -- __________________________________ David Bacon, Photographs and Stories http://dbacon.igc.org This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Dec 12 13:18:30 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:18:30 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Blaming the workers Message-ID: <494280A4.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Blaming the workers By Jack Lessenberry Blame the workers. Especially, blame the United Auto Workers. That's what we've been hearing from the talking heads over the last several weeks as our auto industry skidded toward the brink of extinction and politicians debated a bailout. Over and over again, I've heard people repeat that the trouble was that the average UAW worker costs the auto companies $73 per hour. Nice work if you can get it. Matter of fact, it made me want to pack a lunch bucket and trudge off to Dodge Main. Trouble is, when I checked, I found that this statistic is simply not true. Unionized autoworkers, at least the relatively few still working, made about $28 an hour last year, according to Ann Arbor's respected Center for Automotive Research. Yes, they do get benefits, and benefits cost money. But how could they rack up another $45 an hour in bennies? The answer is that they don't. Jonathan Cohn sagely reported in The New Republic how this figure was concocted: By taking the entire cost of health care and pensions for both active employees and retirees and adding it to the average hourly wage. Yes, health care and other benefits do cost the auto companies $42 an hour. But that's because they have so many retirees. General Motors has been around for almost a century. Ford, even longer. Toyota, which didn't open plants here until the 1980s, has very few retirees. Naturally their total labor costs are lower. Yes, the United Auto Workers union did fight hard to win their workers decent salaries and benefits. (The nerve of those bastards!) Based on their real salaries, longtime autoworkers make about $60,000 a year. When you consider the physical stress and the repetitive motion injuries, that doesn't seem like such a good deal to me. And it is even worse now, since nobody working for the Not-So-Big Three knows if he or she will still have a job in a few months. Yet life is not always fair. We need to ask the question: Are the unions and the salaries and the benefits paid their members really the reason the auto companies are on their knees? Harley Shaiken is one of the most knowledgeable labor experts in the country. A Detroit native, he's now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. I asked him if it's fair to blame the UAW for all, or even some, of the shape the domestic industry is in? "No, I don't think so," he said. "I think the UAW has played an important role in rebuilding the industry. Were there excesses in the past? Of course. By everyone." But that's not what has caused the present crisis; the credit crunch resulting from the Wall Street meltdown last September was the catalyst. "The automakers are asking Congress for $34 billion," Shaiken reminded me. "If the entire labor force volunteered to work for free next year, that would save them [only] about $18 billion. "Of course, labor costs are critical," he explained. "But they aren't decisive in terms of the scope of the current economic meltdown." Well, what about the so-called "jobs bank," whereby temporarily idled workers would still get paid until new jobs could be found for them? "It's become the most falsely maligned thing in the industry, and it's gotten a bad rap," Shaiken said. "It was always capped in terms of financial liability for the companies. Ford, for example, was [paying] less than $200 million a year." What was important about the jobs bank, however, was that it gave workers incentives to come up with laborsaving devices. Even if they cost jobs in the short run, they wouldn't be penalized. The union, however, has signaled it is to suspend the jobs bank, which now involves fewer than 4,000 workers. But what about other concessions? Has the union been willing to step up and do its part? "I think it has," Shaiken said. "Entering [UAW] workers at the Big Three are giving up two-thirds of their total compensation. They are being hired at $14 an hour, and at considerably reduced benefits." That is far less than workers at Toyota or Honda. "That hasn't made much of a difference yet, because the auto companies are hiring so few workers," the professor added. "But over time, it certainly will." Much of what we've heard about unions and their role in the industry is just plain wrong, he argued. "When people think of unions, they think of them as being sort of opposed to improvements in productivity. That simply isn't true." Yes, there may have been a time when unions were part of the problem. But they get it today. Shaiken cited one recent study that showed that unionized labor forces were, by and large, better in terms of productivity than nonunion workers. In other words, the professor thinks much of what we thought we knew was wrong. ... Not for the first time. Newspaper update: The latest buzz is that a momentous decision has been made to deliver the Free Press only two or three days a week, soon after the first of the year. "They would print it and put it in the boxes the other days, but otherwise encourage people to go to the Internet," said a longtime staffer, who seemed to be in a position to know. The paper would be home delivered Thursday and Sunday, and perhaps one other day. Subscribers would be encouraged to turn to the paper's website. Politics & Prejudices was unable to nail this down further, but it sounded more definite than many of the constant rumors swirling about the fate of one or both Detroit dailies. My colleague Sandra Svoboda contacted Freep Editor Paul Anger, who offered what can best be described as a "guarded" response: "We're looking at all sorts of things. I think it's pretty safe to say we're going to print a newspaper. " Pressed to say whether the print version would be scaled back, he said: "I can't really say anything else. We are no different than anybody else in the country, and all of us better be looking at everything. ... This is all a work in progress." What is not known is what this "work in progress" could mean for the very junior partner in the current Joint Operating Agreement, The Detroit News. It is hard to believe Detroit Newspapers Inc. would continue to run an expensive, seven-day delivery system for the smaller of the two papers. Whatever decision is made, by the way, will be really entirely up to Gannett. Though the Denver-based MediaNews Group owns the Detroit News, under the present deal, which was struck in 2005, Gannett has 95 percent control. There's even a quaintly bizarre twist to all this; according to a knowledgeable source, the internal code word for all this is "Project Griffon." According to the source, someone in high authority apparently thought that was the name of the ship Antoine de la Mothe Cadillac arrived in when he discovered Detroit on July 24, 1701. That's a little hard to believe, since a glance at any standard history would show Old Caddy arrived in a canoe. A French ship named the Griffon, however, was the first full-sized sailing ship on the Great Lakes. It set sail Sept. 18, 1679 ... and promptly vanished. Perhaps the Gannettoids who came up with that name for their new adventure were highly subtle intellectuals. Maybe the name indicates that they know that the success or failure of their efforts are still shrouded in mystery. Or maybe they just didn't know experts believe the Griffon plummeted to the bottom. Anyway, I haven't been able to confirm any of this, though someone I trust swears it is all true. Jack Lessenberry opines weekly for Metro Times. Contact him at letters at metrotimes.com. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Dec 12 13:55:02 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:55:02 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Blaming the workers In-Reply-To: <494280A4.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <494280A4.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Charles Brown wrote: > Blaming the workers > By Jack Lessenberry > > Blame the workers. Especially, blame the United Auto Workers. > That's what we've been hearing from the talking heads over > the last several weeks as our auto industry skidded toward > the brink of extinction and politicians debated a bailout. I certainly don't blame the rank-and-file auto workers, but it is clear that, even at this late date, the UAW isn't doing what it can to save itself. Imagine the UAW doing what the UE just did. It would be even more powerful than the action of the Republic Windows workers who captured the nation's hearts and minds. Yoshie From Waistline2 at aol.com Fri Dec 12 15:12:03 2008 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:12:03 EST Subject: [A-List] Blaming the workers Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Charles Brown <_charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us_ (mailto:charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us) > wrote: > Blaming the workers > By Jack Lessenberry > > Blame the workers. Especially, blame the United Auto Workers. > That's what we've been hearing from the talking heads over > the last several weeks as our auto industry skidded toward > the brink of extinction and politicians debated a bailout. I certainly don't blame the rank-and-file auto workers, but it is clear that, even at this late date, the UAW isn't doing what it can to save itself. Imagine the UAW doing what the UE just did. It would be even more powerful than the action of the Republic Windows workers who captured the nation's hearts and minds. Yoshie Comment Actually, the UAW and 90% of all the union in America have never done what "it can do" to save itself. The Republic Window workers action to compelled government to compel the company to honor federal law governing plant closing notification is a righteous struggle that of course could never happen at UAW plants because notification is generally a year or two out. And we have contractual protection much broader than the Republic workers. Recently this contractual protection as the Job Bank has come under fire because workers receive 85% of their pay when laid off, due to corporate stupidity and/or "unfair trade practices." The American auto workers can make superior products but it has not been in the historic interest of the stock holders or corporate management to do such. Corporate profits have in our history been tightly wedded to a high degree of built in obsolescence. This dirty little secret is understood by the older American consumers. Occupying a plant demanding - (not demanding continued work or future wages or government aid), but for the company to live up to federal law governing plant closings is the kind of struggle that cannot take plant within the UAW. What is taking place is a very different process. Although I am not 100% sure of it, it seems that events are slowly but inexorably pushing the union in a direction that is a confrontation with government and possibly the state. This is not a bad thing but part of a larger process where the workers become aware of themselves as a class, due to them being forced to leap outside the employer-employee relationship. The struggle of the workers as workers goes nowhere as long as it is limited to a struggle with the bosses. The bosses are of course subject to the iron laws of capital. It is only at a point where events compel the struggle of the unionized workers to leap outside the bound of worker- employee relationship and confront government and the state on their behalf that one can speak of the class struggle. There is a material reason for the history of conciliatory conduct and genuflecting of the unions and the UAW in particular over the past 60 years. This history is complex and hardly spoken of amongst the writing left and filled with enormous differences of opinion. The first really good book I read on the UAW was back in the 1970's called "The Company and the Union." The point is that the union can no longer deliver any of the goods, which was not the case in the 1950's, 1960's, and to a degree the 1970's. The UAW was always narrow and always blocked the forward movement of the organized mass. That was its purpose in history. Waistline **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010) From tal1 at cogeco.ca Fri Dec 12 15:12:06 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:12:06 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Brasscheck TV: Corporate Cola and other poisons Message-ID: <056CED67EAB84AA1A3A7C3E787E462CA@TonyPC> > Farmers are ingenious people. > > Corporate Cola (Coke, Pepsi etc.) > sold in India are repeatedly found > to have high pesticide levels so > farmers there do the logical thing. > > Details: > > http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/495.html > > - Brasscheck > - Brasscheck > > P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and > videos with friends and colleagues. > > That's how we grow. Thanks. > > ============================== > > > > Brasscheck TV > 2380 California St. > San Francisco, CA 94115 > > To unsubscribe or change subscriber options visit: > http://www.aweber.com/z/r/?zAxs7OwctMwcLIysjIzMtEa0LIzMDGzsbA== > From tal1 at cogeco.ca Fri Dec 12 16:18:52 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:18:52 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Taking Evolution Seriously In-Reply-To: <4942639B.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <4942639B.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <68A7820398FE43FF9E2B8B0AFA56D3BB@TonyPC> Good question. The answer is 'no'. Dinosaurs are less complex..if by 'complex' we mean 'a higher, more advanced form of organization' (both in terms of physiology and, thus, in terms of genetic architecture...for the second must parallel at a deeper level, the first). Thus, just as a 'for instance', mammals deploy homeostatic thermoregulation (are warm blooded) whereas dinosaurs were (mostly...though there has been some recent revisting of this question of late) cold blooded. Though generally, increase in size is associated with greater (organizational) complexity this is not invariably the case, i.e. elephants and whales are bigger than us, but our neural organization places us in a 'organizationally' more complex category. By the way, Prof. C. D. Rollo (a close friend of mine) responded to my first message....Thought you might find it of interest so I've taken the liberty of passing it on below. T. [He's basically broaching the idea that increasing phenotypic organization acts like a filter; one that sieve's out environmental variability thus, as he says, making the organisms in question 'invisible' to natural selection. ] "Its interesting that S.J. Gould of all people did not believe in an evolutionary trajectory of increasing complexity, but as suggested in the article, things like bacteria, robins and all the rest of life have had similar periods of evolutionary history and selection. I tend to like the idea that everything here has actually simply avoided selection altogether (if natural selection is the act of removal or suppression). Thus, sufficient fitness allows continuity without extinction as long as diverging evolutionary pathways do not encounter resistance. In this context, levels of organization can be envisioned as cloaks of invisibility. Perhaps species that are primitive are boxed by natural selection into a single maintained design that has few options for change without resistance. Regardless, cloaks can expand the range of environments where one may tread without awakening the cyclops (e.g., thermoregulation allows mice to scurry where lizards and snakes are frozen in the icy glaze of selective scrutiny). Complex weaves and folds are needed for intersecting cloaks that yield emergent properties. Complex enough to evolve conscious intelligence capable of recognizing natural selection itself, and forthwith ban it or apply it as artificially as whim may care. With the vision of the mind of man, and designer genes in hand, can evolution proceed without progress? Would real intelligent design overlook the value of increasing complexity? Is this not the product of evolution itself? So, perhaps whether evolution is blind to progress is merely a moot point. If it ever was, tis no longer..........." [C. David Rollo] "Tony B." wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Brown" To: Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 1:14 PM Subject: [A-List] Taking Evolution Seriously -------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tony B." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A reduction in numbers, in species, but not in complexity (i.e. mammals were already on the scene). ^^^ CB: Good discussion, Tony ! Aren't dinosaurs more complex than mammals ? More parts, bigger parts. How are you defining "complexity" here ? ^^^^^ In any case, the demise of the dinosaurs was the result of - well at least thought largely to be the result of - a catastrophic extinction event (though, I suppose, this too must be considered part of 'evolutionary' process seen from a certain perspective). ^^^ CB: That's correct. That catastrophic event _is_ a prime instance and substantiation of Darwin's principles ! It is proof of Darwinism. The radical change in the environment, flipped the script on what was adaptive and what wasn't. The bigger, more complex dinosaurs, became less adaptive to the radically changed environment than the smaller less complex mammals and other less complex species. In Gould's more general terms, it is a "punctuation" in a long standing equilibrium. An equilibrium is a certain relatively stable biosphere/web of eco-systems/ "food chain" The one that had stabilized/equilibrated in the ( I forgot the geological age name) got "punctuated" when the meteor hit. There had been prior mass extinctions of dinosaur like species groups. For example, the Jurassic ended in a mass extinction of dinosaur like species. But then another dinosaur type era followed. The names of the geological eras are very googlable. Anyway there have been a number of mass extinctions, and the dinosaur one was a relatively small one in natural history ( See essay on mass extinctions in _Ever Since Darwin_). One of the earliest punctuations was when species that reproduce sexually substantially came to dominate over the original earthly species that all reproduced by cloning. That was a real fundamental qualitative change. ^^^ As I said in a previous posting, evolution is not a linear process, but given its *global contextual* nature it is an inexorably 'progressive' one (organizationally speaking) ^^^ CB: This is the proposition in dispute here (smile). I'm saying there is no criterion of "progress" that can consistently applied to the evolution of species ( lifeforms) on earth so as to claim that there is "inexorable" progress. Right now I am disputing that the notion of "increasing complexity of organization" is a criterion of progress toward which earth species have evolved. Organizational complexity was defined by Sahlins and Service in _Evolution and Culture_, by the way, analogously for the purpose you use it here. So, I have extensive familiarity with what "complexity of organization" means. We can go right from the word "organization" to "organs" in this case. More complex organisms have more and larger _organs_, physiological organs. They have more parts, and more "division of function" among their parts. There "organs" are more so they _have_ more "organization". ^^^ with the (perhaps not so obvious) proviso of niche dependency (i.e. bacteria are clearly not as organizationally complex as humans even whilst having been around much longer - indeed, almost from the beginning of the Earth itself.. This is because bacteria occupy niches where such organizational complexity is either not necessary or is prohibited by such transparent parameters as size etc. ^^ CB: Yes, and this basically refutes your main point. Those niches are just as much niches as the niches the more complex organisms have. The fact that bacteria are better adapted to their niches and for longer _is_ what defines evolutionary success. So, evolution has gone in the direction or preserved less complexity in a substantial number of very successful species. By the way, this whole "complexity" thing was originally defined with humans, of course, as the most "complex" species ( because we "think" a lot, ergo _sapiens_, meaning rational, thinking). The whole "progress" idea originates and reduces to a form of anthropocentric teleology, "Man"(sic) as the end and purpose , and therefore pinnacle of progress in evolution. ^^^^ Listen, this is not rocket science, this despite the fact that many an 'expert' has become so enthralled by the dogma, the doctrine, that "evolution has no intrinsic direction". ^^ CB: Well, you are correct it is not "rocket science" , which is mainly physics and chemistry. This is biology. But yes, it is imminently understandable, especially if you have been studying it for forty years(smile) ^^^ But, of course, this is to ignore, first the clear and overwhelming evidence (literally before one's very eyes) of the rise of organizational complexity - and in successive, well defined stages - over the last 600 million years. ^^^ CB: Well, of course, it is not right before everybody's eyes at all. As Marx says, if everything was so obvious and directly observable, , there'd be no need for science. And the scientific investigation of Paleontology demonstrates something different from your conclusion, as especially articulated by Gould. He very empirically refutes your claim. The clear and convincing , overwhelming evidence is that there arose more complex species than the original life forms, but the development of new species down through the epochs has also seen the origin of many new species with the same level of simplicity as the early species. And many of the more complex species have been less successful than the simpler ones in terms of longevity , population size. Gould graphically says it by saying evolution is more of a bush than a tree. ^^^^ I mean, how else do you explain all the organizational complexity you see around you? ^^^ CB: Guess what ? There's a whole lot of organizational simplicity all around you that you can't see. Part of the nature of organizational simplicity and smallness is that you can't "see", hear,feel it as easily as the big stuff. But a lot of the simple stuff you can see, like plants. ^^^ As some sort of accident!? ..I mean really. ^^^ CB: It is something of an accident. Darwinian evolution is "intelligible happenstance" in contrast with "intelligent design". But it is not an accident in the sense that it is the result of a process of natural selection in the "struggle for existence". ^^^ *If* you postulate no intrinsic *overall* direction to evolution (and I mean, naturally, 'direction' in terms of organizationally complexity, not any specific form) how then do you account for the spectacular rise of such? Of trees, birds, bees, and human beings? What principle then do you invoke? ^^^ CB: I invoke natural selection ,of course, with changes in environment causing changes in the selection process. Basically, the "direction_s_" the ever changing origin of species takes is determined by changes in the selecting natural environment of the species. The meteor hit on dinosaurs is just one example of many of changes in the environment that extinguished certain species ( rendered them unfit) and nurtured other species ( rendered them fit ). Fitness is always _relative_ to a specific environment. This is the principle of environmental relativity of natural selection. There is no universal or absolute fitness , such as "complexity". ^^^ Second, the notion of evolution as being contextually neutral is, as I said earlier, logically incoherent. ^^^ CB: That's correct. Natural selection is concrete, it is essentially contextual, or as I put it above always must be construed _relative_ to a specific environment. ^^^ Evolution works via (among other significant factors) natural selection working on mutation (itself a product of self-reproduction). But this 'selection' must per force take place with respect to an environment. Now that environment can consist of micro and / or macro components - but the point is, that this is intrinsically a *contextual* process. There is no 'evolutionary process' in a vacuum, that is apart from the context of molding, environmental forces. ^^^ CB: This is correct. See above. ^^^ And do to the nature of the inevitable competition (and co-operation..but that is another, more sophisticated matter) involved, 'evolution' will, given enough time and suitable contexts, force the design of ever more organizationally complex organisms.. ^^^ CB: Wrong. ^^^^ .not all of them, and many of them to varying degrees, and not invariably over the planets surface, but from an organizational point of view, an increasingly more 'advanced' apex of organizational ^^^^ CB: Wrong. See Gould. There is no overall direction toward greater complexity. It's case by case relative to the specific environments that Nature throws on Earth down through the epochs. Everything changes. There is nothing but matter , and it's mode of existence is motion (change) (smile). That's materialist dialectics. ^^^ This is not the first time (even within evolutionary biology*) that many a 'professional in the field' has been blinded by a rigid adherence to a criterion that even a child can see through.... ^^^ CB: Perhaps, but in this one I am seeing clearly to what is, not in the least blind. A child can understand what I'm saying. It is like many profound truths, elegant, simple ,not complex (smile). ^^^^ [One need only look at the absolutely preposterous stance of a whole generation of comparative linguists who lined up (and probably still do) against Joseph Greenberg in his quite reasonable demand to place 'classification' ahead of 'reconstruction' as the basis for historical linguistics]. ^^^ CB: That's another discussion. ^^^ *As an example, the 'rate of living' paradigm (i.e. organisms that have slower metabolic rates live longer) - clearly a reasonable hypothesis - has been totally thrown out with the theoretical bathwater by most practicing biologists; this despite the fact that a modified 'rate of living paradigm' (taking into account certain, more or less, easily understandable qualifications, i.e. body size, organizational complexity in relation to energetic trade-off structures, allometry etc) *clearly and overwhelmingly* demonstrate a powerful relationship (and across phylogenies) between metabolic rate and longevity. Still, the automatic, reflexive rejection persists. The old, simple verbal mantras hold sway....For now. ^^^ CB: I'm not sure if you are relating this to the issue under discussion. Longevity of individual organisms is not correlated with longevity of a species, as far as I know... so.... Tony This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Dec 12 17:13:07 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:13:07 -0500 Subject: [A-List] =?iso-8859-1?q?Amir_Khadir=2C_=22the_first_=28and_only?