From malecki at algonet.se Thu Jul 1 00:32:33 1999 From: malecki at algonet.se (Bob Malecki) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:55 2006 Subject: M-TH: FW: M-NEWS: URGENT message from MOVE Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: owner-marxism-news@buo319b.econ.utah.edu [mailto:owner-marxism-news@buo319b.econ.utah.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Butterfield Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 2:51 PM To: marxism-news@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: M-NEWS: URGENT message from MOVE From: Prison Radio MOVE RELEASE At 5:00 Monday morning, June 28, the Move Organization was awakened by loud shouting and screaming coming from the back premises of our house at 4504-06 Kingsessing Ave. when we went to the doors and windows to see what was going on we saw about 8-10 cops jumpingthe fences from other people's properties onto our property, running, hollering and screaming psychotically, running up thru our yard, leaping over the front gate and running across the street into the park. All this was done under the guise of trying to "catch some boys" . . . at 5:00 on a Monday morning. Move people don't believe this, we don't trust these cops because they're KNOWN liars, and what they did this morning is the same tactic (along with the excuse of chasing somebody) that they used before May 13th, 1985 up at Osage Ave. There are circumstaces surrounding the Move Organization at this time that are urgent, and extremely serious: they concern the Move 9, Mumia Abu-Jamal, and a 3-year old Move child. The Move Org. is not taking it lightly when the City of Phila. sends its cops onto our property at 5:00 in the morning, and we don't believe for one minute that lying excuse about them chasing some boys. Move is maintaining the same position now that we have always maintained, a position of self-defense. If the City of Phila. sends their cops in on Move we're gonna fight back, and we want people to know if there IS a confrontation it's because the Move 9 are due to come up for PCHA hearings on July 7th that could either bring them home from prison or expose the devious treacherous lying position of this gov. to keep them IN prison despite their innocence. Mumia is scheduled for a writ of cert. in a few months. The Move child is being used as a pawn by his father who's turned traitor to Move and is trying to provoke the city to confront Move over the issue of the child being with his mother, a Move woman. (Lousie James and Laverne Sims turned traitor to Move and in 1985 they helped provoke the city to confront Move on Osage Ave. where a bomb was dropped on Move and 11 Move men, women and children were killed.) Move people are gonna do what we have to do. Those who sympathize with us, those who are fair-minded and want to speak out, send a fax, or call Ed Rendell's office at: Fax: (215) 686-2555; Phone: (215) 686-3000 ========== from Ramona Africa Move Organization ========== re-sent by Prison Radio _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com --- from list marxism-news@lists.econ.utah.edu --- --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From Estevm at aol.com Thu Jul 1 01:52:01 1999 From: Estevm at aol.com (Estevm@aol.com) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:55 2006 Subject: M-TH: Solidarity with militant Pakistani trade unionists Message-ID: <96069403.24ac7821@aol.com> Dear Comrades, Normally there is a chasm between the left on the one hand, and J18 / anarchist / green / Reclaim the Streets activists. But below we have an example of J18 comrades leading the way in international solidarity with arrested militant trade unionists in Pakistan. This must be encouraged and fully supported. This is an excellent chance for lefts and Marxists to link in with the Pakistan communities in Britain and build for this demonstration below. Also it is a chance for new alliances, on a class basis, to be made in other countries where broad-based demonstrations could be built at Pakistan Gov?t symbols: airlines, embassies, etc. There are those around the left who build opportunist relations in a Green-Left approach to politics on the basis of electoral alliances, soft left politics and passive protest in general. Here we have its left-wing version based on direct action, on militant protest - and on a clear anti-capitalist basis. This type of alliance should be encouraged and built. Steve Myers. Ps. Below is the appeal via. J18 in London, and below that the original appeal from the Pakistan trade unions. In a message dated 28/06/99 18:47:02 GMT, eurobunk01@hotmail.com writes: ********************************* J18 Network (London) Stop the Repression in Pakistan! Solidarity With Pakistani Trade Unionists Arrested In J18 Anti-Nuclear Demonstration 11am Thursday 8th July High Commission of Pakistan, 36 Lowndes Square, SW1 (Knightsbridge tube) Bring drums, whistles, banners, friends ******************************** An urgent call for international solidarity has gone out from the All Pakistan Federation of United Trade Unions (APFUTU) after leading trade unionists and activists were arrested after a demonstration against nuclear weapons as part of the global day of action on June 18th. Fearing the worst, the executive of APFUTU had gone underground on the 14th of June, and night-time police raids on union buildings failed to find them in the days before June 18th; union offices were ransacked, records burnt and equipment confiscated. On the 18th itself the union executive joined the thousands-strong mobilisation in Gujrat wearing masks and veils; the demonstrators broke through police lines and chanted slogans against the government, nuclear weapons, and basic commodity price rises ("Bread Not Nuclear Bombs"). APFUTU leaders then addressed a protest rally, which was stormed by 3 to 400 police commandos using tear gas; many executive members of the APFUTU were arrested along with 50 activists. The following day the 50 activists were released on police bail, but the executive members have been transferred to a district jail. Police are reported to have brought charges of "damage to the territorial integrity of the country", which is punishable by the death penalty. One released trade unionist reported with deep grief and sorrow that "the executive members have been tortured and given a sound thrashing". The jailed trade unionists are: Choudhry Riaz Ahmed (President), Mohammad Shakeel Janjua s.v.p. Pirzada Imtiaz Syed, (Secretary General), Ayub Ali Khan, Haroon H Rasheed (Secretary International Relations), Mohammad Inayat Sabri, (President Pakistan Bricks Kiln Labor Union, Mohammad Noveed, (President Bone Crushing Industries Labour Union). At an emergency meeting a caretaker executive sent out an urgent call for solidarity actions, and given that the cases will be heard in the Supreme Court, where workers cannot meet the legal defence costs, two bank accounts have been set up with the "Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited", main branch, chowk nawabsahib, Gujrat, Pakistan; title of account: "International Solidarity Fund of APFUTU"; bank account no. 1180 (U.S. dollars), account no.1181 (German marks). Cash can be transferred direct to these bank accounts and cheques / bank drafts can be sent to the union address: All Pakistan Federation of United Trade Unions (APFUTU) Union House, Rang Pura, Sargodha Road Gujrat - 50700 Pakistan Tel: ( + 92 - 4331 ) 28736 & 26398 Fax: ( + 92 - 4331 ) 525302 E-Mail: union@grt.space.net.pk Voice your protest to the High Commission of Pakistan on 0171 664 9200 (ask for High Commissioner's office) and to the Prime Minister of Pakistan at primeminister@pak.gov.pk The caretaker secretary general of APFUTU, Syed Naseer Akhtar writes: "It is a great time of our test and experience that who will stand by us in such a critical movement. It is well known fact that the friend in need is a friend in deed, who will help us at the time of distress. So I, on behalf of my organization appeal your good self to stand by us in such a critical moment." The London J18 Network calls on trade unionists, anti-nuclear activists and all those resisting the oppression of life under capitalism to join us in showing international solidarity with the Pakistani trade unionists and their struggle against militarism and nuclear weapons. Their struggle is our struggle! Stop the repression now! For more information and reports from around the world on the J18 international day of action, when social movements from more than 30 countries around the world united in opposition to global capitalism see www.j18.org tel: 0171 281 4621 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ General info: Reclaim the Streets: 0171 281 4621; rts@gn.apc.org LONDON MEETING EVERY TUESDAY 7pm - Cock Tavern pub, Phoenix Road, Euston. (Euston Tube) '''''''''''''''''''' London-wide networking meeting of direct action groups and individuals: July 7th, squatted church, Stoke Newington Church Street, opposite cemetery, 73 bus from King's Cross. 7pm. All welcome. ################################### June 18th 1999: for further info visit: www.j18.org *Subscribe to J18discussion@gn.apc.org for dialogue and info-share* (Email with SUBSCRIBE JUNE 18 YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS in the text space!) ''''''''''''''''''' For info on RTS, subscribe to , specifying "RTS only" To receive info on general direct action etc. stuff, subscribe to allsorts@gn.apc.org>, specifying "allsorts" For a copy of Reclaim The Streets: The Film contact 0181 802 0466 or e-mail rtsfilm@hotmail.com Reclaim the Streets: PO BOX 9656, London N4 4JY. NOTE NEW WEBSITE ADDRESS! - http://www.gn.apc.org/rts/ ****************************************************** The J18 organiser in Pakistan sent the report below. -------------------------------------------- From: "Pirzada" Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 21:51:28 +0500 Please forward to other interested people. APFUTU - All Pakistan Federation of United Trade Unions --- Subject: Press release and appeal for solidarity funds GUJRAT, PAKISTAN: On June 18, 1999, our organization took out procession to condemn against the nuclear and against the explosion of atom bomb by Pakistan and India. In the meanwhile necessary report was transmitted to you by our acting secretary information, Mr Asghar Ali, on June 19, 1999. However the same is recapitulated here with some additional information for your illustration. The rally was started early in the morning from the GTS Chowk and the enthusiasm of the workers and school children was worth seen. No doubt the movement of APFUTU (All Pakistan Federation of United Trade Unions). The leadership of APFUTU already had gone underground on 14.06.99. Suddenly the said leadership of APFUTU came out on 18 June with wearing masks and vail and joined the rally, in spite of the fact that local administration had blockaded from every neck and corner and even ready to arrest them. The police was making night raid since two nights. The police entered in the union house as well as Imtiaz Labor Hall on the midnight of 17&18 June and tried to find out the clue of the leadership. When police fail to achieve the object they become revengeful and made subversion and ravage of office record. While leaving the union house they carried with them office computer with accessories, move camera, electric type writer, Panasocic FX-F 90 fax machine, slogan banners inscribed, TV 26" (color), two carpets and crockery, etc. They also burned out the office record into ashes. When the underground leadership appeared in the procession, the protester become furious and come into the rage. The protester start their march while breaking the police control circle. Procession passing through Chowk Fawara, Kabuli Gate, Chowk Pakistan, Prince Cinema Chowk, Jail Chowk and they reached District Courts Chowk with enchanting slogans against the government as well as nuclear. In front of Deputy Commissioner Office the APFUTU (women wing) leaderhip were sitting with hunger strike since morning as a protest against the nuclear explosion. The majority of the male workers have put out their shirts by order of their ledership, while garlanding bread where the protest and demand slogan were inscribed. The said slogan was to finish inflation and increasing rate of commodities of life. We want bread, not nuclear bomb. The nuclear is dangerous for human life. We do not like to make our country like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but we want to bring peace and harmony. We are peaceloving country and most virtuous nation, commanding to do good and denouncing evil. Afterward a protest gathering was held in the District Court Chowk and Mr Pirzada Imtiaz Syed, Secretary General, addresses the meeting with full of zeal and enthusiasm. His words were sufficient, were strong to peace the heart of the listeners and it was difficult to control the feeling of the protesters during his speech. Near about 3/4 hundreds police commandos came into action and they arrest to Pirzada with Choudhry Riaz Ahmad, President, Mohammad Shakeel Janjua, S.V.P., Ayub Ali Khan, Deputy Secretary General, Zulfiquar Ali, Information Secretary, Haroon H. Rasheed, Choudhry Javid Iqbal, Raja Allah Ditta, Mohammad Noveed, Syed Zia Ullah Azam, Akhtar Pervez, Mohammad Inayat Sabri, Mohammad Yousaf, So Hail Yousaf, with other 50 active members. During this action the police was given free hands to use lothy charge and tear gas to the innocent male and female workers and school children without any cogent reason. Our organization strongly condemned such brutal action and general prejudice treatment given by police. On June 19, 1999 the local administration has released 50 active workers on after arrest bail, and rest of them shifted in to district jail from police station. It has come to know from reliable sources that police has registered an fir. [the report says: AN FIR.] to damage/ harm territorial integrity of the country. According to standing laws of our country the punishment of said case is death penalty. On 21 June 1999 the session court has confirmed the bail except Choudhry Riaz Ahmed, President, Mohammad Shakeel Janjua, S.V.P., Pirzada Imtiaz Syed, Secretary General, Ayub Ali Khan, Haroon H. Rasheed, Secretary International Relations, Mohammad Noveed, President Bone Crushing Industries Labor Union. The released office bearers has narrated the sad story with a deep grief and sorrow that the executive members have been tortured and given sound thrashing. Today on 21 June 1999 an emergency meeting was conducted under the auspicious Riaz Masee, S.V.P. of Pakistan Brick Kiln Labor Union. In this meeting the following persons were selected to the cause of working for the solidarity and prosperity of organization. The detail is as under please/ Caretaker