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=29_member_of_the_National_Assembly_for_Qu=E9bec_so?= =?iso-8859-1?q?lidaire=22?= Message-ID: New perspectives for Qu?bec solidaire By Pierre Beaudet December 9, 2008 The election of Amir Khadir in the Mercier downtown district of Montreal did not come about as a surprise nor as a gift. The victory comes after three previous attempts since the late 1990s. Indeed Mercier is a 'natural' place for the left since it integrates very popular neighborhoods with middle classes mixed between various nationalities and ethnicities. It's also a site of historical struggles around housing, community rights, feminist and trade union struggles, that is, when they were factories (they are all gone now). Back in the 1970s by the way, one of the most progressive PQ leader and poet, Gerald Godin, was elected right there after defeating no one else than the Liberal Prime Minister of the time, Robert Bourassa. Later, Mercier was also the incubator of left-oriented urban politics with the RCM who ran against the local establishment. Last but not least, Mercier was the stronghold of the radical left, also in the 1970s, who organized several ?comit?s d'action politique? that rock the boat in social movements. By the way, Mercier is adjacent from the Parc Extension area where Fred Rose became the one and only Communist to be elected in the House of commons, back in 1948 Amir becomes the first (and only) member of the National Assembly for Qu?bec solidaire. His co-spokesperson, Fran?oise David, the former President of the F?d?ration des femmes du Qu?bec, came second in another popular neighborhood, with over 30% of the popular vote. All in all, QS has almost doubled its vote since the last general election (2003), leaving far behind the Green Party. For sure with a voice in the Assembly, it will be able to speak louder. During this electoral campaign, QS was cut out form mainstream media except for the few odd interviews. For the last year, QS has concentrated on two dimensions, its program first and its local organization second. The program is left-Keynesian, calling for a strong public sector, the nationalization of a few selected sectors, higher social standards, and additional political demands like the change of the electoral system and the convening of a national constituent assembly that would propose a process leading to sovereignty. The organizational part was first to recruit about 5000 members and then to set up strong structures in Mercier and a few other districts where the possibility of winning was real. Since its inception, QS has tried to reconcile itself as a political party intervening on the political scene with the necessity to battle with the people. Initially, the priority was the latter: the majority saw the first challenge as becoming 'institutional' to a certain extent, and not competing against the dynamic social movements. Now I suppose the trend will be more balanced. Having a political vehicle to intervene in the public political debates in necessary, but certainly not sufficient. QS cannot be a substitute to social movements, but it can be part and parcel of the 'war of position' that is to be conducted in the Parliament and in the streets. "Discours de victoire d'Amir Khadir pour Qu?bec solidaire": "Point d'Amir": From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Dec 12 17:21:05 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:21:05 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Ecuador Defaults on Sovereign Bonds Message-ID: Ecuador defaults on sovereign bonds By Naomi Mapstone in Lima Published: December 12 2008 21:56 | Last updated: December 12 2008 23:51 Rafael Correa, Ecuador's leftist president, announced the country's second foreign debt default in a decade yesterday, saying the debt was illegitimate and describing bondholders as "real monsters". Ecuador's refusal to meet the $30.6m payment on the country's Global 2012 bond, despite the fact that it has $5.65bn in cash reserves, sent dollar-denominated debt prices down sharply. "I gave the order not to pay the interest and to go into default," Mr Correa said. "We know very well who we are up against - real monsters." The president said he was prepared to face international litigation over the decision. The 2012 bonds, along with Ecuador's Global 2015 and 2030 bonds, come under the jurisdiction of Manhattan's southern district court. Mr Correa said Ecuador will offer bondholders a restructuring deal, but analysts say many bondholders have hedged their positions following several previous default threats and are now likely to accelerate payment of the $30.6m coupon payment and seek the full principal amount of $510m. Ecuador also plans to take its case to court. It argues that $3.8bn in foreign debt negotiated by previous administrations is illegitimate, saying it was authorized without executive decree. Alberto Bernal, Head of emerging market macroeconomic Strategy at Bulltick Capital Markets, said the move was a prelude to a decision to exit dollarisation. "Dollarisation is popular in Ecuador. Yet president Correa does not believe in dollarisation, and he needs further tools to pump the economy, because he will never receive the support of the private sector to generate employment," Mr Bernal said. "We think that a 60 per cent to 70 per cent devaluation is likely to take place at some point in the near future, unless oil prices recover fast." Ecuador abandoned the sucre for the dollar in 2000 after the collapse of its banking sector, which effectively leaves Mr Correa with no monetary policy of his own. Until the onset of the global financial crisis, Ecuador was awash with cash generated by the commodities boom. Oil accounts for more than half of its total exports and the sharp fall in prices has hit the Open nation hard. Remittances, which accounted for 7 per cent of gross domestic product last year, have also slumped as workers in the US and Europe are laid off. Mr Correa, a US ?trained economist and a close ally of Hugo Ch?vez, Venezuela's president, has pledged an ambitious programme of social spending or on the implementation of a new constitution. "The big problem with dollarisation is that if you don't take it seriously, and you keep a loose fiscal policy as we have seen in the past few years, you have to provide an alternative for an overappreciated and uncompetitive economy," a former Ecuadorean minister told the FT. "If we didn't have the commodities boom we could have very easily seen a collapse of the real sector and the financial sector in Ecuador much earlier." Ramiro Crespo, of Quito-based Analytica Securities, said Mr Correa was engaging in dangerous game of brinkmanship that could leave it isolated. "The new constitution grants the rights to everything," Mr Crespo said. "Now all Ecuadoreans have a right to a pension even though they didn't contribute during their working life to a fund. If you consider all the things written in the constitution, Ecuador is technically broke. It has cash but too many promises." From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Fri Dec 12 17:35:55 2008 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:35:55 +0900 Subject: [A-List] A Beardful of Bunkum Message-ID: <4943036B.1040900@ashisuto.co.jp> David Bellamy's at it again, with even dafter claims about climate change. by George Monbiot Published in the Guardian (December 09 2008) We all create our own reality, and shut out the voices we do not want to hear. But there is no issue we are less willing to entertain than manmade climate change. Here, three worlds seem to exist in virtual isolation. In the physical world, global warming appears to be spilling over into runaway feedback: the most dangerous situation humankind has ever encountered. In the political world - at the climate talks in Poznan for example - our governments seem to be responding to something quite different: a minor nuisance which can be addressed in due course. Only the Plane Stupid protesters who occupied part of Stansted airport yesterday appear to have understood the scale and speed of this crisis. In cyberspace, by contrast, the response spreading fastest and furthest is flat-out denial. The most popular article on the Guardian's website last week was the report showing that 2008 is likely to be the coolest year since 2000 {1}. As the Met Office predicted, global temperatures have been held down by the La Nina event in the Pacific Ocean. This news prompted a race on the Guardian's comment thread to reach the outer limits of idiocy. Of the 440 responses posted by lunchtime yesterday, about eighty per cent insisted that manmade climate change is a hoax. Here are some clips from this conversation: "This is a scam to get your money ... The only people buying into "global warming" have no experience with any of the sciences". "If we spend ANY money or cost one person their job because of this fraud it would be a crime. When will one of our politicians stand up and call this for what it is, BULLSH1T!" "What a set of jokers these professors are ... I think I understand more about climate change than them and I don't get paid a big fat salary with all the perks to go with it". And so on, and on and on. The new figures have prompted similar observations all over the web. Until now the "sceptics" have assured us that you can't believe the temperature readings at all; that the scientists at the Met Office, who produced the latest figures, are all liars; and that even if it were true that temperatures have risen, it doesn't mean anything. Now the temperature record (though only for 2008) can suddenly be trusted, and the widest possible inferences can be drawn from the latest figures, though not, of course, from the records of the preceding century. This is madness. Scrambled up in these comment threads are the memes planted in the public mind by the professional deniers employed by fossil fuel companies {2}. On the Guardian's forums you'll find endless claims that the hockeystick graph of global temperatures has been debunked; that sunspots are largely responsible for current temperature changes; that the world's glaciers are advancing; that global warming theory depends entirely on computer models; that most climate scientists in the 1970s were predicting a new ice age. None of this is true, but it doesn't matter. The professional deniers are paid not to win the argument but to cause as much confusion and delay as possible. To judge by the comment threads, they have succeeded magnificently. There is no pool so shallow that a thousand bloggers won't drown in it. Take the latest claims from the former broadcaster David Bellamy. You may remember that Bellamy came famously unstuck three years ago when he stated that 555 of the 625 glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were growing {3}. Now he has made an even stranger allegation. In early November the Express ran an interview with Bellamy under the headline "BBC shunned me for denying climate change". {4} "The sad fact is", he explained, "that since I said I didn't believe human beings caused global warming I've not been allowed to make a TV programme". He had been brave enough to state that global warming was "poppycock", and that caused the end of his career. "Back then, at the BBC you had to toe the line and I wasn't doing that". This article received more hits than almost anything else the Express has published, so ten days ago the paper interviewed Mr Bellamy again {5}. He took the opportunity to explain just how far the conspiracy had spread. "Have you noticed there is a wind turbine on Teletubbies? That's subliminal advertising, isn't it?" There is just one problem with this story: it is bollocks from start to finish. Bellamy last presented a programme on the BBC in 1994 {6}. The first time he publicly challenged the theory of manmade climate change was ten years later, in 2004, when he claimed in the Daily Mail that it was "poppycock" {7}. Until at least the year 2000 he supported the theory. In 1992, for example, he signed an open letter, published in the Guardian, urging George Bush Sr "to fight global warming ... We are convinced that the continued emission of carbon dioxide at current rates could result in dramatic and devastating climate change in all regions of the world". {8} In 1996 he signed a letter to the Times arguing that "Continued increases in the global emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels are likely to lead to climate change at a rate greater than the Earth has experienced at any time during the last 10,000 years". {9} In the same year he called for the replacement of fossil fuels with wind power {10}. In 2000 he announced that he was supporting a plan to sue climate change "criminals": governments and industries which blocked attempts to stop global warming {11}. But Bellamy's new claims about the end of his career have been repeated as gospel in several newspapers {12, 13} and all over the web {14}. In his fascinating book Carbon Detox (2007), George Marshall argues that people are not persuaded by information {15}. Our views are formed by the views of the people with whom we mix. Of the narratives that might penetrate these circles, we are more likely to listen to those which offer us some reward. A story which tells us that the world is cooking and that we'll have to make sacrifices for the sake of future generations is less likely to be accepted than the more rewarding idea that climate change is a conspiracy hatched by scheming governments and venal scientists, and that strong, independent-minded people should unite to defend their freedoms. He proposes that instead of arguing for sacrifice, environmentalists should show where the rewards might lie: that understanding what the science is saying and planning accordingly is the smart thing to do, which will protect your interests more effectively than flinging abuse at scientists. We should emphasise the old-fashioned virtues of uniting in the face of a crisis, of resourcefulness and community action. Projects like the transition towns network and proposals for a green new deal tell a story which people are more willing to hear. Marshall is right: we have to change the way we talk about this issue. You don't believe me? Then read the gibberish that follows this article on the Guardian's website. www.monbiot.com References: 1. James Randerson, 5th December 2008. 2008 will be coolest year of the decade. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/05/climate-change-weather 2. For the origins of such claims and the people behind them, see George Monbiot, 2007. Heat: how to stop the planet burning. Chapter 2: The Denial Industry. Penguin, London. 3. George Monbiot, 10th May 2005. Junk Science. The Guardian. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/junk-science/ 4. Helen Dowd, 5th November 2008. BBC Shunned Me For Denying Climate Change. The Express. http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623 5. Anna Pukas, 29th November 2008. David Bellamy: ?Global Warming Is Nonsense'. The Express. http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/73486/David-Bellamy-Global-warming-is-nonsense- 6. Simon Hattenstone, 30th September 2002. The Green Man. The Guardian. 7. David Bellamy, 9th July 2004. Global warming? What a load of poppycock! Daily Mail. 8. David Bellamy and others, 1st March 1992. A climate of change. Manchester Guardian Weekly. 9. David Bellamy and others, 14th June 1996. Call for tougher action on CO2. The Times. 10. David Bellamy, 16th December 1996. Cited by Peter Spinks. Glimmer of hope for wounded planet. The Age (Melbourne). 11. No byline, 7th November 2000. Bellamy tackles 'climate criminals'. The Evening Standard. 12. eg: David Bellamy, 25th November 2008. The price of dissent on global warming. The Australian. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24700827-5013479,00.html and: 13. Debra J Saunders, 3oth November 2008. When the warmest year in history isn't. San Francisco Chronicle. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/29/INLB14C70S.DTL 14. For more on this, see http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/david-bellamy-victim-but-of-who/ 15. George Marshall, 2007. Carbon Detox. Gaia, London. Copyright (c) 2006 Monbiot.com http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/12/09/a-beardful-of-bunkum/ http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From Waistline2 at aol.com Fri Dec 12 18:43:47 2008 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:43:47 EST Subject: [A-List] Blaming the workers - correction Message-ID: The UAW was always narrow and always blocked the forward movement of the organized mass. That was its purpose in history. Waistline Should read: The UAW was always narrow and always blocked the forward movement of the UNorganized mass. That was Part of its purpose in history. Waistline **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010) From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sat Dec 13 06:31:37 2008 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:31:37 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Postscript to "The Financialization of Capital and the Crisis" Message-ID: <4943B939.2090503@ashisuto.co.jp> by John Bellamy Foster Monthly Review (April 2008) Six months ago the United States was already deep in a financial crisis - the roots of which were explained in this article. Yet, the conditions now are several orders of magnitude worse and are affecting the entire world. We are clearly in the midst of one of the great crises in the history of capitalism. More than a mere financial panic, what is taking place is a major devaluation of capital of still undetermined dimensions. Marx explained that capital was invariably over-extended in a boom and that in the crisis that followed a part of that capital was devalued, enabling the rest to return to profitability and to the process of accumulation and expansion. However, we are now to some extent in uncharted territory: a phase of monopoly-finance capital that is in many ways unprecedented. Even at the time of the Great Depression of the 1930s, Keynes explained that after a crisis modern capitalism might return to profitability without a return to full employment, full utilization of existing capacity, and strong growth. Our experience of the last half-century has shown that capitalism at its core was able to avoid stagnation only by vast military expenditures and, when that proved insufficient, by an enormous inflation of asset values and speculation, ie "financialization". This growth multiplied by the boom psychology on the way up (the "wealth effect") turned out to also have a contracting multiplier effect on the way down. These factors help to explain why the economic crisis in the real economy is so severe at present, and why there is no chance of an immediate restarting of the growth process. Many people first woke up to the seriousness of the crisis only on September 18 2008, when US Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson told Congress that the US financial sector was within days of a complete meltdown and that a $700 billion bailout for the banks was urgently needed. Since then (and indeed even before) vast amounts of government dollars have been poured into the financial structure (all told the financial exposure of the US government alone in the entire crisis has exceeded $5 trillion at this writing), including direct injection of capital into major banks and partial nationalizations {1}. Yet, still there is little sign of the crisis abating. Insolvency is spreading through the economy from consumers to banks, to non-financial firms, back to consumers, in a vicious cycle. The fact that the economy in recent decades was being lifted mainly by financialization makes the problem all that much more severe. The entire world economy is now affected. Already one economy in the European sphere itself - Iceland - has experienced a meltdown, requiring rescue from outside, and some have called Iceland the "canary in the coalmine". Over this last neoliberal epoch, the United States and its European allies have forced upon the entire globe a model of the free flow of capital across borders. The result today is the free flow of catastrophe. Only by the imposition, first, of capital controls and the establishment, second, of non-market based "South-South" cooperation can "emerging" economies avoid becoming the worse victims of the crash. In these dire economic circumstances we should of course be careful not to fall into an exaggerated frame of mind. It is important to remember that a breakdown of capitalism as a whole will not occur by mere economics alone. Given time to work things out on its own terms the system will no doubt recover - though a full recovery could be many years away, if possible at all. The real historical issue before us is to what extent the world's population is willing to wait for this crisis to be resolved on capitalist terms, so that the whole irrational process of exploitation and boom and bust can gain steam again - or whether they shall decide to insert themselves into the process to say Enough! It is this political insertion from below that the powers that be most fear. From their Olympian position at the top of the system they know perhaps better than anyone else that the conditions exist for the possible renewal of socialism on a global scale. Capitalism has reached its limits as a progressive force and its famous "creative destruction" has turned into a destructive creativity in which both the world's people and the planet are now in jeopardy. Indeed, for the world's population and the earth taken a whole there is today no real alternative - to socialism. _____ 1 "Government's Leap into Banking Has Its Perils", New York Times (October 18 2008). John Bellamy Foster is editor of Monthly Review and professor of sociology at the University of Oregon. This postscript was written for the Portuguese translation of "The Financialization of Capital and the Crisis" that will appear in Revista Outubro, Brazil. http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/foster251008p.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Dec 13 06:58:32 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 08:58:32 -0500 Subject: [A-List] China Data Spark Deflation Worries Message-ID: DECEMBER 12, 2008 China Data Spark Deflation Worries By ANDREW BATSON BEIJING -- The collapse in global and local commodity prices drove China's consumer-price inflation to its lowest rate in nearly two years in November. It is now more likely inflation in China will be in negative territory or close to it by early next year, adding to pressure on the government to shore up demand to bolster China's weakening economy. [Easing inflation charts] The consumer-price index in November was 2.4% higher than a year ago, down from October's 4.0% reading and far below this year's peak of 8.7%. Wholesale prices have also fallen, reflecting the global correction in prices for food, fuel and raw materials. The World Bank's index of agricultural commodities fell 7.2% in November from October and its index of metal and mineral prices fell 13%. November marked the fourth consecutive month-on-month fall in China's consumer-price index. Nonfood inflation, China's closest equivalent to a measure of core inflation, dropped to 0.6% year-on-year in November, the lowest level since January 2007, after a 1.6% reading in October. With the rapid price declines in recent months, by early 2009, when the consumer-price index will be calculated relative to the peak prices early this year, headline inflation could be negative. That has raised the specter of deflation, or a sustained period of falling prices. Deflation, which can be highly difficult for governments to reverse, would add a further drag to China's economy. Qu Hongbin, chief China economist for HSBC, now expects inflation to average minus 0.2% in 2009, a reversal from his previous forecast of a 2.5% rise. "This means that the central bank will have to maximize its efforts to ease policy in the coming quarters," he said. He predicted interest rates will be lowered by two percentage points by mid-2009. At the start of this year, China's government, like many, was focused on taming inflation, which was running at decade-high levels, thanks mainly to surging food prices. The recent trend seems to show a reversal in prices, rather than contracting demand. Economists worry about deflation because of its potential for creating a self-reinforcing negative spiral: If consumers expect prices to fall, they will put off purchases, which depresses demand and further lowers prices. Write to Andrew Batson at andrew.batson at wsj.com From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Dec 13 07:10:46 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:10:46 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Slowdown In China Gets Worse, Increasing Global Woes + China Data Spark Deflation Worries Message-ID: DECEMBER 11, 2008 Slowdown In China Gets Worse, Increasing Global Woes By ANDREW BATSON and GORDON FAIRCLOUGH BEIJING -- Sudden declines in China's imports and exports show the country's economic slowdown is entering a new and more serious phase, exacerbating the global slump while jolting Chinese companies and workers used to years of soaring sales and salaries. The surprising reversal adds to concerns over whether the Chinese economy -- on track to surpass Germany this year as the world's third-largest and the only one in the top tier still expanding -- can help support growth and stave off deeper financial pain elsewhere around the world. China's customs agency said Wednesday that November's exports fell 2.2% from a year earlier, the first decline since June 2001. That marked a major shift from a 19.2% gain in October and a nearly 26% rise in 2007. Imports suffered an even steeper drop, down 17.9% in November from a year earlier. They had risen 15.6% in October and more than 20% last year. The import figure signals weakness in domestic consumption, bad news for companies that export to China, and also falling demand for manufacturing components -- which spells trouble for China's future exports as well. Chinese producers of low-end goods such as toys and textiles have been struggling all year. But now, sales of higher-end machinery and electronics are declining as the U.S. economy has deteriorated sharply. China is the third-largest export market for the U.S., and has been a major buyer of commodities. But its imports of iron ore fell 7.9% in November. Crude oil imports were down 1.8% to their lowest level this year, contributing to weakening global oil demand. "The most striking real economic fact of the past several months is not continued U.S. economic weakness, but that China's economy has slowed much more quickly than anyone had forecast," Australia's central bank Governor Glenn Stevens said this week. [On the Decline charts] Stimulus Package China's leaders last month announced a 4 trillion yuan ($584 billion) stimulus package, and on Wednesday wrapped up an annual economic-policy conference by reaffirming their determination to support growth by any means available. But some economists think China could be entering a sustained period of falling export orders, with the U.S., European and Japanese economies all now contracting. The World Bank expects the volume of global trade to shrink in 2009 for the first time since 1982. That poses an especially difficult transition for Chinese firms and consumers. In the coastal city of Yuyao, Ningbo Wanglong Group says that years of rapid expansion have made it one of the world's largest producers of preservatives for food and feed. But export orders have declined rapidly since September. "We've never experienced this before. We don't know what happened," said Zhou Hong, a sales manager. He said shipments to overseas distributors have plunged by roughly 50% to 60% in recent months. The company hasn't yet laid off any of its 1,500 employees, but has had to halve production and offer clients discounts of around 50%. "So far we don't know what else we can do," Mr. Zhou said. China's economy is slowing particularly sharply because the export decline is combining with slackening domestic demand. Housing sales have dropped and prices are declining in most major cities. New construction has dried up, which saps demand for steel, cement and copper. Consumers are holding off on other big purchases: Car sales dropped 10.3% from a year earlier in November, the third monthly decline this year. Many economists are forecasting China's economic growth to slow to around 7.5% next year, which is below the government's traditional 8% target and would be the lowest since 1999. Growth this year is likely to average just over 9%, ending five straight years of double-digit gains. Economists' worst-case scenarios for China involve a quarter or two of growth around 5% next year, far from the outright contractions typically associated with a recession in the U.S. and other advanced economies. But it does looks like China is headed for what some economists call a "growth recession," a period of weak expansion and rising unemployment. The slowdown is translating into fewer jobs, and increasing strains between workers and employers. China doesn't publish reliable data on unemployment; few economists take seriously the official jobless rate of 4%. But there have been growing numbers of layoffs and factory closures. Hundreds of thousands of migrant workers have returned to their hometowns to wait out the slowdown. Zhou Tianyong, an economist at the Central Party School, a Communist Party institute in Beijing, estimates that the actual unemployment rate this year is around 12% and could rise to 14% next year. For most of Geely Group's short history as an auto maker, its biggest challenge was figuring out ways to expand quickly enough to meet exploding demand from China's increasingly affluent middle class. Now Geely managers are negotiating an abrupt U-turn. Zhang Xiaodong, a company spokesman, said Geely has suspended plans to start mass production of a sports car and halted development of two large sedans. Geely's sales were down 6% in October and up 1% for the first ten months of the year, after growing more than 40% in 2005 and 2006 and 7% last year. Survival Rate Yale Zhang, a Shanghai-based auto analyst with CSM Worldwide, said China's auto makers "are used to a high-growth environment. They don't know how to survive at a single-digit growth rate." Although the slowdown is taking the sharpest toll on low-paid manufacturing workers, it's also spreading concern among prosperous white-collar families. Well-educated urbanites have been able to hop from job to job in recent years, extracting steep raises once a year or more. Average urban incomes are up 14.7% so far in 2008, the seventh straight year of double-digit gains. Li Hua, a 31-year-old human-resources executive with a Shanghai sports retailer, says she used to get calls from headhunters almost weekly. She changed jobs twice in the last few years. But in October, the job market started to change. Her own company canceled its recruitment plans, and a friend got laid off from a new job with little severance. "Now what I'm thinking is to just work hard. No complaints, no asking for a raise," said Ms. Li. "We should all feel lucky we still have a job and are doing fine." ?Ellen Zhu in Shanghai contributed to this article. Write to Andrew Batson at andrew.batson at wsj.com and Gordon Fairclough at gordon.fairclough at wsj.com DECEMBER 12, 2008 China Data Spark Deflation Worries By ANDREW BATSON BEIJING -- The collapse in global and local commodity prices drove China's consumer-price inflation to its lowest rate in nearly two years in November. It is now more likely inflation in China will be in negative territory or close to it by early next year, adding to pressure on the government to shore up demand to bolster China's weakening economy. [Easing inflation charts] The consumer-price index in November was 2.4% higher than a year ago, down from October's 4.0% reading and far below this year's peak of 8.7%. Wholesale prices have also fallen, reflecting the global correction in prices for food, fuel and raw materials. The World Bank's index of agricultural commodities fell 7.2% in November from October and its index of metal and mineral prices fell 13%. November marked the fourth consecutive month-on-month fall in China's consumer-price index. Nonfood inflation, China's closest equivalent to a measure of core inflation, dropped to 0.6% year-on-year in November, the lowest level since January 2007, after a 1.6% reading in October. With the rapid price declines in recent months, by early 2009, when the consumer-price index will be calculated relative to the peak prices early this year, headline inflation could be negative. That has raised the specter of deflation, or a sustained period of falling prices. Deflation, which can be highly difficult for governments to reverse, would add a further drag to China's economy. Qu Hongbin, chief China economist for HSBC, now expects inflation to average minus 0.2% in 2009, a reversal from his previous forecast of a 2.5% rise. "This means that the central bank will have to maximize its efforts to ease policy in the coming quarters," he said. He predicted interest rates will be lowered by two percentage points by mid-2009. At the start of this year, China's government, like many, was focused on taming inflation, which was running at decade-high levels, thanks mainly to surging food prices. The recent trend seems to show a reversal in prices, rather than contracting demand. Economists worry about deflation because of its potential for creating a self-reinforcing negative spiral: If consumers expect prices to fall, they will put off purchases, which depresses demand and further lowers prices. Write to Andrew Batson at andrew.batson at wsj.com From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Dec 13 07:32:29 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:32:29 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Somalia: No Volunteers for Coalition; US Navy Commander Questions Land Attacks on Pirates; Etc. Message-ID: Somalia: No Volunteers for Coalition December 13, 2008 World Briefing | Africa Somalia: No Volunteers for Coalition By REUTERS The United Nations has been unable to put together a multinational military force to stabilize Somalia, which diplomats said means the lawless country might be left to fend for itself. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said that Somalia's problems are beyond the capabilities of United Nations peacekeepers and will require a force of about 10,000 troops "with full capability to defend itself against hostile threats." United Nations officials have been lobbying countries to join an international coalition, but so far, diplomats on the Security Council say, none have been willing. Navy commander questions land attacks on pirates By LOLITA C. BALDOR ? 21 hours ago MANAMA, Bahrain (AP) ? The commander of the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet expressed doubt Friday about the wisdom of launching attacks against Somali pirates on land ? a proposal the U.S. is circulating to the U.N. Security Council. U.S. Vice Adm. Bill Gortney told reporters that striking pirate camps presents problems because it is difficult to identify them and the potential for killing innocent civilians "cannot be overestimated." In a wide-ranging interview at his 5th Fleet headquarters, Gortney said that such strikes are an effort to go for an easy military solution to a problem. He says the better solutions are to improve the security, stability and government in Somalia, and to clear up legal hurdles so that militaries that capture pirates can detain them and bring them to trial. Currently, most foreign navies patrolling the Somali coast have been reluctant to detain suspects because of uncertainties over where they would face trial, since Somalia has no effective central government or legal system. The draft U.N. Security Council resolution proposes that all nations and regional groups cooperating with Somalia's U.N.-backed government in the fight against piracy and armed robbery "may take all necessary measures ashore in Somalia." Bush administration officials in Washington say that while the proposal would give the U.S. military more options in confronting the pirates, it does not mean the U.S. is planning a ground assault. Gortney said that progress is being made in the broad international effort to stem the recent spike in pirate attacks on commercial vessels off the coast of Somalia. He said he is seeing progress in efforts to change the legal requirements so that navies can detain and send captured pirates to trial. And, he said more shipping companies are adding security personnel. Since the end of August, Gortney said, there have been 50 instances where coalition ships have disrupted potential pirate attacks, throwing guns overboard and sinking small skiffs. But in many instances they had to release the people on the ships because of the legal hurdles. NATO ends anti-piracy mission off Somalia www.chinaview.cn 2008-12-13 00:38:41 BRUSSELS, Dec. 12 (Xinhua) -- NATO completed its mission on Friday to escort World Food Program (WFP) shipments to Somalia and to deter piracy in the Gulf of Aden, said the alliance. Four NATO warships provided escort on eight occasions which resulted in the safe delivery of 30,000 tons of humanitarian aid to Somalia, and conducted deterrence patrols in the area most susceptible to criminal acts against merchant shipping, said the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. "The decision to run this mission has set a valuable precedent for our alliance," said General John Craddock, Supreme Allied Commander Europe. "With little time to plan, NATO has completed a very successful mission. We have demonstrated that we can react, and quickly, in times of crisis." The WFP has said more than 2 million Somalis could go hungry without the NATO protection. Since the NATO mission started on Oct.24, 2008, no pirate attacks have been launched against ships loaded with WFP food. The NATO mission has been replaced by a European Union (EU) operation codenamed Atalanta. The EU naval operation, the first of its kind, will run for 12 months. NATO, meanwhile, is considering its long-term strategy on the piracy issue and stands ready to consider further requests for the use of its naval assets in this regard, the alliance has said. Piracy remained rampant despite the presence of NATO ships and that of a dozen from other countries, such as Denmark, France, India, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States. Since Oct. 24, pirates assaulted 32 vessels and captured 12 off the coast of Somalia. Every day, over 50 merchant vessels sail through the Gulf of Aden, which is a key trade route linking the Indian Ocean with the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal. Indian Navy repulses attack, arrests 23 pirates off Somali coast By Praful Kumar Singh New Delhi, Dec 13 (ANI): Leading the fight against piracy Indian naval warship, INS Mysore, deployed in the Gulf of Aden attacked two boats of pirates and arrested 23 sea brigands today after receiving signals from an Ethiopian ship that they were trying to hijack it. Out of 23 arrested pirates, 12 are reportedly from Somalia and 11 from Yemen. Twelve AK 47 guns, three rifles, two grenades along with other ammunitions were seized from the pirates. MV Gibe, a merchant vessel flying the Ethiopian flag, send emergency signals around noon for help after which the Indian warship patrolling in the Somali waters launched the rescue operation. Marine commandos were dispatched in a helicopter after INS Mysore received a distress call from the cargo vessel that the pirates had fired on the merchant vessel with their small arms. The INS Mysore intervened and warded off the attack on the merchant vessel carried out by the pirates who came in two speedboats, Navy spokesperson said here. The spokesperson said that the Navy flew its Marine Commandos on helicopters to the scene of the pirate attack and rescued the ship. MV Gibe was later escorted to safety, he added. Last month INS Tabar, armed with supersonic BrahMos (PJ-10) anti-ship cruise missiles, sank a mother ship of pirates off the Somali coast after an exchange of fire. The attack took place about 150 nautical miles off Aden and INS Mysore was about 13 nautical miles away from the merchant vessel when it picked up the SOS call. The Indian Navy has been conducting anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden since October 23 as a sizeable portion of our country's trade flows through the area and there has been a quantum increase in the number of piracy attacks in this region over the last few months. The Navy carries out these patrols in coordination with the Ministry of Shipping and is intended to protect Indian merchant vessels from being attacked by pirates and also to instill confidence in our large seafaring community. (ANI) From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Dec 13 07:53:59 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:53:59 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Postscript to "The Financialization of Capital and the Crisis" In-Reply-To: <4943B939.2090503@ashisuto.co.jp> References: <4943B939.2090503@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Bill Totten wrote: > by John Bellamy Foster > The real historical issue before us is to what extent the world's > population is willing to wait for this crisis to be resolved on > capitalist terms, so that the whole irrational process of exploitation > and boom and bust can gain steam again - or whether they shall decide > to insert themselves into the process to say Enough! It is this > political insertion from below that the powers that be most fear. From > their Olympian position at the top of the system they know perhaps > better than anyone else that the conditions exist for the possible > renewal of socialism on a global scale. If I may add a postscript to John's postscript, the crisis reveals not so much "the possible renewal of socialism on a global scale" as remarkable national differences in popular classes' power and overall political culture. Where popular classes are strong, the crisis gives their leadership an opportunity to go on the offensive, as in Argentina and Ecuador. Where popular classes are weak, the crisis gives an opportunity to capital to casualize labor further even while attempting to reflate economy, which is what has already happened in Japan and is happening now in the USA. In some nations -- Japan, Germany, Poland, etc. -- even mere attempts at reflation in the midst of this grave global crisis may be stiffly resisted by the ruling class. Yoshie From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Dec 13 07:57:38 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:57:38 -0500 Subject: [A-List] =?windows-1252?q?EU_Slims_Stimulus_Goal=2C_Targets_=91Ab?= =?windows-1252?q?out=92_EU200_Billion_=28Update5=29_+_Germany_agai?= =?windows-1252?q?nst_the_Rest_of_the_World?= Message-ID: EU Slims Stimulus Goal, Targets 'About' EU200 Billion (Update5) By Mark Deen and James G. Neuger Dec. 12 (Bloomberg) -- European Union leaders trimmed a proposed stimulus package to halt the slide into a recession, as Germany warded off calls by France and Britain for deficit- boosting programs. EU leaders pledged economy-boosting steps worth "about" 1.5 percent of gross domestic product, dropping an earlier target of investing "at least" that amount, according to a statement at a summit today in Brussels. The figure is equal to 200 billion euros ($266 billion). The accord papers over bickering between German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who resisted a bigger rescue package, and countries such as France and Britain that want Europe's largest economy to shoulder more of the burden in reviving growth. "Germany is living up to its responsibilities," Merkel said. "Europe has a common strategy for tackling this deep crisis. Of course, the governments have different instruments which they can use." Europe's caution contrasts with President-elect Barack Obama's call this week for the biggest U.S. infrastructure investments since the 1950s, with a price tag tabbed by lawmakers at $500 billion to $700 billion. Obama said concerns about the deficit will take a back seat in the short term. Waiting for Obama "When next month a new president takes office in America who is also committed to fiscal action, we'll be able to show that Europe and America can work together," U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said. "We will continue to reject the do-nothing approach." Europe's economic straits worsened today with a report that industrial production plunged the most in 15 years in October as orders weakened and business investment slumped. Output in the euro region fell 5.3 percent from a year earlier. "I don't think that it will be wise to speculate about a second European stimulus package," Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, head of the panel of euro region finance ministers, said in a Bloomberg Television interview. "We have to observe closely the profile of the crisis and hopefully beginning elements of recovery in the second half of 2009." Interest-Rate Cycle Mindful of the European Central Bank's independence from political control, the EU statement didn't press the ECB to ease interest rates further after last week's reduction of 75 basis points to 2.5 percent, the biggest cut in the 10-year life of the euro. In an interview with Germany's Boersen-Zeitung newspaper, ECB council member Axel Weber cautioned against reducing rates below 2 percent, becoming the latest policy maker to signal the bank may be nearing the end of its rate-cutting cycle. Central bankers share Merkel's concern that extra spending would bust Germany's budget, set to be in balance for the first time in 39 years in 2008. While Merkel shunned calls to boost Germany's planned two-year 32 billion-euro program of construction investment and tax breaks, she said the government will consider in January whether new steps are necessary. Officials from Germany, France and the U.K. played down concerns that flared on the eve of the summit that policy makers in Europe's three largest economies are at loggerheads over the stimulus plan. "I've openly fought against this notion that Germany thinks in a less European manner," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said. "We're all smart enough to know that not every medicine is suitable for different structures." 