Riaz Masee Caretaker S.V.P. Choudhry Javid Iqbal Caretaker Vice President Mohammad Noveed Caretaker Secretary General Syed Naseer Akhtar Caretaker Deputy G. Secretary Asghar Ali Secretary Information Zulfiqar Ali In addition to above facts it was held out in the meeting that the cases registered against high command leadership are apishly are very serious nature and required vigilant attention. The hearing of these cases will be held in Supreme Court of Pakistan and workers are unale to bear the expenses likely to be incurred for engaging a lawyer and other allied expenses. As our organization has not sufficient funds. Therefore today on June 21, 1999, we have opened two bank accounts in the name of "International Solidarity Fund of APFUTU" with the "Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited", main branch Gujrat. The detail of bank account as under please:- Title of account: INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY FUND OF APFUTU Bank account no: 1180 (U.S. dollars) 1181 (German mark) Name of bank: ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED, MAIN BRANCH, CHOWK NAWABSAHIB, GUJRAT ( PAKISTAN ) It is a great time of our test and experience that who will stand by us in such a critical movement. It is well known fact that the friend in need is a friend in deed. Who will help us at the time of distress. So I, on behalf of my organization, appeal your good self to stand by us in a critical moment. Your one U.S. dollar or German mark is great boon and helpful for us. As you are well aware and conscious of this fact that a many a little will make a mickle. As well as wishers should come forward and arrange to transfer the cash direct in our bank accounts and the cheques/ bank drafts could be sent to our union address: All Pakistan Federation of United Trade Unions (APFUTU) Union House, Rang Pura, Sargodha Road, Gujrat - 50700 (Pakistan) I as well as my organization workers are awaiting for your kind and favorable response at your good self. Thanks! With best regards! SYED NASEER AKHTAR CARETAKER SECRETARY GENERAL APFUTU, UNION HOUSE, RANGPURA, SARGODHA ROAD, GUJRAT-50700 ( PAKISTAN ) FAX : ( + 92-4331 ) 52 53 02 --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk Thu Jul 1 10:09:58 1999 From: r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk (Russ) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:55 2006 Subject: M-TH: Thaxis account.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Cheers Bob- almost missed this mail! I can either ftp them direct or I can send you the relevant stuff as an e-mail or you can download it all from a web site etc. Whatever's easiest and cheapest for you will be Ok with me, ftp'ing it direct would be easy for me... nb It doesn't cost me anything to do this from work, we're on free link ups in UK academia. On the search engines- I'll add some more meta tags so that it gets picked up and coreectly indexed by the engines- and this page might be useful for your own pages http://art.derby.ac.uk/addurl/ Russ --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From carob at dynamite.com.au Thu Jul 1 11:00:11 1999 From: carob at dynamite.com.au (Rob Schaap) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:55 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re: Thaxis account.. Message-ID: <199907011655.CAA21165@m0.dynamite.com.au> G'day Russ, How was that pint(s) of Pedigree and the weekend off? Tell us more about these meta tags, mate. The manipulation of search engines has to be an issue for all this democratic discourse we're being promised, no? Cheers, Rob. PS Love the appended Cochranism on the site disclaimer! ---------- > From: Russ > To: marxism-thaxis@buo319b.econ.utah.edu > Subject: Re: M-TH: Thaxis account.. > Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 17:09:58 +0100 > >Cheers Bob- almost missed this mail! >I can either ftp them direct or I can send you the relevant stuff as an >e-mail or you can download it all from a web site etc. >Whatever's easiest and cheapest for you will be Ok with me, ftp'ing it >direct would be easy for me... >nb It doesn't cost me anything to do this from work, we're on free link ups >in UK academia. > >On the search engines- I'll add some more meta tags so that it gets picked >up and coreectly indexed by the engines- and this page might be useful for >your own pages http://art.derby.ac.uk/addurl/ > > >Russ > > > > > --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- > --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From k.bullimore at student.canberra.edu.au Sat Jul 3 00:26:10 1999 From: k.bullimore at student.canberra.edu.au (Bullimore / Kim Maree (COM)) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:55 2006 Subject: M-TH: PROTESTERS CRITICALLY INJURED IN INDONESIA Message-ID: On July 1, several thousand students, urban poor, workers were attacked by the Indonesian police as they protested peacefully outside the KPU electoral commission office in Jakarta. The protest which had been organised by the People's Democratic Party (PRD) called for the disqualification of GOLKAR for election rigging, ballot tampering, money politics and intimidation. They also called for the repeal of the dual function of the military. Over 75 protesters were injured, two critically including Dhyta Caturani who was shot with a plastic bullet at piont blank range and beaten with rifles and now is in a coma with severe head wounds, including a fractured skull. (Dhyta was due to visit Australia in the next week to speak at a public meeting with John Pilger and Jose Ramos Horta and to address the 28th annual Resistanace Conference (Australia's largest socialist youth organisation) in Melbourne. The following are eyewitness reports(including one from Jill Hickson, Australian film maker whose latest film documentary on the Indonesian people's struggle for democracy - Democracy or Death- was recently released in Australia. The reports are taken from ASIET's (Action in solidarity with Indonesia and East Timor) web site. regards, Kim ______________________ Eyewitness report on PRD demonstration ASIET - July 1, 1999 [The following is an eyewitness report by Jill Hickson and Sam King, two ASIET members who are currently in Jakarta and were at the demonstration.] A rally by the People's Democratic Party (PRD) that mobilised 2000 people in Jakarta was attacked by police and military. The protesters were beaten and shot, injuring more than 100, two are in critical condition. The peaceful street rally was joined by many urban poor as it weaved through Jakarta, stopping at the University of Indonesia and the PDI office, before marching to the KPU electoral commission office. At the KPU the PRD called for the disqualification of GOLKAR (Indonesia's ruling party) for election rigging including ballot tampering, money politics and intimidation. They also demanded the repeal of the dual function of the military in social and political life, that allows the armed forces to continue its domination of Indonesian politics. At the KPU the demonstration came face to face with 50 police (a section armoured) bearing rifles, hand guns, bamboo sticks and tear gas. The rally continued outside for more than an hour with speeches from Andy Arief, Faisal Reza, Hendri Kuok and other PRD leaders. Negotiations by PRD KPU member Hendri Kuok to allow the rally entrance to the building and make their demands proved fruitless with KPU officials only offering 50 people entrance. The leadership put this proposal to the rally and it was unanimously rejected. The rally refused to be separated and decided to enter the KPU to stage a sit-in, saying the existence of the KPU itself is the result of the struggle of the Indonesian people for democracy, therefore they should have the right to enter. When the rally as a whole moved to enter the building, the police immediately opened fire upon the crowd using plastic bullets at point blank range; troops severely bashed with sticks and boot anybody they could get near. The protesters ran as soon as the shooting started with a minority returning and fighting back intermittently for a short time with stones and glass bottles. Police were then successful in forcing the protesters down the street by firing indiscriminately at those who remained. Hundreds of Brimob and Mobile military personnel loaded onto the street from eight trucks parked in the side streets blocking protesters escape. Protesters were routinely bashed after being captured and indiscriminately attacked while running away. One PRD member, Dhyta Caturani (pictured above during an earlier demonstration this year in Jakarta) standing in the front line was immediately pulled behind the police line, there she was shot in the back and brutally beaten while lying on the ground, sustaining severe injuries to the face and head from the boots of the police. She was soon hospitalised, as one of the 36 protesters who were admitted to 4 Jakarta hospitals. More than 100 sustained minor injuries from police sticks, rickesheing bullets or being beaten while trying to escape. Dhyta was operated on at 8pm and remains in a weak condition but is expected to survive. Another PRD member Carles Ratna Panji Setiawan remains in critical condition after being shot in the stomach. His spleen, damaged by the bullet was removed by operation hours after the violence. At least seven people had plastic bullets enter their bodies, the majority shot in the back as they ran. One of the injured had a bullet pass completely through his body and experienced heavy bleeding from the mouth. As yet there have been no reports of fatalities although two PRD members who were among those injured were taken to a military hospital. Access to them has been denied and their condition is not known. Fifty people are reportedly in custody after being arrested and taken to a police station in south Jakarta. One of those injured badly in the head has developed amnesia. One hundred and sixty people are unaccounted for and their whereabouts is still unknown. [PRD sources in Jakarta have told ASIET that Dhyta was operated upon at 8pm, July 1 (Thursday). She is in a critical condition but is expected to survive. They also said that more than 75 had been wounded or injured and that many are still missing. Dhyta was expected to speak at the Resistiance conference in Melbourne on July 8-11 and also at a public meetings on East Timor with Jose Ramos Horta and John Pilger - James Balowski.] --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From k.bullimore at student.canberra.edu.au Sat Jul 3 00:29:27 1999 From: k.bullimore at student.canberra.edu.au (Bullimore / Kim Maree (COM)) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:55 2006 Subject: M-TH: URGENT APPEAL FROM PRD for International solidarity Message-ID: Urgent appeal from the PRD - July 1, 1999 Today on July 1, at 4pm, the People's Democratic Party (PRD) was holding demonstration to protest against the cheating and manipulation on the result of the unfair and undemocratic election. Around three hundreds people were mobilized in front of the National Election Commission (KPU) office in Central Jakarta. At the gate of the KPU, the masses are blocked by hundreds of anti riot police and the military so that the masses can not enter the office and meet the KPU officers to talk about the cheating and manipulation of the election. In the speech in front of the KPU office, the masses demanded the KPU disqualify the Golkar Party from the election for the cheating and manipulation it does in many regions in Indonesia. They also sharply criticized the military and police who were blocking them as anti-democractic and murderers. In this peaceful demonstration, the masses insisted on going inside the office but the police and military refused. Consequently, line of PRD masses pushed the barricade of military and police. The masses was about to succeed in breaking the military barricade but the situation was getting critical as the police and military started using violence. They used sticks to beat the PRD masses. The masses defended and resisted as they could. They fought the military but the military and police became more brutal. Beside beating and kicking the masses, they suddenly also shot the unarmed massed. The masses dispersed and ran away in different directions. Four people fell to the ground. One of them identified as Budi was shot at his right chest but still alive. The others are Syailendra, also shot at his right hand. His T-shirt was red for blood. Then there is Kukun whose legs are totally broken. Rustiningsih, a woman aged 26 was also lying on the ground. Her neck was wounded. Blood was squeezing in it. They are all in the Emergency Room of Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital now. Eyewitness says that there are more people injured some brought to different hospital but not yet identified. During this time, arrests also happened when the masses dispersed. With this incident we call for the international community, human rights groups, political parties to support and demand: 1.The condemnaton of the brutality of Indonesian military and government which shows no commitment to democratization and total reform. 2.The release of all arrested people after the demonstration. 3.The police and military to stop violence and shooting against people fighting for democracy, social justice and human rights. 4.That the government and military be responsible for the shooting amidst this incident, the PRD will keep demanding a fair and democratic election and fighting for genuine democracy, social justice and human rights through mass mobilization. Amsterdam, July 1, 1999 Mugiyanto European Representative --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From k.bullimore at student.canberra.edu.au Sat Jul 3 00:39:01 1999 From: k.bullimore at student.canberra.edu.au (Bullimore / Kim Maree (COM)) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:55 2006 Subject: M-TH: INTERNATIONAL STATEMENT OF SOLIDARITY Message-ID: Initiated by ASIET. E-mail your endorsment to the ASIET National Secretariat - asiet@peg.apc.org Please include your name,telephone number, e-mail address and organisation and position (for identification purposes only). --------------------------------------------------------------- International statement of solidarity and condemnation - July 2, 1999 We vigorously condemn the Indonesian military and police for the violent and bloody attack on peaceful, unarmed protesters campaigning for democracy at a rally organised on July 1 in Jakarta, by the People's Democratic Party (PRD). The 2000 demonstrators were protesting against vote rigging by the ruling Golkar party in Indonesia's June 7 election. They intended to have a sit-in inside the building of the National Election Committee (KPU). Once the protesters tried to have a peaceful sit-in, the police immediately opened fire using plastic bullets at point blank range, protesters were chased and then savagely beaten. More than 70 protesters were hospitalised, several have had to undergo surgery. More than 100 sustained injuries from police beatings. 160 are still missing. Dytha Caturani, international secretary of the PRD and a student at Gajah Mada University, was standing near the front of the demonstration and was then pulled behind the police line. There she was shot in the back and brutally beaten while lying on the ground. She is in critical condition in hospital, after surgery. We demand the Indonesian government guarantee the safety of peaceful protesters and an end to the role of the Indonesian military in political repression. We call on all governments to publicly condemn the Indonesian government for shooting peaceful protesters and end all military ties with Indonesia. As immediate steps all foreign military attaches based in Indonesia should be withdrawn immediately and Indonesian military attaches in other countries should be immediately expelled. Initial endorsers Max Lane, National Coordinator, Action in Solidarity with Indonesia and East Timor; John Percy, National Secretary, Democratic Socialist Party (Australia); Lisa Macdonald, Editor, Green Left Weekly; Allen Myers, Editor. Links; Michael Karadjis, delegate Australian services Union; Sean Healy, National Coordinator, Resistance (Australia); Dr Helen Jarvis, Asia Pacific Institute for Democratisation & Development; Neville Spencer, Editor, Venceremos; Pip Hinman, Asia Pacific Women's Solidarity Network; Stephen O'Brien, Committees in Solidarity with Central America & the Caribbean (CISLAC); Dr Kamala Emanuel, medical practitioner; Peter Boyle, New Course Publications; Dr Tuntuni Bhattacharyya, medical practitioner; Jill Hickson, film maker; Aaron Benedek, Education Officer, Sydney University Students Representative Council; Tim Gooden, Secretary, ACT Government Section, Community & Public Sector Union (CPSU); Philippa Stanford, Section Councillor, Centrelink Section, CPSU; Mark Cronin, Section Councillor, Centrelink Section, CPSU; Dr Jeremy Smith, lecturer University of Ballarat, National Tertiary Education & Industry Union national councillor; Melanie Sjoberg, organiser, Public Service Association (South Australia); Maurice Sibelle, coordinator, Victorian TAFE Students & Apprentices Network (VTSAN); Sarah Lantz, Student Research Officer, VTSAN; Dr Margaret Perrot, medical practitioner; Chris Latham, Coordinator, Australia-Indonesia Student Solidarity Brigade; Allen Jennings, CISLAC Victoria; Ertugral Titiz, Kurdish activist ; Mark Abberton, Education Officer, RMIT TAFE Students Association ; Natasha Izatt, Women's Officer, RMIT TAFE Students Association ; Vanessa Hearman, ASIET Victoria; Trisha Reimers, Women's Officer, University of Western Australia Student Guild; Peter Robson, NUS Queensland Education Committee. [Organisations and positions for identification purposes only unless indicated otherwise] --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From cburford at gn.apc.org Sat Jul 3 00:35:53 1999 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:55 2006 Subject: M-TH: Cooperative Linux penetrates capitalism Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990703073553.01065b3c@pop.gn.apc.org> Although the script below is presumably bsed on press releases from commercial companies specialising in linking people up to Linux, the story is still interesting. Essentially Linux is a product of cooperative labour. Its strength is that it has evolved through cooperative labour and is supported similarly. Thus is it essentially a product of labour in the widest sense, but not a commodity, produced by the capitalist mode of production. I am consciously trying to use the terms "commodity" and "product of labour" as they are used in Marx's Capital chapter 1. It is true that this post describes how certain smaller capitalist companies are selling a commodity - the service of linking customers to Linux - but capitalism has always traded on the boundary between the commodity and non-commodity spheres of social labour. The title of this piece, as posted by CNN, refers to the Internet, which is itself fundamentally a product of cooperative labour, nurturing Linux. It would also be true to say that this illustrates how a product of cooperative labour is penetrating the rapidly growing capitalist market of information technology and services. The future is indeed "social production controlled by social foresight"! Chris Burford London The Internet nurtures Linux July 2, 1999 by Jack McCarthy AUSTIN, Texas (IDG) -- The growth of the Internet is helping fuel the popularity of Linux, according to a series of speakers at the Open Source Forum here this week. As companies grow their Internet operations and reconfigure systems to operate online, they have the opportunity to reexamine their choice of systems and consider Linux, they say. Linux, developed in its essence by Linus Torvalds in 1991, is a UNIX- like operating system created through the collaboration of unpaid developers on the Internet and is publicly available for distribution. The need to increase Internet operations is making Linux attractive to some companies because of its low cost, stability, and easy modification, says Ransom Love, president and chief executive officer of Caldera Systems, which distributes Linux. "As the browser becomes the dominant interface for desktop use, Linux will kick butt," Love says. "Linux provides an excellent Internet environment. It requires minimal resources, and yet it gives full Internet connectivity." Companies are interested in using software that can be customized and serviced cheaply, a demand rapidly filled by Linux distribution companies such as Red Hat Software, SuSe Holding, TurboLinux, and Caldera, says Eric Raymond, an early proponent of open source development and a manager with VA Linux, a distributor of Linux systems. Co-op development New companies such as Red Hat succeed by simply offering service for Linux installation rather than developing their own software, Raymond says. "Red Hat and others are saying that if you buy this product, you get quality assurance and the value of a relationship," he says. Open source developers are writing standards and testing procedures for Linux use, says John "Maddog" Hall, executive director of the nonprofit group Linux International and an executive with VA Linux. The Linux operating system is becoming mainstream, he says. Between 12 million and 15 million installed systems run Linux, compared to a total of about 215 million operating systems installed worldwide, Hall says. Linux is at least getting a second look. "We want to manage the cost of desktop operations and increase stability," says Gene Dickamore, business systems manager for Arup Labs, a medical reference laboratory. "I'm seeing major changes in how you develop software, and this open-source OS may be real." --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From rws at comserver.canberra.edu.au Sun Jul 4 03:16:09 1999 From: rws at comserver.canberra.edu.au (Rob Schaap) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:55 2006 Subject: M-TH: All that is solid melts into air Message-ID: G'day Thaxists, So the oldest and most celebrated Cup in the world is on its way to the smelters, eh? United's fans don't want this new money-milking competition, United's board don't really want it, Tony Banks is reluctantly insistent, but a link between football and its signified is to be cut - towards a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing. Thank gawd there are foreigners to blame ... Money and football, eh? Too many games - spectacle arises over the broken back of meaning - fans sit at home, seven thousand miles from their team, who is playing against teams of whom they've never heard, in places of which they've never heard, for money they'll never see, a trophy they don't care about, and a World Cup tournament that happens to coincide with the Labour Party's election strategy and some Cool Brittania economic initiatives. All of it as the early chapters of the Manifesto would have it - and all as Jameson would have it if he were ever to take sport seriously. Which, it must be admitted, is becoming ever harder to do. All very sad to this sofa-bound, scarlet-clad, sporting traditionalist ... Some bits lifted from the *This Sporting Life* site are appended below. Any thoughts? Rob ... "... And we can reveal how Banks - acutely aware just how important England hosting the 2006 World Cup is to Labour's re-election campaign - was swayed by Blatter's warning that the FA's bid would almost certainly fail if United snubbed a World Club Championship that has become very much his baby. Banks was told at least three of the 24-member FIFA executive committee would vote against England if United refused to go to Brazil next January. After his talks with Blatter in Paderborn, Banks was left in no doubt that only the United card could stop South Africa or Germany scooping the World Cup prize and heaping embarrassment on a Government which has spent ?10million supporting the FA bid. Ostensibly, Paderborn was a meeting between the European Union Sports Ministers and a joint delegation from FIFA and UEFA to improve dialogue between Euro politicians and the men who run international football. Almost prophetically, in the light of events that were to unfold over the next month, the FIFA/UEFA delegation publicly appealed to Banks and Cofor the "acknowledgment of certain principles, such as recognising the authority of sports federations in matters pertaining to the organisation of competitions." ... BANKS FORCED UNITED OUT OF CUP Sir Alex Ferguson insists Government pressure forced Manchester United to pull out of next season's FA Cup. European champions United reluctantly gave up the chance to defend the FA Cup in order to play in the World Team Championships in Brazil in January. The Football Association offered United the option of missing next season's competition amid fears that a snub to the inaugural FIFA tournament would damage England's hopes of staging the 2006 World Cup finals. United upset their fans by taking up that offer, but Ferguson insists Sports Minister Tony Banks left the Treble winners with no choice. "In the last week we have been under considerable pressure from the Government," said Ferguson. "It is easy for everyone to criticise Manchester United but if you read the statement from Sports Minister Tony Banks it said 'Manchester United must go'. "It expressed what they feel. I was so determined for us to stay in the FA Cup and defend our Treble, but it was clear the Government wanted us to go to Brazil," Ferguson told the News of the World. "They are on a crusade for the World Cup. If it wasn't for the World Cup Man Utd would not be involved in Brazil - it's as simple as that." While Ferguson claims Government pressure forced United to pull out of the FA Cup, Banks blames threats from FIFA officials. Banks told the Mail on Sunday: "I happen to know, as a member of the World Cup campaign committee, that if Manchester United hadn't gone to Brazil it would have destroyed our chances of staging the 2006 World Cup finals." Banks, revealing how FIFA officials threatened to turn against England's 2006 bid if United snubbed the new tournament, told the Sunday Mirror: "Three members of FIFA, who had been very much in favour of our bid said to my face that if United don't take part they'd change their minds. "Their argument was that we can't pick and choose, wanting to host the World Cup but not taking part in one of FIFA's competitions. I have the names of those who said it would do damage." " --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From Estevm at aol.com Sun Jul 4 03:30:55 1999 From: Estevm at aol.com (Estevm@aol.com) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:55 2006 Subject: M-TH: .Moscow October 1999 - International Conference on World Crisis and Russia Message-ID: Dear Comrades, Below is my synopsis of a document on "Russia: Key to the International Situation". It will be presented to an International Conference in Moscow this October. I am going myself to build support for International Solidarity with Workers in Russia - ISWoR, though the document itself is my own and not ISWoR?s position. If anyone would like to make any comments or critique of my synopsis I would be interested. Yours in anticipation - Steve Myers. ps - Below is also the actual invite to the Conference - for your information. International Conference - Moscow - October 1999 Synopsis on: RUSSIA: KEY TO THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION In the 1930?s, Trotsky first pointed to Germany, then France, then Spain, as three consecutive ?keys to the international situation?. This was because each of these struggles could have turned around European, and in large part the international class struggle in favour of workers, for socialism, and against the coming inter-imperialist war. Yes there are many differences with Russia?s situation today, but the fundamental similarity is there. Many socialists feel demoralised about the Russian working masses? seeming paralysis. But it is wrong to follow too much the subjective situation. Some call Russia a semi-colony, some call it imperialist. The west wants it to become the first and the Russian oligarchy and would-be bourgeoisie the second. It is neither, but contains elements of both and is in transition - but to what?.. For the present the working class are overwhelmed by the failure of ?communism? - and see no alternative to capitalism. As was demonstrated by the response to the Asian crisis, movements in Russia?s economy are both dependent on and a potential threat to international finance. Meanwhile, Marx?s analysis of the nature and crisis of capitalism seems more accurate today than at any time past; of the organic composition of capital; of over-production and under-consumption; of accumulation of capital; the tendency for the rate of profit to fall ; etc. Their crisis is not over. There are sound reasons for believing it will end in a massive slump. We cannot predict the exact tempo of such a crisis; but the moment Russian workers see capitalism clearly failing globally, this mass educated working class, given a genuinely revolutionary workers? leadership and sufficient international solidarity, would embrace the collective memory of Bolshevism as envisaged by Lenin and Trotsky - they will not accept a neo-Stalinist solution. But even before the chaos of world depression, imperialism seems to be heading into a fight over the Caspian and central Asian oil and gas resources, not just with Russia, but with China too. Imperialism today is not unaware of its crisis and the danger of a