'Not Cross' Merkel is "not cross at all," U.K. Foreign Secretary David Miliband said on BBC Radio4 today. "You've got a widespread recognition that whatever the national differences, this is a time for fiscal stimulus." The plan depends on national governments kicking in 170 billion euros, with 30 billion euros to come from central EU budgets. Spending plans announced before the summit came up to only half the total. France has committed 26 billion euros, pushing its budget deficit above the EU limit of 3 percent of gross domestic product in 2009, EU forecasts show. Britain has pledged 20 billion pounds ($29.6 billion) and plans to run a deficit amounting to 8 percent of output next year. The unexpected spending "will temporarily deepen the deficits," the statement said. It said the EU "reaffirms its full commitment to sustainable public finances" and urged governments to "swiftly" return to budget-balancing policies. France failed, meanwhile, to win EU approval to reduce value- added tax at restaurants, an initiative successive German governments have blocked since at least 2002. A new deadline of March was set to overhaul the sales-tax system. Carmakers The 27 leaders also agreed that industries like carmaking and construction deserve support. The leaders backed plans by the European Investment Bank to double annual lending to carmakers to about 4 billion euros in 2009-10 to promote clean technologies. Carmakers in October had sought 40 billion euros in loans to help cope with tighter fuel-emissions standards and to offset the impact of $25 billion in lending to American rivals that the U.S. government was considering at the time. To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Deen in London at markdeen at bloomberg.net; James G. Neuger in Brussels at jneuger at bloomberg.net Last Updated: December 12, 2008 09:39 EST Rescue Packages Germany against the rest of the world By Jan Dams and Joachim Wittman 13.December 2008, 15:08 German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck vilifies Britain's financial stimulus plan in an interview with American magazine Newsweek, saying that making VAT cuts won't solve the problem, but rather will build a national debt that will take at least a generation to pay off. The problem? Everyone seems to be against Germany's solution. The tone seems to be getting bitter in the discussion about what is the correct reaction to the global economic downturn. After Britain invited French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso for talks ahead of the EU summit, and didn't invite German Chancellor Angela Merkel, German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck hit back. "Are you really going to buy a DVD player because it now costs ?39.10 instead of ?39.90?" he asks, taking a gibe at British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in an interview with American magazine Newsweek. Brown has cut the interest rate from 17.5 percent to 15 percent to relieve the financial burden slightly for the British population in addition to stimulating the nation's economy. Yet, in Steinbrueck's opinion, all Brown's plan can achieve "is raise Britain's debt to a level that will take a whole generation to work off". Steinbrueck's comments are the best proof for the differences in opinion between Germany and its partners. The French and the British want to stimulate the economy with public funds, but Germany refuses to abide. This causes irritation not only because Germany, as Europe's leading economy, should lead the stimulus-movement, but also because the global export champion had made profits from the boom of the others. Paul Krugman, the recent recipient of the Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, referred to Steinbrueck as dumb, saying that a refusal to cooperate with debt-financed stimulus packages can cause severe damage. Steinbrueck's interview also left a sour taste in Britain, where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) described it as an "unusual break of diplomatic customs". A Treasury spokesman said: "There is a broad international consent over the fact that a fiscal stimulus is now the correct step for the economy." Unofficially one is disgruntled about the attack ? mainly because it was made in the run-up to the EU summit where an all-European economic stimulus package is to be decided upon. Steinbrueck "represents a minority opinion" the BBC quoted a source close to the government as saying. In reality Steinbrueck was, as he often is, bold: The British were complaining about the Europeans overspending and criticized their budgets; yet "are now tossing around billions. "The switch from decades of supply-side politics all the way to a crass Keynesianism is breathtaking," he said. The SPD politician's critique towards Brown is also causing resentment in the British Labour Government because it coincides with what the conservative opposition says. The Tories are opposed to a value-added tax (VAT) cut and warn of a national debt that could reach at least eight percent of the gross domestic product in 2010 or 2011. Steinbrueck continues to receive support from Angela Merkel. She promised remedial measures for the economy to the other EU members, and said ahead of the summit with the other EU leaders that the nation is aware of its responsibility. "Germany will continue to look to see what we would possibly still have to do," she said. Yet, like so often in recent times, she disappoints expectations by rebuking arrangements the coalition had already made. But the German plan is not good enough for the rest of Europe. Even the "five wise men", Germany's council of economic experts, have labelled the German stimulus package as insufficient and a mingle-mangle of too many individual measures. Germany is giving just 10 billion euros over two years for additional investments ? that equates to not even one percent of the nation's economic performance. But Germany isn't only feeling the pressure to do more from the outside: President Horst Koehler (in the S?ddeutsche Zeitung newspaper) called for new, concentrated action against the crisis to be taken by the government, economics, trade unions and banks. Koehler also called for an international financial summit to analyse the origins of the global crisis. There have already been many international talks on the subject; unfortunately they haven't achieved much. Translated by Carolin Wittek From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Dec 13 08:04:21 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:04:21 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Japan Unveils New Economic Stimulus Measures Message-ID: Much of the money will still go to the financial sector! DECEMBER 12, 2008, 8:38 P.M. ET Japan Unveils New Economic Stimulus Measures By HIROKO TABUCHI TOKYO -- Japan unveiled a slew of new economic stimulus measures Friday amid signs the recession in the world's No.2 economy is rapidly getting worse. The move followed a 5.6% drop in the benchmark Nikkei 225 Stock Average and a spike in the yen to a new 13-year high after the bailout plan to aid U.S. auto makers fell apart in the Senate. News on Friday that auto maker Mazda Motor Corp. will slash production by 100,000 vehicles through March and shed 200 temporary workers in Japan exacerbated concerns of more pain ahead for Japan's export-led economy. Electronics maker Sharp Corp. also said it would close some manufacturing lines in Japan and fire temporary workers. The measures come as a new government report said Japan will likely face a protracted recession, with its exporters hurt by faltering growth in overseas markets. Revised gross domestic product data released earlier this week showed Japan's economy shrank 0.5% in the July-September period from the previous quarter, worse than initially estimated. In a note published Friday, Yamakawa Tetsufumi, a Tokyo-based economist at Goldman Sachs, said he expects Japan's economy to stay in recession until the second half of 2010. "The economy has worsened far beyond our expectations," Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso told a nationally televised press conference. "This is a once-in-a-century global slump. Japan isn't going to escape from this big tsunami, but we can respond to it in a way that minimizes the damage." The new measures, which follow about ?6.8 trillion in spending announced so far this year, includes a loan program for laid-off temporary workers, a particularly heated issue in Japan. Nonregular workers, who make up a third of the country's work force and have no security and few benefits, were hired en masse in recent years to keep labor costs low amid intense global competition. But companies are now letting them go to cut costs amid the deepening recession. The latest stimulus package also includes measures to help businesses raise liquidity by selling their short-term debts to a government-backed bank. Under the new scheme, the bank will buy up to ?3 trillion in commercial paper from struggling companies as they head into the year-end season, when fund demand intensifies. The plan also expands a bank rescue scheme to ?12 trillion from ?2 trillion. Mr. Aso, however, didn't make clear how much fresh spending the plan involved, or whether it overlapped with previous stimulus plans. He said the entire package would be worth ?23 trillion. Meanwhile, parliament has yet to approve the budget that would fund these plans. [Further Measures] Japan's exporters have also been battered by a rapidly strengthening yen, which erodes the value of their overseas earnings. Late Friday in Tokyo, the dollar was trading at ?90.48, after falling to below ?89 earlier in the day. Finance Minister Shoichi Nakagawa called the dollar's dip "shocking," but dismissed speculation Japan would intervene in currency markets, saying Friday he "wasn't considering such a move." Meanwhile, the collapse of the U.S. bailout plan could add to the country's woes. Japanese auto makers like Toyota Motor Corp. rely on some of the same suppliers and dealers as their U.S. counterparts, so a wave of failures in the American auto industry is also bad news for Japan. Toyota shares plummeted 10% to ?2,760 in Tokyo. The new stimulus measures are the latest signs that economic woes have forced Japan to all but abandon a drive to pare down its massive public debt, started by former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. Mr. Aso has suggested he will call off plans to balance the government's annual budget by 2012. Japan's debt -- which has ballooned to more than 180% of its GDP, according to estimates by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development -- is bad news for a country that faces surging social security costs as its population rapidly ages. Economists also warn of a return to the runaway government spending of the 1990s, when Japan unsuccessfully tried to spend its way out of a long economic slump. ?Yuka Hayashi and Yoshio Takahashi contributed to this article. Write to Hiroko Tabuchi at hiroko.tabuchi at wsj.com From pbond at mail.ngo.za Sat Dec 13 08:34:32 2008 From: pbond at mail.ngo.za (Patrick Bond) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:34:32 +0200 Subject: [A-List] (Fwd) Foster: Postscript to "The Financialization of Capital and the Crisis" In-Reply-To: <4943B939.2090503@ashisuto.co.jp> References: <4943B939.2090503@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: <4943D608.4030204@mail.ngo.za> May I pose a couple of points, because I know John Bellamy Foster's nearly finished with what will be a superb book on the crash, that no doubt will set it all out in more detail. And full agreement on the matter of capital controls as job 1 for any middle-income or even Third World state, a point that even South Africa's new centre-right opposition ("COPE") to the centre-right ruling party (ANC) has been making in its policy documents, notwithstanding that this proposition is way left of prevailing mainstream discourse. Two points, then. First, besides the surplus sponge offered by military spending and the financial system's hyperactive expansion, as John mentions, there were other crucial reactions dating to the 1970s that allowed capital to systematically displace (not resolve) crisis tendencies. These included time-worn absolute and relative surplus value techniques; and newer ones associated with spatial shifts in capital investment and in the management of partial devalorisations of specific geographic sites, as well as a return - via ubiquitous neoliberal public policy - to more aggressive 'accumulation by dispossession' (such as environmental resource extraction of the sort John has analysed better than anyone for many years now). I raise this point because in all of these regards, we have not yet really found a way to fight back systematically from below, so capital is having its way in the valorisation/devalorisation process, even if in the financial system it extended so far as to topple. John makes this point: 'economics' alone won't topple the capitalist system. But we should nevertheless look at sites where resistance has been mighty impressive in areas where capital has displaced its problems, and build on these sites as potentially profound anti-capitalist terrains (my favourite examples are liberation of AIDS medicines from global capital's patents and from US and South African state policies, and the partially successful fightback against water privatisation across much of the Third World). Second, the prerequisite for a new round of capital accumulation in the 1950s-60s was not the 1929 crash that devalorised financial capital or the Great Depression that devalorised labour and a fair bit of world industrial capital. It seems to me - it's a supposition only - that the 'Golden Age' for accumulation was possible because of two other factors that occurred from 1939-45 in the form of physical destruction of vast industrial overaccumulation (Japanese and European manufacturing especially) and from 1945-50 in the form of restructured social relations as the US state restructured geopolitics, global finance and US 'fordist' industrial relations and social policy in US corporate capital's interests. I don't think in these short paragraphs, below, it's possible for John to sketch out what sort of restructured social relations might transpire if this crisis continues unfolding into world austerity and the degradation of the US dollar as world currency, to name just two imminent features for us to watch next year. I just finished a long tract on this which I can post if there's anyone interested in the line we've been developing at http://www.ukzn.ac.za/ccs What I'm most worried by, having visited the International Forum on Globalization in SF, the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, and a major Caracas conference a few weeks ago, is the hubris of the left and centre-left (amongst whom is Krugman) in their declarations of a post-neoliberal age. In South Africa, we've got a hopeful but probably mainly rhetorical shift underway from straightforwardly mean neoliberalism to a 'developmental state', but the actual policy changes are going to be contested each step of the way (not a single neoliberal policy-maker has lost their job in the recent shuffle of political elites), and in one test, the comrades working inside the ruling Alliance were not able to shift official policy towards a Basic Income Grant, a major priority. The interest rate came down only 1/2% on Thursday, way less than the trade unions demanded. And the extreme austerity we can expect as the SA economy teeters into recession was spelled out well by the International Monetary Fund in late October (I review it here: http://www.counterpunch.org/bond10292008.html ) Anyhow, there are some great anti-capitalist impulses surging all around, but the difficulty of fusing them into a much more coherent force is quite formidable, here in SA and everywhere. Bill Totten wrote: > by John Bellamy Foster > > Monthly Review (April 2008) > > > Six months ago the United States was already deep in a financial crisis > - the roots of which were explained in this article. Yet, the > conditions now are several orders of magnitude worse and are affecting > the entire world. We are clearly in the midst of one of the great > crises in the history of capitalism. More than a mere financial panic, > what is taking place is a major devaluation of capital of still > undetermined dimensions. Marx explained that capital was invariably > over-extended in a boom and that in the crisis that followed a part of > that capital was devalued, enabling the rest to return to profitability > and to the process of accumulation and expansion. However, we are now > to some extent in uncharted territory: a phase of monopoly-finance > capital that is in many ways unprecedented. Even at the time of the > Great Depression of the 1930s, Keynes explained that after a crisis > modern capitalism might return to profitability without a return to full > employment, full utilization of existing capacity, and strong growth. > Our experience of the last half-century has shown that capitalism at its > core was able to avoid stagnation only by vast military expenditures > and, when that proved insufficient, by an enormous inflation of asset > values and speculation, ie "financialization". This growth multiplied > by the boom psychology on the way up (the "wealth effect") turned out to > also have a contracting multiplier effect on the way down. These > factors help to explain why the economic crisis in the real economy is > so severe at present, and why there is no chance of an immediate > restarting of the growth process. > > Many people first woke up to the seriousness of the crisis only on > September 18 2008, when US Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson told > Congress that the US financial sector was within days of a complete > meltdown and that a $700 billion bailout for the banks was urgently > needed. Since then (and indeed even before) vast amounts of government > dollars have been poured into the financial structure (all told the > financial exposure of the US government alone in the entire crisis has > exceeded $5 trillion at this writing), including direct injection of > capital into major banks and partial nationalizations {1}. Yet, still > there is little sign of the crisis abating. Insolvency is spreading > through the economy from consumers to banks, to non-financial firms, > back to consumers, in a vicious cycle. The fact that the economy in > recent decades was being lifted mainly by financialization makes the > problem all that much more severe. > > The entire world economy is now affected. Already one economy in the > European sphere itself - Iceland - has experienced a meltdown, > requiring rescue from outside, and some have called Iceland the "canary > in the coalmine". Over this last neoliberal epoch, the United States > and its European allies have forced upon the entire globe a model of the > free flow of capital across borders. The result today is the free flow > of catastrophe. Only by the imposition, first, of capital controls and > the establishment, second, of non-market based "South-South" cooperation > can "emerging" economies avoid becoming the worse victims of the crash. > > In these dire economic circumstances we should of course be careful not > to fall into an exaggerated frame of mind. It is important to remember > that a breakdown of capitalism as a whole will not occur by mere > economics alone. Given time to work things out on its own terms the > system will no doubt recover - though a full recovery could be many > years away, if possible at all. > > The real historical issue before us is to what extent the world's > population is willing to wait for this crisis to be resolved on > capitalist terms, so that the whole irrational process of exploitation > and boom and bust can gain steam again - or whether they shall decide > to insert themselves into the process to say Enough! It is this > political insertion from below that the powers that be most fear. From > their Olympian position at the top of the system they know perhaps > better than anyone else that the conditions exist for the possible > renewal of socialism on a global scale. Capitalism has reached its > limits as a progressive force and its famous "creative destruction" has > turned into a destructive creativity in which both the world's people > and the planet are now in jeopardy. Indeed, for the world's population > and the earth taken a whole there is today no real alternative - to > socialism. > > _____ > > 1 "Government's Leap into Banking Has Its Perils", New York Times > (October 18 2008). > > > John Bellamy Foster is editor of Monthly Review and professor of > sociology at the University of Oregon. This postscript was written for > the Portuguese translation of "The Financialization of Capital and the > Crisis" that will appear in Revista Outubro, Brazil. > > http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/foster251008p.html > > > http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com > http://www.ashisuto.co.jp > > > > > From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Dec 13 09:22:31 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:22:31 -0500 Subject: [A-List] (Fwd) Foster: Postscript to "The Financialization of Capital and the Crisis" In-Reply-To: <4943D608.4030204@mail.ngo.za> References: <4943B939.2090503@ashisuto.co.jp> <4943D608.4030204@mail.ngo.za> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Patrick Bond wrote: > Two points, then. First, besides the surplus sponge offered by military > spending and the financial system's hyperactive expansion, as John > mentions, there were other crucial reactions dating to the 1970s that > allowed capital to systematically displace (not resolve) crisis > tendencies. These included time-worn absolute and relative surplus > value techniques; and newer ones associated with spatial shifts in capital > investment > I raise this point because in all of these regards, we have not yet > really found a way to fight back systematically from below, Most importantly, China and women, so far. The reason why it's difficult to attack neoliberal capitalism is that it has its attractions within the limits of capitalism. For the people of China, the hope of national economic development and higher living standards, especially in the long run, replicating and perhaps one day surpassing Japan's development, and for women, the hope of more autonomy vis-a-vis men (who lose some of their gender privileges along with "family wages"), in both cases in exchange for more inequality (within China, among women). Beyond China and women, when the hegemonic bloc for neoliberal capitalism acts cleverly, it doesn't attack all sectors at once but pits highly unionized workers in the oligopolistic sectors and civil service against those who have been excluded from their benefits to begin with, to whom new thin benefits are extended. Brazil's PT (bolsa familia in exchange for pension cuts) and Turkey's AKP (general health insurance in exchange for social security reform) are examples of this. This is neoliberalism populist-style. Obama may take a page from them. > What I'm most worried by, having visited the International Forum on > Globalization in SF, the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, and > a major Caracas conference a few weeks ago, is the hubris of the left > and centre-left (amongst whom is Krugman) in their declarations of a > post-neoliberal age. I agree with you that it's important for us to emphasize that a shift away from neoliberal capitalism can't come automatically. Yoshie From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Sat Dec 13 11:31:27 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:31:27 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Blaming the workers - correction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4943FF7F.1000301@gmail.com> Waistline2 at aol.com wrote: > The UAW was always narrow and always blocked the forward movement of the > organized mass. That was its purpose in history. > > Waistline > > Should read: The UAW was always narrow and always blocked the forward > movement of the > UNorganized mass. That was Part of its purpose in history. > > Waistline > > Absolutely. But I'm NOT feeling very co-dependent right now. As someone who spent most of his life as an industrial worker I ABSOLUTELY blame the workers (as individuals) for allowing themselves to be co-opted, sell themselves out, for their ill-gotten gains in relation to anyone else's health and safety on the planet. I also despise these so-called unions for enabling their workers to be unmitigated nationalistic prigs, for the most part, not far removed from national socialists (little Eichmanns, petit-fascists). These are NOT Unions (Big 'U'). There ARE NO UNIONS in the United States. They are more correctly fraternal organizations, guilds or 'bunds' with no interest beyond 'their own' unless that interest serves 'their own'. That MOST ASSUREDLY applies to folks mentioned previously, the Latin American UAW 'members' who the North American ''union' (small 'u') members would willing sell out to any old death squad if those pesky furriners got in the way of THEIR jobs. Further, they and theirs (The AFL-CIO, Teamster, SEIU) are part of the cancer rotting American society from the inside out. To wit: "LOS ANGELES, Dec. 13 (UPI) -- A California non-profit group set up by the Service Employees International Union to provide low-income housing spent nothing to do so during two years. The Long Term Care Housing Corp. was created four years ago. Tyrone Freeman, then president of the United Long-Term Care Workers, an SEIU unit representing workers in nursing homes, played a major role, The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday. Freeman recently resigned from his union position and has been barred for life from SEIU membership. The non-profit's stated purpose was to create affordable housing, especially for long-term care workers, who typically make about $9 an hour. The charity reported to the Internal Revenue Service that it spent about $165,000 in 2005 and 2006, with the money going for overhead, including consulting fees and insurance. In 2007, the group claimed $633,000 in income from unspecified sources. It said it spent $513,000 for a contractor for a 28-unit townhouse project in Compton, a city near Los Angeles." These are the same scumbuckets that call themselves a union who left the Peets coffeee shop workers in Santa Cruz abandoned after those workers had managed to arrange (against all odds) an NLRB approved union-in-shop vote. Peets shut down for a whole week after firing the WHOLE crew, re-hired the informers in the employee base as 'supervisors', and the SEIU said NOTHING... did NOTHING... It was more lucrative to organize the already vastly overpaid, mostly incompetent (and the largest employee base in the county) Santa Cruz county office employees. The middle class gets richer, and the working class (LABORING CLASS if you would) gets 'worked'. The US unions ARE ABSOLUTELY COMPLICIT (and neccesary) in that process. From cbcox at ilstu.edu Sat Dec 13 12:31:28 2008 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:31:28 -0600 Subject: [A-List] (Fwd) Foster: Postscript to"The Financialization of Capital and the Crisis" References: <4943B939.2090503@ashisuto.co.jp> <4943D608.4030204@mail.ngo.za> Message-ID: <49440D90.2781D068@ilstu.edu> The following post is badly written, and the clumsy writing reflects inocmplete grasp of the topic. But clumsy, fuzzily focused, and incomplete as it is, I do think it points a rough direction not clear in either John Foster's or Yoshie's postscripts. Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: John Bellamy Foster: The real historical issue before us is to what extent the world's population is willing to wait for this crisis to be resolved on capitalist terms, so that the whole irrational process of exploitation and boom and bust can gain steam again - or whether they shall decide to insert themselves into the process to say Enough! It is this political insertion from below that the powers that be most fear. From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Dec 13 12:52:22 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:52:22 -0500 Subject: [A-List] (Fwd) Foster: Postscript to"The Financialization of Capital and the Crisis" In-Reply-To: <49440D90.2781D068@ilstu.edu> References: <4943B939.2090503@ashisuto.co.jp> <4943D608.4030204@mail.ngo.za> <49440D90.2781D068@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Carrol Cox wrote: > The following post is badly written, and the clumsy writing reflects > inocmplete grasp of the topic. But clumsy, fuzzily focused, and > incomplete as it is, I do think it points a rough direction not clear in > either John Foster's or Yoshie's postscripts. > > Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > > John Bellamy Foster: The real historical issue before us is to > what extent the world's population is willing to wait for this crisis to > be resolved on capitalist terms, so that the whole irrational process of > exploitation and boom and bust can gain steam again - or whether they > shall decide to insert themselves into the process to say Enough! It is > this political insertion from below that the powers that be most fear. > From their Olympian position at the top of the system they know perhaps > better than anyone else that the conditions exist for the possible > renewal of socialism on a global scale. > > Yoshie: If I may add a postscript to John's postscript, the crisis > reveals not so much "the possible renewal of socialism on a global > scale" as remarkable national differences in popular classes' power and > overall political culture. Where popular classes are strong, the crisis > gives their leadership an opportunity to go on the offensive, as in > Argentina and Ecuador. Where popular classes are weak, the crisis gives > an opportunity to capital to casualize labor further even while > attempting to reflate economy, which is what has already happened in > Japan and is happening now in the USA. In some nations -- Japan, > Germany, Poland, etc. -- even mere attempts at reflation in the midst of > this grave global crisis may be stiffly resisted by the ruling class. > > ---- > > I think Yoshie is wrong here. The opportunity that Equador, Argentina > and perhaps others have is not to go on the offensive but to build > somewhat more comfortable shelters or defensive posts, while the the > only decisive battles must be fought out, if they are to be fought out > at all (and I am not confgident) at the core of the capitalist system - > western europe and the u.s. Maybe my term was misleading. By "offensive" I don't mean a push for "socialist revolution" or anything like that. A step forward in a long-term struggle for democracy and development would be more accurate. Yoshie From tboyle at rosehill.net Sat Dec 13 13:32:58 2008 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:32:58 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Bloomberg FOIA request for details of the $2 Trillion bailout Message-ID: --- On Sat, 12/13/08, Brasscheck TV Date: Saturday, December 13, 2008, 2:16 AM Sometimes the news is so astonishing, there's little more to say that repeat it verbatim. For example... Dec. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve refused a request by Bloomberg News to disclose the recipients of more than $2 trillion of emergency loans from U.S. taxpayers and the assets the central bank is accepting as collateral. Bloomberg filed suit Nov. 7 under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act requesting details about the terms of 11 Fed lending programs, most created during the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression. The Fed responded Dec. 8, saying it's allowed to withhold internal memos as well as information about trade secrets and commercial information. The institution confirmed that a records search found 231 pages of documents pertaining to some of the requests. "If they told us what they held, we would know the potential losses that the government may take and that's what they don't want us to know," said Carlos Mendez, a senior managing director at New York-based ICP Capital LLC, which oversees $22 billion in assets. ========== And here's the truly scary thing... This obvious, massive, out-of-control scam is the LEAST of the country's financial worries. Details: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/496.html - Brasscheck P.S. Thanks to GreenbackTV.com for passing this along. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and videos with friends and colleagues. That's how we grow. Thanks. ============================== Brasscheck TV 2380 California St. San Francisco, CA 94115 To unsubscribe or change subscriber options visit: From Waistline2 at aol.com Sat Dec 13 17:35:30 2008 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:35:30 EST Subject: [A-List] Blaming the workers - correction Message-ID: >> As someone who spent most of his life as an industrial worker I ABSOLUTELY blame the workers (as individuals) for allowing themselves to be co-opted, sell themselves out, for their ill-gotten gains in relation to anyone else's health and safety on the planet. I also despise these so-called unions for enabling their workers to be unmitigated nationalistic prigs, for the most part, not far removed from national socialists (little Eichmanns, petit-fascists). These are NOT Unions (Big 'U'). There ARE NO UNIONS in the United States. They are more correctly fraternal organizations, guilds or 'bunds' with no interest beyond 'their own' unless that interest serves 'their own'. That MOST ASSUREDLY applies to folks mentioned previously, the Latin American UAW 'members' who the North American ''union' (small 'u') members would willing sell out to any old death squad if those pesky furriners got in the way of THEIR jobs. Further, they and theirs (The AFL-CIO, Teamster, SEIU) are part of the cancer rotting American society from the inside out.<< Comment I agree with the sentiment expressed above and long ago abandoned any romantic concepts of the working class and most certainly jettisoned any romantic notion that the trade union movement in America - UAW, were progressive. In my estimate most trade unions in America resemble something akin to a fascist labor front. I tend towards the description below of the trade unions and trade union movement, because it confirms my 35 years experience with unions. "Let's look at the formation of the CIO, for example. In the revolutionary movement in the 1930s everything was CIO, union, union, union. But we wouldn't have had a union if the bourgeoisie didn't see something worthwhile in getting a union. Getting a union was along the spontaneous line of march. You can get a union that supports capitalism or a union that opposes capitalism. And since unions are inevitable, and the revolutionaries are going to fight for a union that opposes capital, there's no reason why the bourgeoisie can't support a union that supports the capitalist system. What was the role of the CIO? Organized labor represented 23 percent of the working class. The historical role of the CIO was to prevent the unorganized 80 percent of the workers from doing anything against the system. How could the unorganized sector do anything? The organized sector wouldn't do anything, so therefore very little was done to educate and unite the workers. Did the AFL-CIO do some good? It did some good. Did it do some bad? Yes it did. Was the union absolutely necessary? Absolutely. It's not about being opposed to union. We have to understand that because the union was along the spontaneous line of march, the union became the battlefield. Whatever side won, the union was going to win that stage of development and be able to progress to the next stage of development. We never progressed to the next stage of development because we lost that fight. So you have the necessary spontaneous development of something that becomes a battleground. If the bourgeoisie wins, they use it against the left. If we win, we use it against the right. So the question for the revolutionaries is: What is the next inevitable battleground and how do we prepare ourselves to fight so we don't keep making the same mistake over and over again because of ideological considerations? _http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/v18ed6art4.html_ (http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/v18ed6art4.html) There is nothing wrong with blaming the workers as a group and individuals for the sad state of affair of the labor movement in general. This is said in the sense that one places a healthy amount of blame on the German working class for the victory of fascism. In both instances, most certainly America, we are dealing with the material bribery of the working class, which in America meant it was profitable and beneficial for a section of the workers to block with the imperialist. With the ascendency and victory of German fascism, this meant the material bribery of an enormous section of the German working class. This bribery was summed up as "French wine, Polish hams and Slavic slave girls." It is not popular in America to finger the American working class, and more specifically a section of it as being wedded to imperialism. This denial of reality serves no one but the imperial masters. Bribery is not an ideological concept but a material relations dealing with whom gets to work, at what jobs, for what wages; who lives where and have access to what kind of housing and of course in the context of America, who sits on the back of the bus. Unions upheld segregation and then systematic discrimination and exclusion of blacks from union offices until that black voting base was large enough to elect blacks and this includes the UAW. What has changed and is changing is the destruction of the industrial form of the working class as it existed from roughly 1910, (the emergence and construction of the electric energy grid) to the last decade of so of the past century. That is to say the UAW nor any significant section of the working class could be won over to revolutionary ideas. This was not a case of the moral failing of the communists, who won over many advance thinking individuals, including blue collar men and women. The communists and genuine progressive humanity could never transcend the reform struggle of the workers, which was often based on opposition to other workers. During the hey day of the bribery of the American worker (1940 - 1970) our working class was and remained very anti-communist. Then again, a huge section of our working class has genuinely been won over to the imperialist outlook for several generations. What has happened and is happening is not just the loss of the historic bribery of a huge section of workers but the destruction of the industrial form of the working class at its core in its historically core areas of the country. The election of Obama does in fact indicate the willingness and ability of a huge section of the working class to politically shift and I personally voted for the man. Waistline **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010) From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sat Dec 13 18:44:46 2008 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:44:46 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The US Imperial Triangle and Military Spending Message-ID: <4944650E.5060701@ashisuto.co.jp> by John Bellamy Foster, Hannah Holleman, and Robert W McChesney Monthly Review (October 2008) The United States is unique today among major states in the degree of its reliance on military spending, and its determination to stand astride the world, militarily as well as economically. No other country in the post-Second World War world has been so globally destructive or inflicted so many war fatalities. Since 2001, acknowledged US national defense spending has increased by almost sixty percent in real dollar terms to a level in 2007 of $553 billion. This is higher than at any point since the Second World War (though lower than previous decades as a percentage of GDP). Based on such official figures, the United States is reported by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) as accounting for 45 percent of world military expenditures. Yet, so gargantuan and labyrinthine are US military expenditures that the above grossly understates their true magnitude, which, as we shall see below, reached $1 trillion in 2007. {1} Externally, these are necessary expenditures of world empire. Internally, they represent, as Michal Kalecki was the first to suggest, an imperial triangle of state-financed military production, media propaganda, and real/imagined economic-employment effects that has become a deeply entrenched, and self-perpetuating feature of the US social order. {2} Many analysts today view the present growth of US militarism and imperialism as largely divorced from the earlier Cold War history of the United States, which was commonly seen as a response to the threat represented by the Soviet Union. Placed against this backdrop the current turn to war and war preparation appears to numerous commentators to lack a distinct target, despite concerns about global terrorism, and to be mainly the product of irrational hubris on the part of US leaders. Even as insightful a left historian as Eric Hobsbawm has recently adopted this general perspective. Thus in his 2008 book On Empire Hobsbawm writes: Frankly, I can't make sense of what has happened in the United States since 9/11 that enabled a group of political crazies to realize long-held plans for an unaccompanied solo performance of world supremacy ... Today a radical right-wing regime seeks to mobilize "true Americans" against some evil outside force and against a world that does not recognize the uniqueness, the superiority, the manifest destiny of America ... In effect, the most obvious danger of war today arises from the global ambitions of an uncontrollable and apparently irrational government in Washington ... To give America the best chance of learning to return from megalomania to rational foreign policy is the most immediate and urgent task of international politics. {3} Such a view, which sees the United States as under the influence of a new irrationalism introduced by George W Bush and a cabal of neoconservative "political crazies", and consequently calls for a return from "megalomania to rational foreign policy", downplays the larger historical and structural forces at work that connect the Cold War and post-Cold War imperial eras. In contrast, a more realistic perspective, we believe, can be obtained by looking at the origins of the US "military ascendancy" (as C Wright Mills termed it) in the early Cold War years and the centrality this has assumed in the constitution of the US empire and economy up to the present. {4} The Permanent War Economy and Military Keynesianism In January 1944 Charles E Wilson, president of General Electric and executive vice chairman of the War Production Board, delivered a speech to the Army Ordnance Association advocating a permanent war economy. According to the plan Wilson proposed on that occasion, every major corporation should have a "liaison" representative with the military, who would be given a commission as a colonel in the Reserve. This would form the basis of a program, to be initiated by the president as commander in chief in cooperation with the War and Navy departments, designed to bind corporations and military together into a single unified armed forces-industrial complex. "What is more natural and logical", he asked, "than that we should henceforth mount our national policy upon the solid fact of an industrial capacity for war, and a research capacity for war that is already 'in being'? It seems to me anything less is foolhardy". Wilson went on to indicate that in this plan the part to be played by Congress was restricted to voting for the needed funds. Further, it was essential that industry be allowed to play its central role in this new warfare state without being hindered politically "or thrown to the fanatical isolationist fringe [and] tagged with a 'merchants-of-death' label". In calling, even before the Second World War had come to a close, for a "continuing program of industrial preparedness", for war, Charles E Wilson (sometimes referred to as "General Electric Wilson" to distinguish him from "General Motors Wilson" - Charles Erwin Wilson, president of General Motors and Eisenhower's secretary of defense) was articulating a view that was to characterize the US oligarchy as a whole during the years immediately following the Second World War. In earlier eras it had been assumed that there was an economic "guns and butter" trade-off, and that military spending had to occur at the expense of other sectors of the economy. However, one of the lessons of the economic expansion in Nazi Germany, followed by the experience of the United States itself in arming for the Second World War, was that big increases in military spending could act as huge stimulants to the economy. In just six years under the influence of the Second World War the US economy expanded by seventy percent, finally recovering from the Great Depression. The early Cold War era thus saw the emergence of what later came to be known as "military Keynesianism": the view that by promoting effective demand and supporting monopoly profits military spending could help place a floor under US capitalism. {5} John Maynard Keynes, in his landmark General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936, in the midst of the Depression, argued that the answer to economic stagnation was to promote effective demand through government spending. The bastardized Keynesianism that came to be known as "military Keynesianism" was the view that this was best effected with the least negative consequences for big business by focusing on military spending. As Joan Robinson, one of Keynes's younger colleagues, critically explained in her iconoclastic lecture, "The Second Crisis of Economic Theory", before the American Economic Association on December 27, 1971: The most convenient thing for a government to spend on is armaments. The military-industrial complex [thus] took charge. I do not think it plausible to suppose that the cold war and several hot wars were invented just to solve the employment problem. But certainly they have had that effect. The system had the support not only of the corporations who make profits under it and the workers who got jobs, but also of the economists who advocated government loan-expenditure as a prophylactic against stagnation. Whatever were the deeper forces leading to the hypertrophy of military power after the world war was over, certainly they could not have had such free play if the doctrine of sound finance had still been respected. It was the so-called Keynesians who persuaded successive Presidents that there is no harm in a budget deficit and left the military-industrial complex to take advantage of it. So it has come about that Keynes' pleasant daydream was turned into a nightmare of terror. {6} The first to theorize this tendency toward military Keynesianism under monopoly capitalism, was the Polish economist Michal Kalecki (most famous, as Robinson pointed out in the above-mentioned lecture, for having discovered the essentials of Keynes's General Theory before Keynes himself). In a 1943 essay on "The Political Aspects of Full Employment" and in subsequent essays, Kalecki argued that monopoly capital had a deep aversion to increased civilian government spending due to its intrusion on the commodity market and the sphere of private profit, but that this did not apply in the same way to military spending, which was seen by the vested interests as adding to rather than crowding out profits. If absorption of the massive economic surplus of large corporate capital through increased government spending was the key to accumulation in post-Second World War US capitalism, this was dependent principally on military expenditures, or what Kalecki in 1956 labeled "the armament-imperialist complex". This resulted in a "high degree of utilization" of productive capacity and "counteracted the disrupting influence of the increase in the relative share of accumulation of big business in the national product". {7} For Kalecki this new military-supported regime of accumulation that came to characterize US monopoly capital by the mid-1950s established a strong political-economic foundation for its own rule "based on the following [imperial] triangle": 1. Imperialism contributes to a relatively high level of employment through expenditures on armaments and ancillary purposes and through the maintenance of a large body of armed forces and government employees. 