crash. There are many complex factors that could make it need to wage war on Russia. The emerging Russia-China-India bloc is potentially a very powerful bloc indeed. Further, the US does not have the EU wholly in its pocket (as Britain is at present) and Russia is making strong overtures to Germany and even France. Zyuganov, too, actively supports the home Russian bourgeoisie with his own elite as part of it, and he argues for an EU-Russia imperialist bloc. Almost all Russian workers feel they may well be the next target of NATO and with good reason. The bombing of Yugoslavia was not about local issues at all, but about this bigger, dangerous game, in which Russia is a central player With the Stalinist legacy of ?socialism in one country?, there is a great danger ahead. Some form of ultra-nationalist militaristic-corporatist dictatorship may take power, with Russian capitalism defended and developed under its umbrella - S.Korea style - but with more fascistic overtones and certainly a rampant anti-semitism and chauvinism. This is why building international solidarity with workers in Russia is perhaps the most important work that Marxists around the globe can do in this period - to encourage and support internationalism and class struggle against all capital - at home and abroad. We must show Russian workers in practice " you are not alone". It is also necessary to take into account that Russian workers already feel oppressed by the US and IMF. Steve Myers - co-founder of International Solidarity with Workers in Russia - ISWoR _____________________________________________________________________ "The World Crisis of Capitalism and the Post-Soviet States" An International Conference Moscow, Saturday 30 October ? Monday 1 November 1999 Call for papers / invitation Dear Friend, We write to invite you to the above international conference, which will be held at the Institute of Comparative Political Sciences at Bolshoi Kolpachny Pereulok in central Moscow. Arrangements for the conference are being made through Professor Mikhail Voyekov at the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The conference will provide an opportunity for international scholars from a range of disciplines, journalists and others with a serious interest in the current world crisis, and especially with the place of Russia and the post-Soviet states in it, to meet and exchange views. It is intended that, within this context, there will also be papers dealing with the past, present and future of socialist ideas, and in particular with the history of the Soviet Union and its relationship to Marxism. The conference will be concerned to encourage fresh thinking about the nature and causes of the crisis of post-Soviet economy and society, and about the responses to that crisis of working-class and left-wing movements, both within the former USSR and outside it. It is hoped to develop continued working relationships among those attending, whether they work in Russia, other post-Soviet states, east or west Europe, North America or elsewhere. Those who wish to present papers are asked to submit a synopsis of up to 500 words (or a complete text) by 30 June 1999. It is intended to publish conference materials on the internet. A detailed agenda will be available prior to the conference. If you do not intend to submit a paper but wish to receive future mailings, please let us know. We are convinced that this conference is necessary and timely, but unfortunately we have no substantial financial backing. In addition to asking you, where necessary, to seek your own financial support to attend, we shall therefore also be most grateful for suggestions from any organisations or institutions which may be able to contribute towards our costs. These will include the provision of interpretation between the two conference languages, Russian and English, the translation of conference materials etc. Any such assistance will be fully acknowledged in the conference documentation. Correspondence may be addressed to Professor Mikhail Voyekov at the Institute of Economics (address above), Suzi Weissman in the US (e-mail sweissman@igc.apc.org, fax +1-818-990-6835), or Simon Pirani in the UK (e-mail smpirani@compuserve.com, fax +44-181-333-2152). Yours comradely, Aleksandr Buzgalin (Moscow State University, Alternatives editorial board) Terry Brotherstone (University of Aberdeen, Scotland) Alexeii Gusev (Moscow State University) John Holloway (Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Mexico) Hillel Ticktin (Chairman of Centre for Study of Socialist Theory and Movements at University of Glasgow (Scotland), editor Critique) Istvan Meszaros (Professor Emeritus in Philosophy and Political Theory, University of Sussex (England), and author of Beyond Capital) Bertell Ollman (New York University) James Petras (State University of New York) Hugo Radice (Director, Leeds University Centre for Russian, Eurasian and Central European Studies) Mikhail Voyekov (Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Alternatives editorial board) Suzi Weissman (University of St Mary's California) NOTES travel and accommodation VISAS: Those wishing to travel to Moscow will need an official stamped letter of invitation from the Institute of Economics, which you will need to submit along with your application for a Russian visa. THIS WHOLE PROCESS CAN TAKE UP TO TWO MONTHS although in some countries and in some cases it can be done more quickly. Check with the Russian embassy. Please let us know as soon as possible if you need a letter of invitation. The conference organisers will need your name, address, job title, date of birth and passport number to include in the letter. You should also tell us the earliest possible arrival date and latest possible departure date (i.e. if you wish to spend any extra time in Moscow apart from the days of the conference), as the letter of invitation must stipulate the exact dates of your visit and the visa will only be issued to cover those dates. TRAVEL: If you book well in advance, there are many cheap return flights to Moscow (e.g. ?200-?220 from London Heathrow). ACCOMMODATION: The conference organisers in Moscow will arrange accommodation for all international visitors attending the conference if asked to do so. This may be arranged at roughly $50 per night (at the university hotel) or at roughly $25 per night (in a student dormitory or as a guest in a private home). ARRIVAL AT THE AIRPORT: If you have not visited Russia before and/or you are not sure how to get into central Moscow from the airport, you should give advance notice of your time of arrival to the organisers and we will make the necessary arrangements. AND FINALLY: With proper precautions (such as arranging to be met at the airport) Moscow is an extremely interesting and safe place to visit. As well as its historical associations, it is the home of some of world's major art collections (at the Pushkin museum, Tretyakov gallery etc). It has fine Gothic, Baroque, neo-classical and, perhaps less well-known, Art Nouveau architecture. There are plenty of good restaurants and bars. At very little extra cost, and with some preparation, you may also spend a few days in Leningrad. Contact Address c/o M. Voyekov, Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Nakhimovsky Prospekt 32, Moscow 117218, Russia. Tel: +7-095 332 4525 Fax: +7-095 310 7001 April 1999 --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From Estevm at aol.com Sun Jul 4 15:51:33 1999 From: Estevm at aol.com (Estevm@aol.com) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:55 2006 Subject: M-TH: Caspian Oil, the USSR Break Up & Western Intentions Message-ID: Dear Comrades, This morning I mailed to you a summary of a document "Russia: Key to the International Situation" - for a Conference in Moscow this October. In the summary I wrote: << But even before the chaos of world depression, imperialism seems to be heading into a fight over the Caspian and central Asian oil and gas resources, not just with Russia, but with China too. >> Below is an excellent article (written in the last week or two) I discovered later today (it?s on the website mentioned) which is very close to my own understanding of this question: of the reason for the Nato bombing of, and now military base in Yugoslavia; and of rivalry between the US and EU too. I just wish the author and his comrades in the ICFI knew how to work with others in an anti-sectarian manner and carry out united front work and international solidarity in the way Lenin or Trotsky would if they were around today. It oculd be said we all have our strengths and weaknesses, but this is not good enough when it comes to a genuine rediscovery of consistent revolutionary Marxism as a living science of today. Regards, Steve Myers. ________________________________________ World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org THE STRUGGLE FOR CASPIAN OIL, THE CRISIS IN RUSSIA AND THE BREAK-UP OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES By Patrick Richter As NATO troops occupy Kosovo and the media is busy justifying the bombing of Yugoslavia, new struggles are developing away from the front lines which could lead to much greater military conflagrations. Such conflicts are taking place on the territory of the former Soviet Union, the source of the world's largest untapped reserves of oil and gas and a region where Russian influence has declined dramatically. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 8, 1991, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was founded, consisting of Russia, White Russia and the Ukraine. On December 21 of the same year a further eight former Soviet republics joined the CIS-the states of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenia and Uzbekistan. The Commonwealth was founded in Alma Ata, the former capital of Kazakhstan. In 1993 the Caucasus republic of Georgia also joined the union. Russian power was the cement which held the CIS together. However the economic, political and military weakening of Russia has brought into the open the centrifugal forces which had led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the first place and have marked the CIS from its very beginning. Two events have accelerated this process: the financial crisis in Russia of August 1998 and the political humiliation of Russia by NATO in the war against Yugoslavia. At the beginning of the 1990s Russia was able, with its powerful military apparatus, to exert its influence over various political conflicts taking place within the former Soviet republics. By stationing troops Russia was able to ensure a temporary status quo between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh; in Georgia it supported the Abkhazia separatist movement; in Tajikistan it maintained the weak pro-Moscow puppet government of Imomali Rokhmonov against the Islamic opposition (UTO); in Moldova it backed the Russian separatist Transnistria republic. More recently Moscow's military grip over these republics has weakened, while new conflicts have arisen and old ones have reemerged. This development is bound up with Russia's own decline and the fact that the Central Asian and Caucasus regions have developed relations in other directions. Overall internal trade between the CIS states has fallen by two-thirds since 1991. The percentage of foreign trade has declined from 78 percent in 1991 to 24 percent today. Trade of White Russia, the Ukraine, Moldova and Kazakhstan with Russia is down between 40 and 60 percent; between Russia and the Caucasus republics of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan trade has fallen by an average of 23 percent; between Russia and the rest of the Central Asian republics (Turkmenia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) the decline on average is 13 percent. While the Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia are striving to develop close links with the European Union, the Central Asian republics and Azerbaijan aim to develop relations with Turkey, Iran and China. This process has intensified considerably since last year's financial crisis in Russia. Up to that point Russia, as the most stable of the CIS economies, was able to artificially maintain links to the republics by buying products which were uncompetitive on the world market and making available non-repayable credits. Since the August crisis, however, Russia has been "transformed from a centre of gravitation to a source of economic tremors. The main concern of all its former partners has been to put sufficient distance between themselves and Russia", according to Yuri Shishkov, deputy chairman of the Institute for World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Science. "All of the integration programmes within the framework of CIS are a thing of the past", he wrote in the weekly Obshaya Gazeta of May 13-19, 1999. The atmosphere between Russia and the "partner countries" has cooled considerably. Whereas a chorus of "hope and optimism" greeted the founding of the CIS, today it is regarded as a "listless organisation", whose authority is not taken seriously by any of the member countries. Kyrgyzstan, for example, recently joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in open defiance of the customs regulations drawn up by five of the CIS member countries. Turkmenia, which was formerly only able to offer its gas to the world market via Russian pipelines and with a Russian subsidy, now delivers through Iran and is gradually breaking all its relations with Russia. Train connections and travel without a visa between Moscow and the Turkmenian capital, Ashkhabad, have been stopped. The most significant organisation to emerge as a challenger to Russian influence is the union of states known as GUAM, formed in 1998 by Georgia, the Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova. In April 1999 the union was extended to include Uzbekistan (after which the organization's name was changed to GUUAM). From its outset the proclaimed aim of the alliance was the revival of the "Silk Road". This point was first made by the Georgian president and former foreign minister of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev, Edward Shevardnadze. At an Asian Pacific Economic Community (APEC) forum in 1994 he called for the integration of the Central Asian and Caucasus states into the world market with the aid of a trans-European Caucasus/Pacific communications system. The heart of this system is a transport route for Azeri oil which circumvents Russia and its spheres of influence. The trans- Caucasian states of Azerbaijan and Georgia would become key elements in a transport system linking Asia and Europe and controlling the passage of goods by road and rail. Such a system would be highly attractive to investors. The first projects involved in this system, such as the construction of a highway from the north Turkish industrial town of Samsun to the Georgian port of Batumi, are being built or-as with the oil pipeline between the Azerbaijani capital of Baku and the Georgian Black Sea port of Supsa-are already finished. The European Union, which partly financed this latter project, seeks as well to participate in an oil transport route between Poti and Ilytshovsk. This will secure a direct route for Azerbaijani oil to the states of western and southeastern Europe fully independent of Russia. Instead of the existing route from Grosny to Novorossik in Russia, it is to be transported by rail from Baku to the Georgian port of Poti and then transported by ship to the Ukrainian port of Odessa Ilytshovsk. Ukraine and neighbouring Moldova are making their own oil pipeline available to the Czech and Slovakian republics and Rumania, and then to Western Europe and the Balkans. By so doing they can free themselves altogether from Russian oil interests and grab their own share of business. Talks are being held with Turkmenia over oil and gas pipelines through the Caspian Sea over Baku, and further on to Georgia and Turkey. A major problem, however, is the existence of ethnic conflicts in these countries. Up until now these antagonisms were utilised by Russia to maintain its control and hinder the efforts of these states to free themselves from Moscow's grip. But with Russia's decline the GUUAM states are more and more openly opposing Moscow and seeking the support of the United States in order to assert their own interests. Uzbekistan's entry into the GUUAM alliance took place in Washington during the festivities to mark the fiftieth anniversary of NATO, which were boycotted by Russia in protest over the bombing of Yugoslavia. For their part the presidents of the GUUAM states made clear their unqualified support for the actions of the US and NATO. Moreover, since the beginning of the year joint military maneuvers by the Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Georgia have been taking place for the first time without the participation of Russia. The maneuvers were conducted as defence exercises for the newly opened oil routes. Immediately after the CIS summit in Moscow last April, these countries asserted their de facto withdrawal from the treaty of Tashkent, agreed in 1992 between the CIS states with the aim of creating a "joint defence framework". The United States has warmly approved the aims of GUUAM. As early as 1997 the US Congress passed a resolution declaring the Caspian and Caucasus region to be a "zone of vital American interests". At the end of April this year Clinton's special envoy for energy diplomacy, R. Morningstar, outlined American interests in a number of points: 1) independence, sovereignty and welfare in these countries to be secured through the imposition of economic and political reforms; 2) reducing the danger of regional conflict through the involvement of the states in international economic collaboration; 3) strengthening the energy security of the USA and its allies with the help of the countries of the Caspian region and; 4) expanding the opportunities for American corporations. An especially aggressive role is being played by oil-rich Azerbaijan, where American petroleum concerns are responsible for more than 50 percent of oil investment. Its president, Heydar Aliyev, has repeatedly boasted that "the great possibilities for the deepening and broadening of economic and military collaboration with the USA and NATO have been fully exploited". Intense efforts have been made to establish an American, Turkish or NATO base as a counterpart to Armenia (which is supported by Russia) on the territory of the former Soviet air defence base "Nasosnaya", located 45 km north of Baku. The US, which is evidently prepared to impose its interests in the region by means of military force, sent a working group of American officers under the leadership of General Charles Box on a special mission to the area. According to the Russian weekly Vyek (century), they examined the possibilities of stationing NATO troops "for the strengthening of security and stability in the Caucasus." It was more than empty words when Azerbaijani Defence Minister Safar Abiyev called for "a peace intervention by NATO" in connection with renewed fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh. He had already offered NATO the use of Azeri air installations for the Alliance's operations in Yugoslavia. Europe is also well aware of the significance of the region. NATO General Secretary Javier Solanas, who has visited the region twice in the past two years, stated, "Europe cannot be totally secure as long as the Caucasus states remain outside the borders of European security." Russian influence and CIS stability are also under threat from the Islamic side. Because of the decline in Moscow's authority, President Rachmonov of Tajikistan was forced to make further concessions to the Islamistic United Tajik Opposition (UTO), which has controlled half of the shattered country since the end of the five-year civil war in 1997. The opposition has close relations to the Afghan Taliban militia, and in the latest conflict opposition leader Nuri received four additional ministerial posts in the coalition government that was formed after the civil war. Uzbekistan, where a third of the population belongs to the ethnic Tadchikis minority, fears for its future amid growing pressure from Tajikistan and an increase in incidents on its short border with Afghanistan. Were Russia to desert its neighbour Tajikistan, and the latter to fall into the hands of the Islamists, Uzbekistan would hardly be in a position to defend its borders. This is why Uzbekistan President Karimov is seeking to secure his rule with the help of the US and GUUAM. The only CIS state to maintain unconditional loyalty to Russia is White Russia [Belarussia] , whose economy has hit rock bottom. During the Soviet era White Russia was closely integrated into the Russian economy and was known as the Russian "tool-shop". Today its economy is totally uncompetitive on the world market, and its output has declined to less than 30 percent of the level in 1989. Those seeking to determine the source of future military conflicts should follow the flow of oil and gold. The ethnic conflicts encountered along the way could well serve as the trigger for new NATO interventions. END --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From Left-Transparency at Leninism.org Mon Jul 5 00:24:53 1999 From: Left-Transparency at Leninism.org (Ben Seattle) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:55 2006 Subject: M-TH: Reply to criticisms: The June 4 suppression of the Tiananmen protests Message-ID: <01bec6af$181442b0$0100007f@penelope> ------------------------------------------------------ Note to readers: My ISP's mail server crashed shortly after I posted "Zhang Shanguang and the principles of our recovery" on June 29 and an unknown amount of mail was lost. The mail server has recently been rebuilt. If anyone replied to me--please resend. I have, to date, received no response. ------------------------------------------------------ No aspect of my series on the issues connected to Zhang Shanguang drew as much comment as my description of the June 3-4 suppression of the protest movement centered around Tiananmen Square. The most contentious issue was my reference to "hundreds of students" (in one passage) and "thousands of workers" (in another passage) being killed. I received 4 emails from 3 different lists on this subject alone. The tone of these emails varied. One asked me to be more careful to reference only reliable sources. One called me an anti-communist and described my postings as fascist garbage. I have promised to reply to all criticism within a month. Mainly to save time, but also because the subject matter is related, I will reply to these 4 emails as a group. First, I believe the criticisms are useful. In the first post I talked of "the brutal murder of hundreds of students in Tiananmen Square in 1989". This was not only mistaken, it was wrong three times over: (1) It was not mainly students who were killed but workers and people who lived in the neighborhoods and defended the barricades. Security forces and bystanders probably made up much of the remainder of the casualties. (2) Very few deaths occured in Tiananmen Square itself (3) The number of deaths, over China as a whole, was probably in the low thousands, not hundreds, although this represents something of a guess on my part. I am by no means an expert on China. I have been fascinated by mass revolutionary politics in China since the days of the Cultural Revolution (which I found to be both a source of inspiration and extremely confusing). I have no special inside connections that allow me to have a better idea than anyone else of the number who died during the crackdown on the Tiananmen protests. The post which became the first of the series was written on December 27, the day that I heard of Zhang Shanguang and learned that he was on trial. I thought it would be useful to forward the news (with my own interpretation of the significance) while the trial was still in process. When I was challenged by Henry Liu (on other aspects of my post), I looked around the web a bit to get a more accurate and complete picture (to the extent this is possible in a small amount of time) and found the interview with Dai Qing in the August 1997 issue of "Red Flag" (excerpt and url below). Dai Qing estimated the number of deaths (thruout all of China, not just Beijing) as between three and four thousand. Since that time I have seen two other estimates: (a) Adrian (on Marxism-Unmoderated, see item 4 in the appendix below) estimated 300 deaths, and (b) Recently the US State Department released a claim that the Chinese Red Cross believed there were about two and a half thousand dead and about seven thousand injured. Adrian's estimate seems to be confined to casualties in Beijing. I do not know the source of Adrian's estimate (if he wants to give it I will post it on my web page dealing with the issues relating to Zhang Shanguang). In the future I will say that estimates range from hundreds to thousands. The Chinese government would presumably have a more accurate picture of how many people were killed during this repression but, to my knowledge, has never released this information (if anyone knows different--let me know and I will link to it from my page). Since we do not have accurate figures I do not see how it is possible to do anything more than tell readers what the estimates are. What are the important issues? ------------------------------ At the same time, I hope that many readers will understand that there are other issues here that are worthy of comment. In my June 29 response to Lou Paulsen I asked the following question: > If the current regime represents the interests > of the workers and peasants--then why would it > have been necessary to use tanks to crush a popular > protest that was supported by more than a million > people? In my series that Lou criticises I posed > the question of why the Tiananmen protests, if they > were mistaken, could not have been dealt with by > mobilizing large numbers of workers as was done at > Tsinghua University during the Cultural Revolution. The interesting issue here is our conception of "socialism" and the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Both Marx and Lenin described this as the dictatorship representing the interests of the _majority_ of society over the minority of (current or former) exploiters. Yet if it is necessary that tanks and machine guns must be used to suppress a movement with such massive popular support as the Tiananmen movement enjoyed--then doesn't this call into question whether it is correct use of _scientific language_ to call the current regime in China "socialist"? I believe this question is worthy of discussion. Furthermore, I believe that _calm_ discussion of this question is called for and is what will be most useful. If I am mistaken on these questions then surely someone would be able to clearly and calmly point out my errors. Those who attempt to substitute angry name calling for calm and intelligent discussion are hurting their own cause and undermining the credibility of their own positions. People will ask why, if they are correct, they cannot create intelligent counter-arguments or reply to my questions. A tale of two audiences ----------------------- I would like to illustrate this. My view is that the communist movement must support the political right of workers in China to openly organize. My series on Zhang Shanguang began on five quasi-marxist elists. It has, to put it mildly, not been well received. Two of the lists (the Marxism-Leninism List and Leninist-International) banned the series under nonsensical pretexts which I will not even attempt to make sense of. A dozen posts were written in response to the series--and nearly all opposed it (some in a comradely way). However, what many here may not realize is that there is _another_ audience that supports my position: the audience on the web. People who come to my web sites are viewing the Zhang page and, overall, they seem to like it. Out of 286 people who have taken the poll (ie: whether Zhang belongs in prison or should be free) the results are as follows: Zhang belongs in prison .. 32% (91 votes) Zhang should be free ..... 62% (176 votes) Other .................... 