2. The mass communications media, working under the auspices of the ruling class, emits propaganda aimed at securing the support of the population for this armament-imperialist set-up. 3. The high level of employment and the standard of living increased considerably as compared with before the war (as a result of the rise in the productivity of labor), and this facilitated the absorption of this propaganda to the broad masses of the population. Mass communication occupied a central place in this imperial triangle. An essential part of Kalecki's argument was that "the mass communication media, such as the daily press, radio, and television in the United States are largely under the control of the ruling class". As none other than Charles E (General Electric) Wilson, then defense mobilization director, put it in a speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association on April 26 1951, the job of the media was to bring "public opinion, as marshaled by the press" to the support of the permanent war effort (italics added). {8} The result by the mid-1950s was a fairly stable militarized economy, in which intertwined imperial, political-economic, and communication factors all served to reinforce the new military-imperial order. Kalecki observed that US trade unions were "part and parcel of the armament-imperialist set-up. Workers in the United States are not duller and trade union leaders are not more reactionary 'by nature' than in other capitalist countries. Rather, the political situation in the United States, is simply, in accordance with the precepts of historical materialism, the unavoidable consequence of economic developments and of characteristics of the superstructure of monopoly capitalism in its advanced stage." All of this pointed to what Harry Magdoff was to call the essential "one-ness of national security and business interests" that came to characterize the US political economy and empire. {9} Many of Kalecki's ideas were developed further by Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy in 1966 in Monopoly Capital. Baran and Sweezy argued there were at least five political-economic-imperial ends propelling the US oligarchy in the 1950s and 1960s toward the creation of a massive military establishment: (1) defending US global hegemony and the empire of capital against external threats in the form of a wave of revolutions erupting throughout the world, simplistically viewed in terms of a monolithic Communist threat centered in the Soviet Union; (2) creating an internationally "secure" platform for US corporations to expand and monopolize economic opportunities abroad; (3) forming a government-sponsored research and development sector that would be dominated by big business; (4) generating a more complacent population at home, made less recalcitrant under the nationalistic influence of perpetual war and war preparation; and (5) soaking up the nation's vast surplus productive capacity, thus helping to stave off economic stagnation, through the promotion of high-profit, low-risk (to business) military spending. The combined result of such political-economic-imperial factors was the creation of the largest, most deeply-entrenched and persistent, "peacetime" war machine that the world had ever seen. {10} Like Kalecki, Baran and Sweezy argued that the US oligarchy kept a "tight rein on civilian [government] spending", which, they suggested, "had about reached its outer limits" as a percentage of national income "by 1939", but was nonetheless "open-handed with the military". Government-pump priming operations therefore occurred largely through spending on wars and war preparations in the service of empire. The Pentagon naturally made sure that bases and armaments industries were spread around the United States and that numerous corporations profited from military spending, thus maximizing congressional support due to the effects on states and districts. {11} For members of the US oligarchy and their hangers-on, the virtuous circle of mutually reinforcing military spending and economic growth represented by military Keynesianism was something to be celebrated rather than held up to criticism. Harvard economist Sumner Slichter explained to a banker's convention in October 1949, that as long as Cold War spending persisted a severe economic depression was "difficult to conceive". The Cold War "increases the demand for goods, helps sustain a high level of employment, accelerates technological progress and thus helps the country to raise its standard of living ... So we may thank the Russians for helping make capitalism in the United States work better than ever". Similarly, US News and World Report told its readers on May 14 1950 (a month before the outbreak of the Korean War): Government planners figure they have found the magic formula for almost endless good times. They are now beginning to wonder if there may not be something to perpetual motion after all. Cold war is the catalyst. Cold war is an automatic pump primer. Turn a spigot, and the public clamors for more arms spending. Turn another, the clamor ceases. Truman confidence, cockiness, is based on this "Truman formula". Truman era of good times, President is told, can run much beyond 1952. Cold war demands, if fully exploited, are almost limitless. In the same vein, US News and World Report was to declare in 1954: "What H-bomb means to business. A long period ... of big orders. In the years ahead, the effects of the new bomb will keep on increasing. As one appraiser puts it: 'The H-bomb has blown depression-thinking out the window'." In 1959 David Lawrence, editor of US News and World Report, indicated that he viewed with equanimity the suggestion that the United States "might conceivably strike first in what has become known as 'preemptive' rather than 'preventive' war". Henry Luce, the media mogul at the head of the Time-Life empire, who coined the term "the American Century", observed in November 1957 in Fortune that the United States "can stand the load of any defense effort required to hold the power of Soviet Russia in check. It cannot, however, indefinitely stand the erosion of creeping socialism and the ceaseless extension of government activities into additional economic fields" beyond the military. This was directly in line with Kalecki's and Baran and Sweezy's contention that the system was tight-fisted where civilian spending was concerned and open-handed with the military. Remarking on the success of military Keynesianism in promoting economic prosperity, the influential Harvard economist Seymour Harris wrote in the The New York Times Magazine in 1959: "If we treat the years from 1941 to the present as a whole, we find again that a period of record prosperity coincided with a period of heavy military outlay ... About one dollar out of seven went for war and preparation for war, and this expenditure was undoubtedly a stimulus to the economy". {12} A military Keynesian view was close to the heart of the major US planning document of the Cold War, NSC-68, issued in April 1950 shortly before the Korean War by the US National Security Council and signed by President Truman in September 1950, but not declassified until 1975. Drafted by Paul Nitze, then head of the policy review group in the state department, the main intent of NSC-68 was to construct a rollback strategy against the Soviet Union. It called for a vast increase in military spending above its already high levels, and considered the possibility that "in an emergency the United States could devote upward of fifty percent of its gross national product" to the military effort as in the Second World War. "From the point of view of the economy as a whole", NSC-68 declared, the program [of military expansion] might not result in a real decrease in the standard of living, for the economic effects of the program might be to increase the gross national product by more than the amount being absorbed for additional military and foreign assistance purposes. One of the most significant lessons of our World War II experience was that the American economy, when it operates at a level approaching full efficiency [full capacity], can provide enormous resources for purposes other than civilian consumption while simultaneously providing a high standard of living. After allowing for price changes, personal consumption expenditures rose by almost one-fifth between 1939 and 1944, even though the economy had in the meantime increased the amount of resources going into Government use by $60[-]$65 billion (in 1939 prices). {13} US militarism was therefore motivated first and foremost by a global geopolitical struggle, but was at the same time seen as essentially costless (even beneficial) to the US economy, which could have more guns and more butter too. It was thus viewed as a win-win solution for the US empire and economy. By the time that President Eisenhower (who played a role in this military expansion) raised concerns about what he dubbed the "military-industrial complex" in his farewell address of January 17 1961, it was already so firmly established as to constitute the permanent war economy envisioned by Charles E (General Electric) Wilson. As Eisenhower's secretary of defense, Charles Erwin (General Motors) Wilson (best known for having created a major flap by saying that "what is good for General Motors is good for the country"), observed in 1957, the military set-up was then so built into the economy as to make it virtually irreversible: "so many Americans are getting a vested interest in it: Properties, business, jobs, employment, votes, opportunities for promotion and advancement, bigger salaries for scientists and all that ... If you try to change suddenly you get into trouble ... If you shut the whole business off now, you will have the state of California in trouble because such a big percentage of the aircraft industry is in California". {14} Hence, the concern that Eisenhower voiced in his farewell address about a "permanent armaments industry of vast proportions" and the fact that "we annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations" {15} was a belated recognition of what had already become an established fact. The need for the gargantuan military-industrial complex that the United States developed in these years was not so much for purposes of economic expansion directly (though military Keynesianism pointed to its stimulating effects) but due to the reality, as Baran and Sweezy emphasized, that the capitalist world order and US hegemony could only be maintained "a while longer", in the face of rising insurgencies throughout the world, through "increasingly direct and massive intervention by American armed forces". {16} This entire built-in military system could not be relinquished without relinquishing empire. Indeed, the chief importance of US military power from the early Cold War years to today has been that it is used - either directly, resulting in millions of deaths (counting those who died in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Kosovo War, the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, as well as dozens of lesser conflicts), or indirectly, as a means to intimidate. {17} The most important left analysts of these developments in the 1950s and 1960s, Kalecki, Baran, Sweezy, and Magdoff, insisted - going against the dominant US Cold War ideology - that the cause of US military spending was capitalist empire, rather than the need to contain the Soviet threat. The benefits of military spending to monopoly capital, moreover, guaranteed its continuation, barring a major social upheaval. The decade and a half since the fall of the Soviet Union has confirmed the accuracy of this assessment. The euphoria of the "peace dividend" following the end of the Cold War evaporated almost immediately in the face of new imperial requirements. This was a moment of truth for US capitalism, demonstrating how deeply entrenched were its military-imperial interests. By the end of the 1990s US military spending, which had been falling, was on its way up again. Today, in what has been called a "unipolar world", US military spending for purposes of empire is rapidly expanding - to the point that it rivals that of the entire rest of the world put together. When it is recognized that most of the other top ten military-spending nations are US allies or junior partners, it makes the US military ascendancy even more imposing. Only the reality of global empire (and the effects of this on the internal body politic) can explain such an overwhelming destructive power. As Atlantic Monthly correspondent Robert Kaplan proudly proclaimed in 2005: "By the turn of the twenty-first century the United States military had already appropriated the entire earth, and was ready to flood the most obscure areas of it with troops at a moment's notice". {18} The Labyrinth of US Military Spending The most direct way of measuring the extent of the US commitment to the military-imperialist complex over the post-Second World War period is through an examination of US military spending itself. This is not, however, easily accomplished. US military expenditure is a labyrinth presenting numerous dead ends. What is treated by almost all analysts as a reliable data source for such expenditures is the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Historical Tables, generated along with the federal budget. In the Historical Tables for Fiscal Year 2009, Department of Defense spending (OMB Table 3.2, line 051) is listed as $529.8 billion for 2007; while adding in atomic energy defense activities and defense-related activities brings total national defense (line 050) to $552.6 billion. This number can be considered acknowledged military spending, since it is what is usually reported as US national defense spending and used (with only small differences) by NATO and SIPRI. {19} However, there is another, fuller accounting of US national defense spending included in the US National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA), a source which constitutes the final word on the totals for the US economy as a whole (see Table 1). The National Income and Product Accounts give $662 billion as the total for national defense spending for 2007, or over $100 billion more than the OMB figures. Much of the difference is explained by the fact that the NIPA numbers for national defense, as opposed to the US budget figures, take account of the following: government consumption of fixed capital, cash payments to amortize the underfunded liability for military and civilian retirement benefits (which in the budget accounting are included elsewhere as "intergovernmental transactions"), and expenditures recorded on a delivery (accrual) rather than cash basis (as in the budget). {21} Table 1. US Military spending, 2007 (in billions of dollars) (See http://www.monthlyreview.org/081001foster-holleman-mcchesney.php ) The NIPA figures thus capture far more accurately than the OMB data the economic resources directed to the military, emphasizing "full cost budgeting". As economist and peace researcher Jurgen Brauer observes: "For the United States, the NIPA numbers are the most comprehensive and conceptually complete national defense outlays data we have, since they are expressly based on economists' national income accounting framework rather than on politicians' need to review and pass budget requests". {22} Adopting the NIPA figures for national defense spending, however, only partly solves the problem of developing an accurate assessment of US military spending. It still remains to add to this the military spending concealed in other economic categories, and not captured by total NIPA national defense spending. Drawing on other lines in the National Income and Product Accounts, it is necessary to add to the NIPA national defense figures all or part of: economic grants to foreign governments; space; medical payments to military retirees and dependents at non-military facilities; veterans' benefits; and the net interest payments on the national debt attributable to military spending. All of the above items are recognized in NATO and SIPRI definitions of military spending, except veterans' benefits and net interest payments, which are excluded as "legacy costs". Yet, since legacy costs are an important part of military expenditures (and some other legacy costs are included in the basic data) we incorporate veterans' benefits and the net interest payments attributable to past wars and military expansions here, in line with estimates of military spending provided by other analysts. This makes more sense as we are concerned with the social, economic, and imperial legacy of the rise of a US military establishment over more than half a century. {23} Our figures, provided in Table 1 show that actual US military spending in 2007 came to $1 trillion. This contrasts with SIPRI's clearly understated estimate (in relation to countries other than the United States as well) for all the world's nations in 2007 of $1.3 trillion. {24} The above estimate of total US military spending in 2007 is in the same ballpark as those that have been derived by some other critics of US military spending - through the alternative, very arduous process of adding up the many different components of military spending hidden in the budget. In a June 2007 article for Monthly Review, economist James Cypher, adopting a budget-based approach, arrived at an estimate of US military expenditures for 2006 amounting to $929.8 billion. More recently Chalmers Johnson, author of the anti-empire trilogy Blowback (2000), Sorrows of Empire (2004), and Nemesis (2007), has contended that when all military spending elements of the US 2008 fiscal year budget are added up the total comes to "at least $1.1 trillion". {25} Our method above has also been used to develop estimates of actual military spending levels as a percentage of GDP for the post-Second World War era as a whole. {26} According to these figures, total military spending as a share of GDP in 2007 was 7.3 percent, the highest level since 1997. In contrast, acknowledged national defense spending as presented by the Office of Management and Budget, misleadingly shows military spending as a percentage of GDP at four percent in 2007. (See Table 1.) It is crucial to track military spending as a proportion of total federal government expenditures. In doing so, we follow the accepted practice of excluding social security, medicare, and other transfer payments from our measure of federal expenditures, since transfer payments are self-financing, hence do not draw on the income-tax based general fund or contribute to the national debt. Actual military spending as a percentage of federal spending minus transfer payments (see Chart 1) declined every year from the end of the Reagan era in 1988, when it stood at 68 percent, to 2003, when it reached a half-century low of 49 percent. Since then it has changed direction and has risen again to 52 percent. This naturally closely parallels, although at a higher level, the path for acknowledged national defense spending as a percentage of federal spending (also depicted in Chart 1). Acknowledged national defense spending in 2007 was only 29 percent of federal expenditures (minus transfer payments), grossly misrepresenting the share of military spending in federal outlays. Chart 1. Actual and acknowledged military spending as percentage of federal expenditures (minus transfer payments): See http://www.monthlyreview.org/081001foster-holleman-mcchesney.php The US Imperial Triangle Today What does the foregoing tell us in relation to our original question? Is it reasonable to argue, as Hobsbawm and others have, that the expansion of US militarism and imperialism in the present period is the result of "a group of political crazies", who have come to power in Washington and constructed a "radical right-wing regime" abounding in "megalomania"? As an explanation of the current phase of US empire this is clearly inadequate. Despite the often neoconservative nature of the Bush administration's top operatives, they have had the broad backing of the greater part of the establishment in the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, the War on Terrorism as a whole, the huge military buildup, et cetera. To be sure, if a Democratic administration under Al Gore had come into power in 2000 it is not at all certain that the United States would have gone to war with Iraq, in addition to Afghanistan, though an attempt would have been made to uphold US imperial interests. The Bush administration from the first was distinguished by the particularly bellicose group of neoconservatives at its helm. But in pursuing their belligerent ends they hardly lacked solid backing within the circles of power. Strong support was extended by both political parties, Congress, the judiciary, the media, and the corporations generally. Disagreements were largely about troop levels, the amount of force to be applied, relations to allies, dates of withdrawal (partial or whole), distribution of forces between the major "theaters", et cetera. More fundamental questions, even the use of torture, were avoided. Major dissent has mainly come from the bottom of the society. All of this suggests that expanded militarism and imperialism is deeply entrenched at present, at least within the top echelons of US society. It reflects a general concern to expand US hegemony as part of an imperial grand strategy, including rolling back insurgent forces and "rogue states" around the world, and keeping junior partners in line. The war in Iraq is best viewed as an attempt to assert US geopolitical control over the entire Persian Gulf and its oil - an objective that both political wings of the establishment support, and which is part of the larger aim of the restoration of a grand US hegemony. {27} The vast scale of US military spending - encompassing more than fifty percent of the federal budget (excluding social security, medicare, and other transfer payments) and constituting seven percent of the entire GDP - is thus externally rooted in the needs of the US imperial grand strategy, which continually strains the US system to its limits (as measured by the budget and trade deficits). US imperialism has been transformed in recent decades by the absence of the Soviet Union, giving the United States more immediate power (particularly in the military realm), coupled, paradoxically, with signs of a secular decline in US economic hegemony. It is this dual reality of a temporary increase in US power along with indications of its long-term decline that has led to urgent calls throughout the power elite for a "New American Century", and to attempts by Washington to leverage its enormous military power to regain economic and geopolitical strength, for example, in the Persian Gulf oil region. In recent years, the United States has enormously expanded its military bases and operations around the world with bases now in around seventy countries and US troops present in various capacities (including joint exercises) in perhaps twice that number. Washington is thus not just spending money on the military and producing destructive weapons, or engaging in wars and interventions. It is also building a lasting physical presence around the world that allows for control/subversion/rapid deployment. {28} As a further reason not to dismiss the new surge in US militarism and imperialism as merely the "megalomania" of a few, our argument points back to Kalecki's imperial triangle, as constituting the principal dilemma facing opponents of imperialism. The creation of a huge military establishment to serve the US empire was also understood, in military-Keynesian terms, as a