7% (19 votes) This is nearly 2 to 1 in favor of Zhang having the right to speak and organize. I should add that this poll is probably reasonably accurate (ie: as a measure of my web audience). There is no way to prevent clever people from voting more than once but I have used technical means to make it slightly awkward and time-consuming for people to cheat and I estimate that less than 5% of the votes above represent duplicate votes. How do we explain the descrepency between the two audiences (the quasi-marxist elists and the web) for which I write? Many on these elists will simply write off the readers who come to my sites as influenced by bourgeois and imperialist propaganda. While I am sure that there is more than a grain of truth in such an analysis, I believe that it is a serious mistake to write off these readers. I believe another factor is also part of the explanation: my web audience is less likely to be suffering from denial. Here is what I say to my opponents on these lists: put your best arguments forward. If you think I am wrong (or acting as a pawn of imperialism, etc) put your best arguments forward. I will post them and link to them from my page. Some of my readers may read your arguments. In fact, Henry Liu's posts _against me_ are among the most commonly clicked on and read (I think many readers have genuine curiousity to learn about the rationalizations used to justify silencing workers). If your arguments are calm and seem to make sense, maybe they will have some influence. Readers will likely judge your arguments by their tone as well as content. Those posts which dismiss all accounts of brutal repression in June 1989 as worthy of Goebbels will likely not make much of an impression on very many readers. More to come ------------ I have promised to reply to all criticisms within 30 days. I am working hard to do so. It may not seem like such to my opponents, but I work hard to make my posts concentrated and to focus on those issues which really are decisive. And this means a lot of hot buttons are going to be pressed. I believe that is one reason that my posts have triggered a fair amount of anger. I still owe replies to Louis Proyect, Brian Basgen and a few others. I intend to meet my deadline. In addition, I am looking forward to replying to what I can only describe as a deeply thoughtful post by Vladimir Bilenkin (it can be found on my Zhang page). Vladimir opposes my view and I believe he is mistaken. But he opposes me in the way that I would expect a marxist revolutionary to oppose me. And, after witnessing so much silly and childish abuse, the experience is very refreshing. Sincerely, Ben Seattle ----//-// 4.Jul.99 --------------------------------------------------- Full text of the original series on Zhang Shanguang and _all_ the various criticisms can be found at: www.Leninism.org/stream/99/zhang/intro.asp See the sections: Discussion: December 1998 - February 1999 Discussion: June-July 1999 --------------------------------------------------- Appended below: --------------- 1. Stephen -- June 5 -- Leninist-International 2. Pedro -- June 8 -- Marxist-Leninist List 3. Bill -- June 9 -- Marxist-Leninist List 4. Adrian -- June 10 -- Marxism-Unmoderated 5. Interview with Dai Qing -- August 1997 6. US State Department claims 2,600 killed ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Stephen -- June 5 -- Leninist-International ------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Re: L-I: Zhang 1 -- Zhang Shanguang and the struggle for information freedom in China Ben, While there is some merit to some of your arguments that you make, I have to wonder, where do you get the idea that hundreds of students were killed on June 4th? There is plenty of evidence that workers have suffered worst, especially state workers, as a result of economic liberalization, but bandying numbers about that hardly pertain to reality hardly helps the cause of getting workers organized. In fact, it makes it easier to dismiss such movements outright. I'm reminded of a potentially excellent article by Richard Smith in the new Left Reveiew a few years back (Jan 1997 I think, or 98), about damage done to the environment and rapid development in China, espiecially in the 90's. When there are already plenty of reliable sources on the specific problems and nature of repression that workers face in the work place in differnt sectors of Chinese industry, who does Smith give as a source (among others that *were* more reliable) but Harry Wu....Who in China will take arguments from the Western Marxist left seriously when they see such sloppy referencing? And Smith doesn't have the same excuse of not knowing better that Ben Seattle ostensibly has. The former is a "china expert"... There are alternatives in the Marxist left to such trends, including the writings of Raymond lau (Hong Kong), Li Minqi (From Beijing doing a PhD at Amherst), and Gerard Greenfield....These marxists are, in my estimation, quite reliable sources of information.. ------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Pedro -- June 8 -- Marxist-Leninist List ------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: [M-L L] Re: Zhang 4 -- Zhang Shanguang and the Proletarian Revolution (part 3 of 3) Comrade Sven, I like very much this M-L List. But to read news like: "On June 3-4, 1989, the People's Liberation Army used machine guns and tanks to smash workers' barricades and storm Tiananmen Square." it's preferable to see TV, newspapers, magazines from here, Brasil. They are plenty with this new. Each day arrives a lot of posts from M-L L and I have no time to read news from the corporate press we have here a lot. If the above news has some analysis of the foreign covert groups at Tiananmen Square, ok, it's desirable. Otherwise I prefer don't read posts M-L L. Fraternally, Pedro ------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Bill -- June 9 -- Marxist-Leninist List ------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: [M-L L] Zhang Shanguang and the Massacre of Truth Ben Seatle wrote: > Recently we marked the tenth anniversary of the brutal > repression of students and workers in Beijing, China. On > June 3-4, 1989, the People's Liberation Army used machine > guns and tanks to smash workers' barricades and storm > Tiananmen Square. John Simpson, a reporter for BBC television, dispatched dozens of the most blood-curdling reports from China, for domestic consumption during those days. A few weeks later, back home, during a TV chat-show he happened to mention in passing: "Well, I didn t actually see any dead bodies" ------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Adrian -- June 10 -- Marxism-Unmoderated ------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: M-U: Re: Zhang 7 -- Zhang Shanguang and the river in Egypt Why do we tolerate this counter revolutionary anti Chinese workers state garbage? This is not Marxism it is provocation designed to bolster the lies and innuendo of a Tian an Men "assacre"and to feed the relentless CIA hostility to the Chinese workers state. Despite the presence of the world' press in Tii an Men for two months during these events not one single picture of a "massacre" was ever or could ever be published. There was no massacre. Stories of 10,000 shot down and the bodies burned in the square before dawn etc were poured out by the west but then disappeared as the ludcrous impossibility of this sunk in and more rational eye witness accounts prevailed. But any lie suits western interests and to hell with logic -0 emotinal frenzy and hatred is all that counts. Goebbels never had it so good. But as with all "big lie" technique the aftertaste of a "massacre" story (endlessly re-stated by innuendo in press accounts - often by less than knowing ignorant journalists whose "massacre" comments are never corrected despite being wrong even by western stanbdards) has been left to linger in the public mind. Bolstered by our anti communist friend on these lists. The deaths that occured were in skirmishing around the square by the protesters determined to provoke the state forces - and a large proprtion of the deaths were those of state forces. Numbers were a few hundred (about 300) counting both sides. The movement itself was rampantly pro west and "democratic" ie bourgeois and used as its symbol the Stature of Liberty - the symbol of the USA - the worlds biggest imperialist power and most brutal - this was provocation to try and stimulate a downfall equivalent to Gorbachev's (where the plans worked). Fortunately for all its sometimes weak positions and revisionist understanding the Chinese workers state forces FINALLY held their ground (despite hesitating far too long). No wonder the USA was not so very upset to blitz the embassy in Yugoslavia (whatever diplomatic niceties there are abour errors, and even if it was an error). Incidentally the famous picture of a man in front of a tank-line proves what??/ Only that the tanks DID NOT crush people - very polite in the face of the attacks and beatings of soldiers and police (of which there are some very graphic pictures for REAL). Get off the computer with this fascist garbage ------------------------------------------------------------ 5. Interview with Dai Qing -- August 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------ >From August 1997 "Red Flag", journal of the Communist Party of Aotearoa (New Zealand) http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/cpa/RedFlag/redflag897.html "In the square itself no more than 10 people died. In the immediate vicinity no more than one hundred. But in Beijing in total there would have been around one thousand and throughout China between three and four thousand members of the democracy movement were killed." I referenced this in: "Zhang 2 -- Zhang Shanguang and the Proletarian Revolution (part 2 of 3)" and also noted: The Beijing Evening News of 3 August 1989 reported that clean-up crews totaling 156,000 people dismantled more than 570 roadblocks, washed away or painted over more than 30,000 slogans, and picked up more than 80 tons of bricks and stones that protesters had gathered to throw at army units. ------------------------------------------------------------ 6. US State Department claims 2,600 killed ------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.insidechina.com/news.php3?id=72116 Document Says 2,600 Killed, 7,200 Injured At Tiananmen Massacre Jun 4, 1999 -- Up to 2,600 people were killed and 7,000 injured when China used tanks and troops in a bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square 10 years ago, a report here said Friday, quoting declassified US information. Eleven students were crushed to death by tanks, according to one document cited in the China Times daily report. The death and injury toll was obtained from China's Red Cross and was not an unreasonable estimate, according to a US State Department paper. Beijing authorities have never released an official casualty toll. The 35 declassified documents, including reports from the US embassy in Beijing and State Department dispatches to the embassy between June 2 and June 29, 1989, were released by the George Washington University, the China Times said. A June 22 dispatch to the State Department quoted students as saying they witnessed 11 demonstrators from Beijing and Qinghua Universities crushed to death by tanks and another student lost his legs. Students who stood in the front lines facing the troops wore heavy coats thinking they could ward off rubber bullets, the witnesses said. It wasn't until they saw their friends fall that they realized real bullets were being fired. In a June 4 dispatch to the embassy, the State Department said Taiwan President Lee Teng-hui had summoned the US representative in Taipei David Dean to express his indignation over the crackdown and urged Washington to condemn and impose sanctions on Beijing. The documents said the student-led pro-democracy movement sprouted in November 1987 and the march commemorating the anniversary of the death of former Chinese leader Hu Yaoban was a prelude to the Tiananmen tragedy. <> --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk Mon Jul 5 03:23:07 1999 From: r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk (Russ) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:55 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re:Linux In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990703073553.01065b3c@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Chris, Interesting baby is Linux (and equally interesting questions raised in relation to the commodity form)-... an unfinished operating system its fans till now have been people with very few resources and hackers, but it's recently become flavour of the month and dubbed a threat to Micrsoft's near monopoly. What it's got going in its favour is that it's free, readily available and can run on a very low spec machine. It's 'lean' software, so unlike windows it doesn't come with loads of redundant or nerver used drivers, it aint pretty for the most part and thus can run on a 386 with bugger all memory. All very nice if you're a clever techie with no money, ie you live outside of the west. And since it's an unfinished system it's very adaptable. Create the most secure site and some hacker running a Linux box will find a work around by expanding and adapting the system. Whether it becomes a genuine rival to Unix, MS or Apple's OS is a moot point. Whether it enters the commodity market as a commodity is not so difficult. It currently occupies limbo land as both free product and semi-commodity (it's free but you need to get hold of a copy wgich means buying or borroiwing a CD or downloading it, and then you need access to the manuals etc). If it's taken up and developed we might see new copyrighted versions which would defeat the object of its original inventor and the anarcho-anoraks who have developed it. But to work, I'll see what I can find in terms of recent developments. Russ --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk Mon Jul 5 07:03:13 1999 From: r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk (Russ) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH::Linux In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.2.32.19990703073553.01065b3c@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: >From Wired News: "In an attempt to provide structure for what has been a strictly volunteer effort, the loose-knit Apache Group on Wednesday re-formed itself as a nonprofit corporation. Now known as the Apache Software Foundation (ASF), the new nonprofit will provide organizational, legal, and financial support for the group's open-source software projects. Apache, a free Web server based on Linux, currently powers more than 56 percent of all sites on the Net, according to data from NetCraft. Famous for developing and maintaining the Apache Web server since 1995, ASF said in a statement that the corporation would also provide stability for its growing roster of customers. The Apache Project earlier this month announced that it would be incorporating part of Sun Microsystems' new Java 2 server platform into the Web server. The Foundation said it hopes to ensure "the continuity of Apache projects beyond the participation of individual volunteers ... and provide a vehicle for limiting legal exposure while participating in open-source projects." The foundation said it will preserve all the characteristics of collaborative development that made Apache successful. Though it will oversee projects and their licenses, the foundation will not interfere with day-to-day technical decisions, which will be left to a project's members, the foundation said. The ASF also elected a board of directors comprised of contributors to the original Apache Group. " "Embellishing Linux: Objective Reality Computer is working on a new three-dimensional interface for Linux. Code-named Synapse, the new interface will project familiar interface elements like windows, buttons, and scroll bars into three dimensions. However, though it is designed for Linux, the project's programming code will not be open-source. "Unfortunately, money