quasi-full-employment strategy aimed at combating economic stagnation. With the help of the media (which, as General Electric Wilson insisted, had the task of "marshalling" public opinion in support of the permanent war economy), the distinctive foundations of post-Second World War US capitalism were laid. The growth of the antiwar movement in response to the Vietnam War, and the end of the Cold War, represented setbacks for the imperial triangle, which showed up in terms of temporary drops in military spending as a percentage of GDP. Each time, in the late 1970s/early 1980s and again in the late 1990s/early 2000s, such temporary lulls in military spending have been followed by a military resurgence. {29} For Kalecki the weak link in the imperial triangle was clearly the mass media propaganda system, which had the job of selling the permanent war economy to a population that could conceivably opt for other more rational, just, and egalitarian courses. Unlike the Korean War or the Vietnam War, the Iraq War (like the Gulf War before it) was preceded by a massive antiwar movement in the United States, demonstrating the willingness of perhaps a majority of the population to seek another way, opposed to militarism and imperialism. It was the monopoly media, far more concentrated than in Luce's day and now virtually indistinguishable from monopoly-finance capital (becoming simply its public voice), that came to the rescue of US war capitalism in its moment of need, giving credence to its obvious lies. "The press", as one of us has written, "was [soon] eating out of the Bush administration's bowl". {30} In a period of economic stagnation, financial crisis, declining hegemony, impending environmental collapse, and new populist insurgencies, Washington, representing the US oligarchy as a whole, was once again able to enlist the media monopoly in the marshaling of public opinion in support of the imperial project through the promotion of war hysteria. What made this possible was the prior existence of a well-oiled, privatized propaganda system designed to limit the range of legitimate debate in the mainstream media. In this system even the outer reaches of the quite timid liberal punditocracy were strictly walled-in to fit within the proscribed boundaries of elite debate. Today fundamental dissent toward the existence of the military-imperial system, no matter how thoughtful or well-informed, is decidedly off-limits, except for periodic ridicule. Ours is decidedly a "military-industrial-media complex". {31} Nevertheless, the imperial triangle is now increasingly confronted with its own contradictions. As Baran and Sweezy foresaw more than four decades ago in Monopoly Capital, the US military system faced two major internal obstacles. First, military spending tended to be technologically intensive and hence its employment stimulating effect was decreasing. "Ironically", they observed, "the huge military outlays of today may even be contributing substantially to an increase of unemployment: many of the new technologies which are byproducts of military research and development are also applicable to civilian production, where they are quite likely to have the effect of raising productivity and reducing the demand for labor". Second, expansion of "weapons of total destruction" and the devastating effects of the use of more powerful weapons, could be expected to generate a growing rebellion against the permanent war economy at all levels of society, as people perceived the dangers of global barbarism (or worse, annihilation). {32} Today the enormous weight of Washington's war machine has not prevented it from being stretched to its limits while becoming bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although still capable of great destruction, the United States is significantly limited in its ability to deploy massive force to achieve its ends whenever and wherever it wishes. The dream of Pax Americana, first presented by John F Kennedy at the height of the Cold War, has turned into the nightmare of Pox Americana in the years of waning US dominance. The role the media monopoly has assumed in recent years in the promotion of war propaganda has contributed to the rapid growth of a media reform movement, which is now challenging the concentration of communications in the United States. {33} There is no doubt that a society that supports its global position and social order through $1 trillion a year in military spending, most likely far exceeding that of all the other countries in the world put together, unleashing untold destruction on the world, while faced with intractable problems of inequality, economic stagnation, financial crisis, poverty, waste, and environmental decline at home, is a society that is ripe for change. It is our task to change it. Notes 1. Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year, 2009, Historical Tables, Table 3.2; Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI Yearbook 2008: Summary, http://yearbook2008.sipri.org/files/SIPRIYB08summary.pdf, 10-11; SIPRI, Military Expenditure Database (United States), http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php4. SIPRI data on US military expenditures (drawn on here for estimates of increases in real military spending and for international comparison) are only marginally (about 5 percent) higher than the acknowledged national defense figures contained in the Office of Management and Budget Historical Tables, and are clearly based on these. While the Office of Management and Budget lists $552.6 billion in total national defense for the United States spending in 2007, SIPRI provides a figure of $578.3 billion. It should be noted that SIPRI data, athough based on the same or similar nominal figures as the acknowledged US national defense spending, registers a higher rate of increase in US military expenditures than "reported in official US data because of the method of conversion into constant dollars. While SIPRI uses the consumer price index (CPI) for price conversion for all countries, the US official figures are converted using military-specific deflators. Thus, the SIPRI data show the trend in the purchasing power of the military budget had it instead been spent on typical consumer goods and services, while the US official data show the trend in its purchasing power for military goods and services. The nominal change is the same for the two series". SIPRI Yearbook, 2007, 275. 2. Michal Kalecki, The Last Phase in the Transformation of Capitalism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972), 96. 3. Eric Hobsbawm, On Empire: America, War, and Global Supremacy (New York: Pantheon, 2008), 57-59. 4. C Wright Mills, The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956), 198. It should be noted that Hobsbawm is not alone in promoting what can be called the "cabal theory". See the discussion of this in John Bellamy Foster, Naked Imperialism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2006), 13, 18, 107-08, 117-20. 5. "WPB Aide Urges US to Keep War Set-Up", New York Times; January 20 1944; Charles E Wilson, "For the Common Defense", Army Ordnance 26, no 143 (March-April 1944): 285-88; Fred J Cook, "Juggernaut: The Warfare State", special issue, The Nation, October 28 1961, 285; Johnathan Feldman, Universities in the Business of Repression (Boston: South End Press, 1989), 149-50. Charles E (General Electric) Wilson did not literally use the term "permanent war economy", widely attributed to his January 19 1944, speech. Rather, he spoke, of a "program of industrial preparedness" for war that would be "permanent and continuing". On the end of the Second World War and military spending see Robert L Heilbroner, The Making of Economic Society (Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1980), 160. 6. Joan Robinson, Contributions to Modern Economics (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1978), 8-9. For an account of the role of military Keynesianism in successive US administrations see Lynn Turgeon, Bastard Keynesianism (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996). 7. Kalecki, Last Phase, 75-83, 95-97; Kalecki's analysis of military spending derived originally from his analysis of the importance of armament expenditures in Nazi Germany's economy and then the basic argument was extended to the role military spending was to play in post-Second World War capitalist economies. 8. Ibid.; Cook, "Juggernaut", 292. 9. Kalecki, Last Phase, 97; Harry Magdoff, The Age of Imperialism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1969), 185. 10. These five reasons, presented in essentially this order, were provided by Baran and Sweezy to account for the growth of militarism in their classic chapter on "Militarism and Imperialism" in Monopoly Capital (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1966), 178-217. It is worth noting that their argument was geared primarily to military spending for empire and turned to its macroeconomic benefits in absorbing surplus and staving off long-run stagnation only at the end. The same structure to the argument on military spending (empire first, economy second) can be seen in Harry Magdoff, Imperialism: From the Colonial Age to the Present (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1978), 198-212. Hence, critics, such as Larry Griffin, Joel Devine, and Michael Wallace, who later attempted empirically to test the Monopoly Capital argument, which they characterized as a "'naive' model ... which suggests that the degree to which national output is absorbed by military spending should be dependent on aggregate economic conditions such as unemployment", were clearly attacking a "na?ve model" of their own devising. Ironically, after rejecting this naive model, these same authors ended up concluding that in the face of declining monopoly profits the US state intervenes to absorb surplus through increases in military expenditures - a view much closer to Baran and Sweezy's own argument, but lacking its emphasis on empire over macroeconomics. See Larry J Griffin, Joel A Devine, and Michael Wallace, "Monopoly Capital, Organized Labor, and Military Expenditures in the United States, 1949-1976", American Journal of Sociology 88 supplement (1982): S113-S153. 11. Baran and Sweezy, Monopoly Capital, 159, 161, 177, 208-11. Baran and Sweezy's contention more than four decades ago that civilian government purchases had about reached their outer limit as a percentage of GDP by 1939 was to be borne out in subsequent developments. In 1939 civilian government purchases were 13 percent of GDP; from 1960 to the present they have averaged 14 percent of GDP (and were also 14 percent in 2006). Economic Report of the President, 2008, 224, 250. 12. The foregoing quotes from Slichter, Luce, US News and World Report, Lawrence, and Harris are all taken from Cook, "Juggernaut", 285, 300-01. See also Fred H Cook, The Warfare State (New York: Collier Books, 1962); Baran and Sweezy, Monopoly Capital, 207-13 13. US National Security Council, NSC-68, April 1950, "Section D: The Remaining Course of Action"; James M Cypher, "The Basic Economics of 'Rearming America'", Monthly Review 33, no 6 (November 1981): 12-13; Noam Chomsky, "The Cold War and the Superpowers", Monthly Review 33, no 5 (November 1981): 4-5. 14. Charles Erwin Wilson quoted in Cook, "Juggernaut", 277, 299. 15. Eisenhower, quoted in Cook, "Juggernaut", 276-79. 16. Baran and Sweezy, Monopoly Capital, 205. 17. The classic argument on how nuclear weapons were continually used by the United States as direct threats to achieve its ends was made by Daniel Ellsberg, "Call to Mutiny", in E P Thompson and Dan Smith, ed, Protest and Survive (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1981), i-xxviii. 18. Robert Kaplan, Imperial Grunts (New York: Random House, 2005), 3. 19. Jurgen Brauer, "United States Military Expenditure", in Wolfram Elsner, ed, Arms, War, and Terrorism in the Global Economy Today (Hamburg: LIT Verlag, 2007), 61-66. 20. The design format of this table was adapted from Cypher, "Basic Economics of 'Rearming America'". 21. Benjamin A Mandel and Mary L Roy, "Federal Budget Estimates for Fiscal Year 2007", Survey of Current Business (Bureau of Economic Analysis), March 2006, 13. 22. Jurgen Brauer, "Data, Models, Coefficients: The Case of United States Military Expenditure", Conflict Management and Peace Science 24 (2007), 58; also Brauer, "United States Military Expenditures", 67. 23. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI Yearbook, 2003 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 365; Brauer, "United States Military Expenditure", 66, and "Data, Models, Coefficients", 56. Note: We have not included Homeland Security in our figures, in line with SIPRI and NATO's exclusion of civil defense programs. 24. SIPRI Yearbook 2008: Summary, 10-11. 25. James Cypher, "From Military Keynesianism to Global Neoliberal Militarism", Monthly Review 59, no 2 (June 2007): 45-48; Chalmers Johnson, "Why the US Has Really Gone Broke", Le Monde Diplomatique, February 2008. 26. The complete set of data is not provided in this article, but follows the above method throughout. 27. For this general argument see Foster, Naked Imperialism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2006), especially 107-20. 28. Foster, Naked Imperialism, 55-66; Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire (New York: Henry Holt, 2004), 151-85. 29. The military resurgence after periods of relative decline arose in both cases at the tail end of Democratic administrations: Carter in the late 1970s and Clinton in the late 1990s, and gathered momentum in the Republican administrations that followed: Reagan in the 1980s and George W Bush at the beginning of the 2000s. 30. Robert W McChesney, The Political Economy of the Media (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2008), 105, 108. 31. Norman Soloman, "The Military-Industrial-Media Complex", Extra, July-August 2005, http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2627. 32. Baran and Sweezy, Monopoly Capital, 213-17. 33. See John Bellamy Foster and Robert W McChesney, "Preface", in Foster and McChesney, ed, Pox Americana: Exposing the American Empire (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2004), 7-10; McChesney, Political Economy of the Media, 491-500. _____ John Bellamy Foster is editor of Monthly Review and professor of sociology at the University of Oregon. Hannah Holleman is a doctoral student at the University of Oregon. Robert W McChesney is the Gutgsell Endowed Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His books include The Political Economy of Media (Monthly Review Press, 2008), Communication Revolution (New Press, 2007), The Problem of the Media (Monthly Review Press, 2004), and Rich Media, Poor Democracy (University of Illinois, 1999). The authors would like to thank Fred Magdoff and R Jonna for their help. All material (c) copyright 1949-2008 Monthly Review http://www.monthlyreview.org/081001foster-holleman-mcchesney.php http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From tboyle at rosehill.net Sat Dec 13 13:28:22 2008 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:28:22 -0800 Subject: [A-List] (Fwd) Foster: Postscript to"The Financialization of Capital and the Crisis" In-Reply-To: <49440D90.2781D068@ilstu.edu> References: <4943B939.2090503@ashisuto.co.jp> <4943D608.4030204@mail.ngo.za> <49440D90.2781D068@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: At 11:31 AM 12/13/2008, Carrol Cox wrote: >However hopeless the u.s. or the European working-classes might seem, >howver hopeless they might in fact be, there is no other route to the >future except through the struggles of those working classes. We had >better devote our theoretical considerations to this task.... >looking for socialist revolution in the periphery (Argentina, >Equaldor, South Africa..) >seems more promising; it's easier to look there. We have to look where the >billfold is, not just where it is better lighted. Do you consider yourself a historian, journalist, analyst? Observing what is actually emerging, and publishing ideas and information? Or do you consider yourself an engineer or architect of something? I've asked countless people in the peace and justice movements, what they would put in place, as an overall replacement for the present government-capitalist system. And there are many good ideas, taken in isolation, like funding improvements in education and media, and removing state/corporate/ military biases. But still, yoiu have to have a proposition, a contract, that people can sign up for. Does change happen by reshaping the activities of existing institutions, while the same employees keep getting the same paychecks, benefits, 401k's? All the same Fortune 1000 companies, and public-sector agencies? I don't think so. I think we need a transaction framework that allows people to form up new companies, new agencies, whatever you want to call them-- coops, unions, etc. The future way of doing business cannot be much different than a free market, in placing economic choice in the hands of the individual, to accept or decline the contract, or proposal. To argue otherwise is to argue for philosopher kings, who would design the economy for our own good-- which always ends badly. The present spectacle is a great example of the powerful and greedy, exploiting their positions. Todays economic transaction framework may be described as a system of mutual payables and receivables maintained by banks at the point of a gun, i.e., you can't do it any other way. This is all denominated in dollars that are continually being counterfeited, devalued, and misdirected. This system has glaring deficiencies. A) it is incredibly labor intensive, costly and wasteful, with millions of people working in physical banks and all kinds of bookkeeping, accounting and clerical jobs that produce no useful products or services. B) the system is rotten with wholesale errors, cheating, repudiation and lack of robustness, C) secrecy is the norm, making it impossible for anybody except the banksters themselves to understand who is buying what from whom--making it *impossible* to remedty externatlities because affected parties cannot even observe the principle parties, D) shelters massive lawlessness in high places, and E) systematically disempowers individuals, transferring undue gains and advantages to financial industries. If it took me 15 minutes to write this, you have to know, this is only the tip of the iceberg, it's so obvious. Somebody please write a book, like, THE CRISIS OF CAPITALISM "Isn't there a better way? " Supporting the transaction lifecycle without money or banking Todd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3763 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081213/13392e99/attachment.txt From cbcox at ilstu.edu Sun Dec 14 13:56:01 2008 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:56:01 -0600 Subject: [A-List] (Fwd) Foster: Postscriptto"The Financialization of Capital and the Crisis" References: <4943B939.2090503@ashisuto.co.jp> <4943D608.4030204@mail.ngo.za> <49440D90.2781D068@ilstu.edu> <7alt5i$2rmfuf@ipo3smtp.cc.utah.edu> Message-ID: <494572E1.1884CFCC@ilstu.edu> Todd Boyle wrote: > > > Do you consider yourself a historian, journalist, analyst? Observing > what is actually emerging, and publishing ideas and information? > Or do you consider yourself an engineer or architect of something? I'm a local organizer and activist, forced by circumstances beyond my control to try to work out or discover in the work of others a theoretical context for that work. Carrol From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sun Dec 14 22:27:51 2008 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:27:51 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Dissensus and Organic Process Message-ID: <4945EAD7.6050804@ashisuto.co.jp> by John Michael Greer The Archdruid Report (December 10 2008) Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial society In bringing up the vexed relationship between evolution as it happens in nature, on the one hand, and the ways the concept of evolution has been redefined in current ideologies on the other, last week's Archdruid Report post dipped a tentative toe into some very deep and murky waters. Over a century or more, ideas and metaphors from the natural sciences have become potent factors in the public life of the western world; terms such as "natural", "organic", and, yes, "evolution" have been caught up by any number of players in the scrimmage of contemporary culture, and more often than not have come out much the worse for wear. There's no shortage of ingenious ways to misuse concepts such as these, but one in particular has had a pervasive presence in our collective dialogue. Perhaps the best way to show it at work is to track the use of natural concepts in one of the towering creative minds of the twentieth century, American architect Frank Lloyd Wright. Full disclosure probably requires me to admit up front that I'm a fan of Wright's work, and not only because he was one of the handful of first-rate creative talents to have been influenced by the modern Druid tradition. In his quest for an organic architecture - notice the concept lifted from the life sciences - he reshaped the vocabulary of space and form in ways that are still being explored by architects today, and he also produced rather more than his share of stunningly beautiful buildings. Still, there are few geniuses whose works are without flaws, and Wright was not one of them. Stewart Brand of Whole Earth Catalog {1} fame has set out the case for the prosecution in his useful book How Buildings Learn (1994). To begin with, Brand points out, all Wright's roofs leak. This may seem like a small thing, but since the basic purpose of shelter is to keep weather out, and it's not actually that difficult to design a watertight roof, Wright's failure to accomplish this fundamental requirement is not a good sign. More generally, Wright paid close attention to the esthetic qualities of building materials, but not always to their structural strength; the results included a fair number of splendid buildings that could not hold up to normal wear and tear, or in some cases, the simple force of gravity. Thus a great many Wright buildings have had to be torn down since his time, and others linger on as museums, struggling to raise the money to meet their huge maintenance costs. Similar concerns run through every aspect of his work; the chairs he designed were beautiful, for instance, but many of them are acutely uncomfortable to sit in. The problem with Wright's work, essentially, is that he applied his core concept of organic architecture in too one-sided a way. The way he structured space resonates intensely with the nature of the site, the purpose of the building, and the esthetic of the materials he used; so far, so good. The difficulties arose because he handled at least two other aspects of the building process in a profoundly inorganic way. The first of these, as mentioned already, was his cavalier attitude toward the structural qualities of materials, and more generally to the "substance" side of Aristotle's famous form/substance dichotomy. The rain that leaked through Wright's roofs, and the dampness that pervaded his famous house Fallingwater - it had a stream running through the middle of it, complete with waterfall - and made its first owner refer to it as "Rising Mildew", are substances as relevant to the architect as the material forming the beams that support the floors. An architecture that embraced substance in an organic way would arguably shape form according to the physical potentials and weaknesses of the relevant substances, just as Wright's forms were shaped by the esthetics of the substances he used. The second aspect is subtler, and the book by Stewart Brand mentioned above is perhaps the best guide to it. A building is a pattern in space and in substance, but it is also a pattern in time, following its own trajectory from the first work on the site to the last swing of the wrecking ball. Successful buildings adapt to the people who live in them or use them, just as the people adapt to the buildings; Brand argues that in this sense, buildings "learn". Many of Wright's buildings - though there were important exceptions - were distinctly slow learners, and some proved to be wholly unteachable. Admittedly, in Wright's day as now, the architect's job