currently makes the world go 'round," the company says on its Web site. Objective Reality hopes to release the first developer version in early August for $40, with the first consumer version to follow by the end of the year. It will initially be available only for Linux running on PCs, followed by Linux running on Macs and the BeOS, the company said. Microsoft Windows and MacOS support is not planned. Synapse won't be a resource hog, the company said, requiring only an AMD K6 chip or Intel Pentium processor running at 133 MHz or above, 16 MB of RAM, and a 3-D accelerator card. " --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From Left-Transparency at Leninism.org Mon Jul 5 08:35:34 1999 From: Left-Transparency at Leninism.org (Ben Seattle) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re: Linux Message-ID: <01bec6f3$a41206f0$0100007f@penelope> Hi everyone, I am forwarding this from another list since it seems to be relevant. Ben -----Original Message----- From: Ben Seattle To: marxism@lists.panix.com Date: Friday, June 25, 1999 8:48 PM Subject: Re: Free software and socialism Irwiman: >I don't know if any of you follow the Free Software > movement, but it does have some striking similarities > to socialism. thousands of people all contributing > towards the betterment of the software, for free. This > movement sprung up almost spontaniously from a > capitalist environment, and has produced >(in my opinion) a suprisingly superior product. Below is an excerpt from a post of mine in February 1998 to the Spoon's M-I titled "Communist relations of production within present-day capitalist society". (Some minor inaccuracies exist in the essay.) Ben Seattle ----//-// 25.Jun.99 ------------------------------------------------------------ The GPL model of development was created by Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation and, in its essence, is a _communist method of wealth creation_. It is based on the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". The wealth created under the GPL model is available for free and the labor is voluntary and unpaid. Communist wealth creation ========================= This is a _communist_ method of wealth creation because everything takes place _without exchange_ of one commodity for another (ie: there is no exchange involving the labor-commodity, the universal money-commodity or any other commodity). This is a communist method of wealth creation because the form of wealth produced _is not a commodity_. It cannot be sold or owned. The wealth that is created is produced _for use_ and not _for exchange_ with anything else. Similarly, the labor involved in this process is not a commodity either. It is "free labor" (not in the capitalist sense of being free to be exploited, but in the communist sense of being free to serve humanity) and, as such, holds the potential for _vastly higher productivity_ in terms of the creation of products that genuinely serve the needs of the majority of the population. In fact, all components of this process are freely given as in a "gift economy". Communist _relations of production_ characterize this process because no one can _own_ (or control--ie: "virtual ownership") the _means of production_ and no one can marshall appreciable _leverage_ to compel anyone else to labor in accord with anything other than their conscience or their desire to serve the general good. [...] Historical Perspective ====================== The seeds of the capitalist mode of production took root in the period of feudal rule in Europe. Before these capitalist shoots could fully develop, however, it became necessary for the emerging bourgeoisie to overthrow the feudal system. The significance of the GPL model of software development us that it gives us a fascinating glimpse of how economic wealth will be created in the moneyless economy of the future. And, for this reason, this recent development is of extraordinary importance. These communist shoots will, similarly, require the overthrow of the system of bourgeois rule in order to fully make good on their potential. [..] Readers are invited to check out my essay "The Self-Organizing Moneyless Economy" at: www.Leninism.org/some --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From poseidon at tinet.ie Tue Jul 6 02:59:58 1999 From: poseidon at tinet.ie (George Pennefather) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re:Linux References: Message-ID: <006e01bec78e$867d61c0$14fe869f@tinet.ie> Hi Russ, Interesting piece. But what about Unix. I hear people talking about Unix and its advantages. I still dont really understand, I'm a philistine here, what is all this about Unix. Could I run Microsoft Word on it. How do I install etc. George Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank Website: http://homepage.tinet.ie/~beprepared Hi Chris, Interesting baby is Linux (and equally interesting questions raised in relation to the commodity form)-... an unfinished operating system its fans till now have been people with very few resources and hackers, but it's recently become flavour of the month and dubbed a threat to Micrsoft's near monopoly. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1105 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/attachments/19990706/604fd42e/attachment.txt From r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk Tue Jul 6 05:07:55 1999 From: r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk (Russ) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re:Linux/Unix In-Reply-To: <006e01bec78e$867d61c0$14fe869f@tinet.ie> References: Message-ID: > Hi Russ, Interesting piece. But what about Unix. I hear people >talking about Unix and its advantages. I still dont really understand, >I'm a philistine here, what is all this about Unix. Could I run Microsoft >Word on it. How do I install etc. George Be free to check out our >Communist Think-Tank Website: >http://homepage.tinet.ie/~bepreparedHi Chris, > Hi George, Unix is a major league operating system best suited for corporate sites, though some techies might disagree with that. Sun systems (who developed Java) pump out a lot of Unix related stuff and they own at least one brand of Unix operating systems- http://www.sun.com . It aint easy and is run in much the same way that Microsoft's old DOS system was- ie by tapping in text commands, though there are probably easier interfaces nowadays. Linux is a Unix type system, with the difference that it's free and easier interfaces are being developed- see earlier mail. To install either you'd need to get hold of a copy on disk or download it. I've never done it and I understand that it's not especially easy! If there's a Word for Unix it should run on it, but Word for 95 won't. My advice, stick with an operating system with an easy GUI (Graphical User Interface) and spend the extra time and headaches saved by arguing on Thaxis or drinking beer or making a revolution! Russ --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From carob at dynamite.com.au Tue Jul 6 08:38:20 1999 From: carob at dynamite.com.au (Rob Schaap) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: Give me the child when he is seven ... Message-ID: <199907061432.AAA21077@m0.dynamite.com.au> G'day Thaxists, I'm off to see *42-Up* next week. Has anyone seen it yet? Don't steal all the thunder - but surely there must be stuff we should talk about here? Apted had class in mind when he conceived this bit of televisual genius back in '64, and he's never really left that theme alone since - and, being a Brit, Apted does tend to leave the audience with a lot to do. So, is anyone game to help doing some of it? For those who've let the telly pass them by these last 35 years, Michael Apted interviewed some seven-year-olds (boys and girls from 'the two classes') in 1964 ('Seven-Up'), and has come back to haunt them (or so it seems to some of his chosen few) every seven years since (hence '42-Up' now). If you've a video, I reckon it's the best stuff ever to grace a TV screen. But that's speaking mainly from an emotional and voyeuristic point of view - it has, funnily enough, never occurred to me to distance myself enough actually to think about this stuff - which is funny coming from a self-professed lefty of precisely the same vintage as the show's stars. Waddyareckon? Rob. --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk Tue Jul 6 09:55:27 1999 From: jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk (Jim heartfield) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: Give me the child when he is seven ... In-Reply-To: <199907061432.AAA21077@m0.dynamite.com.au> References: <199907061432.AAA21077@m0.dynamite.com.au> Message-ID: Anyone in London tomorrow (Wednesday) night might be interested in this: Dave Chandler will be discussing his book Bosnia: Faking Democracy After Dayton, Weds., 7 July, 7.30pm, Room 10, Friends House, 173-7 Euston Road, London NW1, opposite Euston station. Admission ?3. Dave has also written an article on the Bosnian model for Kosovo in the new issue of New Left Review. -- Jim heartfield --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Jul 7 09:35:05 1999 From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: On denial of racism Message-ID: http://www.zmag.org/Commentaries/mar_13wise.htm ZNet Commentary March 13, 1999 Racism and "Preferential Treatment" by the Numbers By Tim Wise Association for White Anti-Racist Education (AWARE) Anyone who does political analysis, advocacy or organizing knows that folks on all sides of an issue have "numbers." Trotting out statistics to prove one's point about something is a well-accepted practice, and yet rarely do we stop to think about what certain numbers mean: be they used by "our side," or by political adversaries. As someone who works full-time doing antiracism work, I constantly run across those whose "numbers" are thrown at me in an attempt to prove two things in particular: 1) that racist attitudes among whites are virtually nonexistent nowadays; and, 2) that the only real discrimination still in evidence is that dreaded "reverse" kind, as in so-called affirmative action "preferences." Herein, I would like to address both claims, with reference to numbers, and what they do (and don't) mean. With regards to the first issue-white racial attitudes-my general response has always been that no matter how much improved are the views expressed to pollsters, the real issue is institutional inequity; and that is something that requires no overt bigotry for its perpetuation. While I still believe this is an important point, I've also come to realize that in some ways it's a cop out: after all, there are real people behind those institutions, making real decisions, and others who don't make decisions themselves but nonetheless collaborate with the system as it is. It is with that in mind that I decided to look a bit more deeply at the numbers used by folks like D'Souza, Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom, and others to "prove" how much more tolerant are today's white folks. Although there have been many polls in recent years indicating that between 30-70% of all whites believe blacks are generally lazy, less determined to succeed, and more violent and aggressive, those who deny the persistence of racism tend to ignore these numbers, focusing instead on the one or two surveys which bolster their position. So, for example, I have heard it said with great pride by many race commentators on the right, that only a very small percentage-perhaps 5% -of whites now say that blacks and other people of color are "inferior races" in the biological sense. This is of course an improvement since the 1940's, at which time a clear plurality, or even the majority of whites would have responded positively to this Bell Curve-ish proposition. However, a few things should be remembered: first, there are still obviously enough people willing to entertain the notion of biological determinism so as to make The Bell Curve a best seller (not in the 1940's after all, but in 1995), and secondly, even if we accept the 5% figure as an accurate reflection of what people think, we should be clear on just how many folks that represents. We're so used to hearing percentages, that often if we hear that "only" 5% think something, we think it to be a fringe viewpoint, hardly worthy of concern. But when we look deeper-or simply pull out the 1998 Statistical Abstracts of the United States-it becomes clear that 5% of the white population holding essentially Hitlerian views about racial inferiority/superiority is more of a big deal than previously believed. Even if we subtract from the white population totals all whom the Census Bureau dubs "Hispanic whites," leaving only those whom folks like David Duke might consider sufficiently Caucasian, there are nearly 200 million whites in the U.S. today. Thus, 5% of the white population is approximately 10 million persons; in this instance ten million persons who adhere to the purest racism imaginable, and would be considered racist under pretty much anyone's definition. Well just how many people is that? Is it really such a small group that we shouldn't concern ourselves with it? Is it so small that people of color who concern themselves with ongoing discrimination and unequal treatment must be paranoid or overreacting? Hardly. Compare these 10 million with a number of other population cohorts, many or most of which the right (and others) are worried about, and in some cases about which they are apoplectic. Consider that 10 million overt white racists is: twice the number of "illegal immigrants" (approximately 5 million) currently residing in the U.S; at least five times the estimated size of the so-called "hardcore underclass," (between 1.5-2 million) about which the right is constantly in an uproar; more than three times the number of black single-moms with children (about 3 million), who, according to contemporary political discourse are responsible for many of the nation's worst problems; 40% more than the total number of persons who will commit a violent crime this year (roughly 7 million); 1000 times more than all the drunk drivers who will be involved in a fatal crash this year (less than 11,000); one-third more than all the babies born to teenagers in the last twenty years (about 6.5 million); 10 times more than the number of persons who will be reported for abusing or neglecting a child this year; more than five times the number of persons currently in jail or prison nationwide; 3.5 times more than the total number of federal government employees put together (and you know what a problem people think those "bureaucrats" are); four times the number of single-moms receiving cash "welfare" payments, even before recent "reforms" bumped tens of thousands off the rolls; And for a few final points of comparison, 10 million