mostly ended when the blueprints were handed over to the builder; additionally, of course, creative minds in his milieu were expected to be prima donnas, and his income and reputation depended at least in part on playing that role. Most of today's fashionable architects suffer from the same fixation on form over substance and process, without the benefit of Wright's sure esthetic touch. All this may seem far removed from the questions that have become central to this blog - the twilight of the industrial age and the birthing of constructive responses to its end - but the same three dimensions just considered - form, substance, process - apply to design in any context, from a mud hut to an alternative currency. Mud huts aside, most modern design that tries to be organic focuses, as Wright did, on organic form, and much of it neglects substance and process. Thus, for example, you get plans for "renewable" energy systems that may use sun or wind, but can't be made or maintained without petroleum products and massive energy inputs, and power equally unsustainable machines or lifestyles. These same concerns apply even more stringently to plans for social change. Plenty of proposals for allegedly "natural" or "ecological" societies, communities, and institutions have been floated over the last three decades or so, and most of them are natural in the same sense that Wright's architecture is organic: they represent one person's best shot at grasping the natural potentials of a situation. Very often, though, these proposals fail to address issues of substance or process. Substance in a social context refers, among other things, to the people who will presumably take up the new social system, but who inevitably bring to it attitudes and behavior patterns from other social contexts and the evolution of our species; it's notorious, and also true, that most Utopian schemes would work wondrously well if human beings could just stop behaving like human beings. Process in a social context, in turn, refers to the way that the new system is to be designed, set in motion, and adapted to meet changing needs, but there is another dimension as well: how the new system is to deal with competition from other social systems. When this has been addressed at all, it has too often been phrased in simplistic and stereotyped terms, as by insisting that lifeboat communities have plenty of guns so they can fight off the marauding hordes that feature so largely in contemporary survivalist fantasy. The history of Utopian communities in North America offers a useful corrective; most of the successful communes of the nineteenth century, for example, went under once the founding generation died off and the younger generations found communal life less appealing than the seductions of mainstream culture. The same thing could easily happen in a generation or so to any number of the communities being planned so eagerly today, since a future in which the inhabitants of such communities have no other options is probably the least likely of all the possibilities before us. I've critiqued the Transition Town movement in these essays, but the value of organic process is one thing that this movement has grasped at least as well as anybody in the peak oil movement just now. Those who are still trying to impose plans based on some ideology or other on the fluid potentials of the future might learn a few things from this source. Still, it's possible and, I think, useful, to go further still in the same direction. One potentially valuable way of doing so is the process of dissensus. I've borrowed that term from postmodern theorist Ewa Ziarek, who introduced it in a book on ethical theory in 2001. As most of my readers likely guessed at first glance, dissensus is the opposite of consensus, and it comes into play when consensus, for one reason or another, is either impossible or a bad idea: when, that is, irreducible differences make it impossible to find any common ground for agreement on the points that matter, or when settling on any common decision would be premature. This latter, I suggest, is a fair description of where we stand as we face the future that will follow the end of the industrial age. There's an interesting dichotomy in our knowledge of the future: history can give us a fair idea of the type of events that we will encounter, but neither it nor anything else can give us the details. When housing prices started zooming upwards a few years back, quite a number of people compared that to other speculative bubbles and correctly predicted that an enormous crash would shake the world economy when the bubble popped - but neither they nor anyone else could have known in advance when the crash would come or what the details of its downward course would be. The twilight of the industrial age puts us in a similar place. Looking at what's happened to previous civilizations that overshot the limits of their resource base, it's not hard to recognize the parallels and predict the onset of the familiar process of decline and fall. That process has some constant features, and it's probably safe to predict that those will occur this time too: for example, mass migration is a very common consequence of the fall of civilizations, and recent warnings about tidal flows of environmental refugees in the not too distant future suggest that it may be a safe bet to assume that the same thing will happen in our future. What nobody can anticipate are the details: what will set any particular migration in motion, what its scale, route, and final destination will be, and above all what the timing will be. Lacking those details, a consensus plan is not a good idea. If you knew today, let's say, that the region containing your ecovillage was going to have much less rain in the future, you would make one set of choices; if you knew that the same region was going to have much more rain in the future, you would make another, and so on. If you knew that a million refugees from climate change will be coming through your town, your plans would be very different from the ones you would make if you knew that your town would be far from the migration routes. Since these things can't be known in advance, though, whatever consensus you reach has a very real chance of being exactly the wrong choice. This is where dissensus comes to the rescue. In a situation of uncertainty, encouraging people to pursue different and even opposed options increases the likelihood that somebody will happen on the right answer. Dissensus, it deserves to be said, is not simply a lack of consensus. Like consensus itself, it has its own methods and process, its own values and style; the Thelonious Monk CD playing in my study as I type these words might also serve as a reminder that where dissensus is encouraged, and individuals pursue their own visions rather than submitting to a socially based consensus, the results can include dazzling creativity. Frank Lloyd Wright, with whom I began this essay, was a master of dissensus; great artists usually are. Yet the greatest master of dissensus is arguably Nature itself. Those first inch-long vertebrates who darted about in shallow seas half a billion years ago, after all, did not come to some sort of genetic consensus about where evolution was going to take them, nor did the evolutionary process itself push them in one direction. Some of their offspring became fish, some amphibians, some reptiles, some birds, and some mammals, and a few of the latter are either typing this essay or reading it. Evolution is dissensus in action, the outward pressure of genetic diversification running up against the limits of environment and, now and then, pushing through to some new adaptation: the wings of bats, the opposable thumbs of primates, the cultural evolution of human beings. As we enter a future of new limits and unpredictable opportunities, this is arguably the kind of organic process we need most. _____ {1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Earth_Catalog _____ ?John Michael Greer has been active in the alternative spirituality movement for more than 25 years, and is the author of a dozen books, including The Druidry Handbook (2006) and The Long Descent (2008). He lives in Ashland, Oregon. http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/12/dissensus-and-organic-process.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Dec 15 01:07:03 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:07:03 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Muntadar al-Zeidi, Iraqi Reporter, Throws His Shoes at Bush Message-ID: "U.S. President Visits Baghdad: Iraqi Journalist Throws Shoes at Bush," Al Jazeera, 14 December 2008: Associated Press BUSH NOTEBOOK: Bush ducks shoes in Baghdad 4 hours ago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The shoe attack came as Bush and al-Maliki were about to shake hands. The assailant ? later identified as television correspondent Muntadar al-Zeidi ? leapt from his chair and hurled his footwear at the president, who was about 20 feet away. "This is a farewell kiss, you dog," he yelled in Arabic. "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq." The crowd descended on al-Zeidi, who works for Al-Baghdadia television, an Iraqi-owned station based in Cairo, Egypt. He was wrestled to the ground by security officials and then hauled away, moaning as they departed the room. Later, a trail of fresh blood could be seen on the carpet, although the source was not known. In Iraqi culture, throwing shoes at someone is a sign of contempt. When U.S. Marines toppled Saddam Hussein's statue on Firdos Square in 2003, the assembled crowd whacked it with their shoes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Al-Baghdadia's Baghdad manager told the AP he had no idea what prompted his reporter to go on the attack. "I am trying to reach Muntadar since the incident, but in vain," said Fityan Mohammed. "His phone is switched off." The station issued a statement on the air Sunday night asking the Iraqi government to release al-Zeidi "to spare his life." "The station calls on journalists all over the world to express their solidarity for the release of al-Zeidi," it said. From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Dec 15 08:20:51 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:20:51 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Userer or rentier state Message-ID: <49462F82.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> The US today is a userer state in a slightly different sense today; and from an "industrial state" to a "userer state". Charles ^^^^ From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Dec 15 08:30:51 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:30:51 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Republic settlement Message-ID: <494631DA.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Update #2: Vote is 'Yes' at Republic; Plant Occupation Ends 10 December, 2008 CHICAGO After the conclusion of negotiations Wednesday evening, the membership of Local 1110, more than 200 workers, met in the plant cafeteria to hear and consider the tentative settlement that had been worked out by UE negotiators over the past three days. The settlement was approved by a unanimous vote. 'Justice - We Did It!' Following the vote, the UE members, led by Local President Armando Robles, marched out of the plant, chanting "We did it!" in English and Spanish. Pres. Robles stepped to the microphones outside the front entrance to the plant, where a throng of reporters and cameras had been waiting. He announced the end of the occupation and said that justice had been achieved. UE Western Region President Carl Rosen then described the negotiations, summarized the settlement agreement, and commented on the significance of the struggle and the achievement. Pay, Health Care, Vacation Pay The settlement totals $1.75million. It will provide the workers with: * eight weeks of pay they are owed under the federal WARN Act; * provided with two months of continued health coverage, and; * pay for all accrued and unused vacation. JPMorgan Chase will provide $400,000 of the settlement, with the balance coming from Bank of America Third Party Fund Although the money will be provided as a loan to Republic Windows and Doors, it will go directly into a third-party fund whose sole purpose is to pay the workers what is owed them. As the Local 1110 leaders characterized the settlement, "We fought to make them pay what they owe us, and we won." 'Historic Victory' UE Director of Organization Bob Kingsley spoke on behalf of the National Union, describing the outcome of the occupation as "a victory for workers everywhere," and as "an historic victory for America's labor movement." Kingsley went on to call the settlement "a win for all working men and women who face uncertainty, unfairness and job loss in a troubled economy." 'The Window of Opportunity' Foundation Kingsley then announced the creation of a new foundation, dedicated to reopening the plant. It will be initiated with seed money from the UE national union and the thousands of dollars of donations to the UE Local 1110 Solidarity Fund that have come in from across the country and around the world in just the past five days. Melvin Maclin of Local 1110 announced the name of the foundation, which was chosen by the workers themselves: the Window of Opportunity Fund. Maclin said that the fund will be open to receive donations from all friends of the Republic workers and supporters of their struggle. Rosen introduced U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, praising the congressman for his tireless work in behalf of the Republic workers and indispensible role in bringing about the settlement. Gutierrez spoke at some length, and then introduced David Rudis, Illinois State President, Bank of America. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Dec 15 08:34:40 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:34:40 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Unemployment stories Message-ID: <494632C0.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> On the dole Sacramento News & Review - Sacramento,CA,USA By Seth Sandronsky On a late November afternoon, Elk Grove resident Melanie Nisewanger, 21, stopped by the state Employment Development Department on ... Seth Sandronsky http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Archive?author=3348 This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Dec 15 09:31:21 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:31:21 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Colossus with Feet of Clay Message-ID: <49464009.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> New book examines character of deepening crisis in capitalist globalization By Abayomi Azikiwe Editor, Pan-African News Wire Published Nov 13, 2008 7:38 PM Colossus with Feet of Clay: Low-Wage Capitalism What the new globalized, high-tech imperialism means for the class struggle in the U.S. By Fred Goldstein Available at leftbooks.com. This is a must-read book for those seeking answers to the current crisis in world capitalism. With the economic meltdown of 2008, the very future of the system of international finance capital has been thrown into question. Monumental write-offs of hundreds of billions of dollars by the world?s leading banks and investment firms have occurred this year. Names such as Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, UBS, HSBC, Wachovia, Citigroup, AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc., have become the focus of attention of not only the bourgeoisie, but of working people who have seen their jobs, homes, pensions and overall living standards plunge. Official statistics on the U.S. economy indicate that over one million jobs have been lost during 2008. Consumer confidence has declined while signs of social discord have emerged, in part resulting in the willingness of many whites to vote for the country?s first African-American president. What has generated profound anger among working people throughout the U.S. is the response to this crisis by the capitalist class and the bourgeois state, which have given over a trillion dollars in taxpayer money to the very same financial institutions that created the crisis. This crisis, however, is not confined to the U.S. The subprime mortgage crisis and the ?credit crunch,? as it was described during the early months of 2008, are now being labeled-even by the corporate press-as a major economic dilemma affecting billions of people around the globe. The U.S. Federal Reserve Bank along with central banks throughout Europe and the world have handed over hundreds of billions of dollars and other units of currency to the bankers in order to stave off a rapid collapse of the system. Despite all of these subsidies to the financiers, many of these firms have not survived. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have essentially been ?nationalized? under capitalist control by the U.S. government in order to soften the fall of the multi-trillion-dollar housing market. Yet there has been no bailout for the working people of the U.S. and the world. Millions have lost their homes and jobs. Their pensions are rapidly drying up because many of these funds were invested in the gambling houses of Wall Street and its counterparts around the world. Nonetheless, the resistance and fightback are developing. Workers in Europe have staged general strikes against rising fuel and food prices. There have been food rebellions in various countries throughout the Caribbean and Africa. In the U.S., a burgeoning movement calling for a moratorium on foreclosures has made a political impact and is influencing the political dialogue taking place inside the country. The source of the crisis Goldstein, utilizing Marxist economic analysis, has approached this crisis from the standpoint of those who are most seriously affected: the working class, the nationally oppressed and women. The author makes the case in very simple and straightforward language that the crisis is one of capitalist overproduction. According to Goldstein: ?This cycle dictates that, during periods of capitalist expansion, the powers of production increase ever more rapidly while the powers of consumption of society expand only gradually. Sooner or later production outstrips consumption. Profit does not arrive in corporate bank accounts until sales take place. If commodities cannot be sold at a profit, inventories pile up, production stops, workers are laid off, and a crisis ensues. That is the crude dynamic of the capitalist crisis of overproduction.? (pp. xi-xii) The author explains: ?The new international division of labor pits workers all around the world against each other in a race to the bottom. It depresses wages of the working class in imperialist countries and expands the sweatshop, superexploitation of the workers in low-wage countries. It makes each capitalist recovery more difficult and undermines the historic advantages accruing to the workers in a capitalist upturn. All this is aggravating the general crisis of capitalism. High technology and low-wage capitalism on a world scale are accelerating the crisis of overproduction and laying the basis for a massive counterattack by the working class.? (p. xiii) Women, race and the capitalist crisis As it relates to the impact of the crisis on women and the nationally oppressed in the U.S., Goldstein looks at this phenomenon within the context of the historical development of the country. It was the stolen land of the Native Americans and the slave labor of the African people, along with the low-wage exploitation of Chinese workers in building the railways to the West Coast, which made the U.S. the leading capitalist nation in the world. The author takes note of the changing character of the labor force in the U.S.: ?The rise in the number of women compared to men in the workforce over the last three decades is telling. In 1970, 79 percent of all men participated in the labor force as opposed to 43 percent of all women. In 2005, men?s participation dropped to 72 percent while women?s climbed to 60 percent. Women?s participation in the labor force has steadily risen since 1980 and men?s participation has steadily declined. By 2005 there were 80 million men and 70 million women in the workforce.? Goldstein emphasizes that women are more likely to receive lower wages than men. He also points to the class nature of the Clinton-era ?welfare reform? policy that advanced ?the politically reactionary campaign to spread the idea that those on welfare were lazy people who just wanted to ?live off the dole.? It was racist in character because the racist regime of U.S. capitalism has left so many Black single parents in poverty and almost all references to the poor focus in on African Americans (even though the majority of the poor in the U.S. are white).? (p. 134) The author illustrates how the restructuring of capitalism has devastated large sections of the Black working class: ?The restructuring by the bosses devastated Black workers, partly as a result of a deliberate effort starting in the 1960s and 1970s to relocate plants away from the industrial central cities, where there were great concentrations of the African-American proletariat. But this devastation was also the result of a general decline in manufacturing and particularly of the general attack on the union movement.? (p. 137) The coming fightback Goldstein not only analyzes the character of the modern-day capitalist crisis, but he boldly puts forward a set of possible demands that can serve as a rallying point for a national and international fightback movement. Looking at the recent struggles that have taken place over the last three decades during the overall capitalist decline, he firmly believes that the present crisis can be reversed through a proactive approach by the working class and the oppressed. This struggle will not just encompass the workers of the industrialized capitalist states. The proletariat in the U.S. and Western Europe must understand the necessity of forming alliances with working people in the former colonial and neocolonial countries. The globalization of capitalist production has created the conditions for such an alliance, one that can transform the course of history. Goldstein?s work not only makes a significant contribution to the resurgence in literature on Marxist political economy, but more importantly, it serves as a guide for building broader and more militant social movements that directly address the need to transform capitalist societies in order to ensure a socialist future for humanity. ?Low Wage Capitalism? can be ordered online at www.Leftbooks.com. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Articles copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011 Email: ww at workers.org Subscribe wwnews-subscribe at workersworld.net Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php Page printed from: http://www.workers.org/2008/us/book_review_1120/ This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Dec 15 09:48:48 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:48:48 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Remember, the recession isn't all bad Message-ID: <49464420.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> -------------------------------------------------------------- From: Doug Henwood On Dec 14, 2008, at 11:27 PM, Eugene Coyle wrote: Henwood's two posts on this confuse me. Not sure what his position is. Let me be clear about mine: The present financial crisis began in 1947 with the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, a crippling blow to the labor movemen That's clarifying. A 61-year crisis. Ok. Doug ^^^^ CB: Actually, the General Crisis of Capitalism starts in 1917 with the Russian Rev. The general crisis of capitalism is when it begins to leave the "world stage". There's the general crisis and cyclical crises. Lenin noted then that capitalism had "considerable reserves" ( I'll say !), but in the long run it's socialism or barbarism, comrades. Australian Marxist Review No. 49, November 2008 Editorial Notes With the present state of the world, it is timely to look at the concept of "crisis", a most frequently used term nowadays. For Marxists, "crisis" has multiple connotations. There is the general crisis of capitalism, referring to our present historical period, in which capitalism as a social system l