overt white racists is: twice the number of whites who are officially unemployed, and equal to the number who are actually out of work or underemployed in today's economy; and, more than all the cashiers, secretaries, police officers, waiters, waitresses and cooks in the U.S. combined; and it is more than all the farmers, lawyers, telephone operators, child care workers, cops and classroom teachers combined. In short, "only" 5% of the white population is a lot of people, so that even by the most optimistic assessment of white racial attitudes, there are literally millions holding overtly racist views. When combined with those whose views are less vicious, but nonetheless hostile, and those who aren't hostile at all, but who simply refuse to speak up against those who are, it becomes clear just how real a problem racism-even on the purely attitudinal level-remains today. As for the second issue-so-called preferential treatment-numbers again are important. Although opponents of affirmative action typically shy away from numbers here-choosing instead to focus on individual (often inaccurate) anecdotes about victims of reverse discrimination-those of us who fight for racial equity tend to offer up a bevy of statistics indicating the real nature of preferential treatment which has worked to the benefit of whites. And make no mistake, showing the degree of preferential treatment afforded whites-both historically and today-is exactly what we need to be doing. The problem about which I have become acutely aware, however, is that numbers alone are not enough: mainly because we often don't explain them in a way which makes sense to people. For years I have lectured to students and community groups about the multitude of preference programs available to whites throughout the years which have been largely off limits to people of color. My hope was that by doing so, I could place in context the discussion of "preferential treatment," being offered up by the right, and thus undermine some of its ability to persuade. Although my efforts were sometimes successful, it was only when I began to " break down" some of the numbers I was using, that clear majorities of the often hostile white audiences would begin to get that puzzled look which lets you know they are having to think about something for the first time. For example, for years now I have used the government's FHA (Federal Housing Administration) loan guarantee program as an example of preference for whites which still has effects in the here-and-now. As most of you know, from 1934-1962, the FHA guaranteed and underwrote over $120 billion worth of home equity for over 35 million white families. Due to racially-restrictive underwriting policies, this font of public largesse was virtually off limits to families of color, who generally couldn't receive FHA loans for homes in white suburbs. This process entrenched residential segregation which then contributed to educational and employment inequity for persons of color. This much is known, and irrefutable, as is the fact that the value of that home equity-which is in the process of being handed down to today's white baby-boomers or their children-is now approximately $10 trillion. But when I would talk in these terms-"millions" of white families, and "hundreds of billions" or "trillions" of dollars-it was obvious that many a person's eyes were glazing. Fact is, folks simply don't have a reference point for numbers that big, and so they tend to go in one ear and out the other. So about a year ago, I turned again to the Statistical Abstracts, and was able to cobble together the following comparisons, which help to put the magnitude of this one program's preferences in clear perspective: $10 trillion dollars (the current value of the housing equity loaned preferentially to whites throughout the middle of this century) is: More than all the outstanding mortgage debt, all the credit card debt, all the savings account assets, all the money in IRA's and 401k retirement plans, all the annual profits for U.S. manufacturers, and our entire merchandise trade deficit combined. Now read that again. The first time I ever shared this information with an audience (and I'm not talking about a left audience, I mean just typical not-all-that-political students, and their professors), the sound of disbelief emanating from their lungs was more than a little noticeable-and in a way that it had never been when I had shared the numbers in an abstract, purely intellectual way. Now the face of preference had a context; one that they could understand; and one which makes the claims of the opponents of racial equity seem petty and disingenuous even to many of the most skeptical listeners. The lessons of this already too lengthy commentary are simple: make sure to deconstruct (for lack of a better term) the statistics offered by political commentators, to find what's really underneath the surface; and learn to break down the statistics you use in your own work, so as to give them real meaning for people. Given the appropriately cynical attitude many have towards what any political commentator or activist has to say, it is not enough to try and win debating points about whose percentages are better. Rather, it is necessary to make folks understand the faces behind the numbers, and the real-life impact of political decisions. The Statistical Abstracts can't do that. Only we can. Copyright (c) 1999 ZNet/Tim Wise [Articles on BRC-NEWS may be forwarded and cross-posted, as long as proper attribution is given to the author and originating publication, and the wording is not altered in any way. In particular, if there is a reference to a web site where an article was originally located, please do *not* remove that. Do not post the entire text of any copyrighted articles on web sites (web-based discussion forums exempted), without getting *explicit* permission from the article author or copyright holder. As a courtesy, we'd appreciate it if you let folks know how to subscribe to BRC-NEWS, by leaving in the first two lines of the signature below. Thank you.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- BRC-NEWS: Black Radical Congress - General News/Alerts/Announcements -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: Email "subscribe brc-news" to -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: Email "unsubscribe brc-news" to -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From Estevm at aol.com Wed Jul 7 09:01:16 1999 From: Estevm at aol.com (Estevm@aol.com) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: The Evil "Crony Capitalism" of Russia and Asia Message-ID: Dear Comrades, It is problematic that so many western Marxists keep on making references to the "the crony capitalism" of Russia and Asian countries as being responsible for their own crisies, and therefore the global financial and economic troubles of the last two years. "Cronyism" is integrally bound up with capital itself and is most rampant in its two main power centres of Wall Street and London. Unfortunately many of these ?Marxists? are not going to easily stop their echoing of the western bosses chauvinism - as doing this would require a much higher committment to militant class struggle than most of them are prepared to give at the moment - a radical transformation in their lifestyle. It would mean they stop seeing the world through western-centred ?Marxist? tinted glasses. It would mean they listen attentively to Marxists outside the west. And, outside of a crash or slump in western economies, and the loss of their own relative economic privileges (or pre-revolutionary situations developing in the west), they will continue to represent within the world marxist movement the most lethal carriers, the concentrated essence of that most deadly disease: the penetration of bourgeois ideology and of alienation within our diffuse and confused world Marxist ?movement?. Below is a straight forward Asian, even bourgeois, view from Chalmers Johnson in the Los Angeles Times . It also points out that even non-Marxist students across Asia, "from Seoul to Kuala Lumpur to Beijing", see clearer than many western Marxists when it comes to the source of crony capitalism. Regards, Steve Myers. _______________________________ LA Times - Friday, June 25, 1999 Let's Revisit Asia's 'Crony Capitalism' Economy: America's free-trade proselytizing is the true root of what is now a global crisis. By CHALMERS JOHNSON After all the endless mouthing off in the pages of the English-language business press about East Asia's "crony capitalism," the lack of "transparency" in Asian stock exchanges, the "no pain, no gain" logic of the International Monetary Fund and how the Asian economic challenge to Anglo American capitalism had fizzled, we now know that none of these things had anything to do with the Asian--now global--economic crisis. Addressing what did cause the crisis is the main business of the leaders of the countries of East Asia as they reflect on what has happened to them over the past two years. If they ignore this question and pretend that the road is still open to "globalization" in the Pacific, they risk being repudiated by their own people. Here's the new explanation as it is developing in seminar rooms from Seoul to Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. With the end of the Cold War, the United States decided it had to launch a rollback operation in East Asia if it was to maintain its global hegemony. The high-growth economies of East Asia had become the main challengers to American power in the region, and it was time they were brought to heel. The campaign worked in two phases. First, a major ideological barrage was launched to soften up the Asians. The Americans mobilized famous professors of economics from their universities, who never once faced a "market force" in their own lives, to preach the beauties of globalization; in this case meaning American economic institutions. These include total laissez faire, destruction of unions and social safety nets, staffing of regulatory agencies with retired financiers, indifference to the pay differentials between CEOs and the ordinary labor force, moving manufacturing to low-wage areas regardless of the social costs and totally unregulated flows of capital in and out of any and all economies. Ever since the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in 1993, the Americans hammered home to the Asians that they needed to "open up" their economies in these ways. Then came phase two. Once the Asian economies had begun to "deregulate" and were standing in the world marketplace more or less naked, the "hedge funds" were let loose on them. These funds are actually huge concentrations of capital owned by very wealthy Western white men, who manipulate bewilderingly complex financial instruments called "derivatives." They usually locate their offices in offshore tax havens like the Cayman Islands and do everything in their power to avoid regulators or tax collectors in the so-called free market democracies. The funds easily raped Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea and then turned the shivering survivors over to the IMF, not to help the victims but to ensure that no Western bank was stuck with "nonperforming" loans in the devastated countries. The IMF is also the U.S. government's chosen instrument for "reforming" these countries to make them look more like New York. The Americans suspected that all this might cause some trouble. On March 4, 1998, Adm. Joseph Prueher, then commander in chief of American military forces located in East Asia and today the U.S. ambassador-designate to China, testified before Congress that the U.S. military was on alert for "early signs of instability" in East Asia, including "labor disputes." The Indonesian armed forces, whom Prueher's special forces had been training for years, got rid of Suharto when it seemed necessary. The Indonesian troops killed about 1,200 shopkeepers and raped more than 150 Chinese women doing so. But then it all got a bit out of hand. One of the biggest hedge funds proved to be so greedy that the U.S. government had to organize a bailout for it, which brought the scheme out into the open. David Mullins, a former deputy to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, had gone straight to work for the Long-Term Capital Management fund after he left the Fed in 1994. Had this not been the case, it's unlikely that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York would have arranged a $3.5-billion rescue package for the hedge fund. The incestuous relationship between Washington and Wall Street?what Columbia University economist Jagdish Bhagwati calls the Wall Street-Treasury complex--made East Asia's crony capitalism look tame. The weakened economies of East Asia also could not continue to buy the weapons the Pentagon wanted to sell them, and some began to have second thoughts about paying to keep U.S. Marines (a.k.a. the Hedge Fund Protective Corps) in their countries. Globalization was discredited as a crooked financier's scam. The Chinese never looked so clever as they did in keeping out of the World Trade Organization as did the Japanese when they more or less ignored the pleas for "reform" from Washington. These issues came to a head in Kuala Lumpur in November 1998. The U.S. trade representative, Charlene Barshefsky, accused the Japanese of offering $30 billion in aid to the stricken countries of East Asia as a way of buying their votes against further market-opening measures. The Japanese foreign ministry responded that the U.S. government was possessed by "an evil spirit," a phrase painfully close to the evil empire epithet that former President Reagan used against the Soviet Union. Vice President Al Gore then gave a speech in the Malaysian capital, denouncing its head of state for trying to protect his country from international speculators and calling on the people of Malaysia to overthrow him. After that, APEC no longer had a future worth speaking of. The Americans do not seem to understand that their message of free trade and market economics is in serious disrepute. Wall Street itself now looks like the ancestral home of crony capitalism. _____________________________________________ Chalmers Johnson Is President of the Japan Policy Research Institute in San Diego. His Forthcoming Book Is "Blowback: the Costs of the American Empire" --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Jul 7 12:07:04 1999 From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: Capitalism IS wage-labor + racism Message-ID: Y wrote: >The Enlightenment philosophy developed their thoughts on freedom with *a >double consciousness*: *free labor* and *chattel slavery & colonialism*. >The idea of freedom born of the Enlightened double consciousness bequeathed >us two problems. > >(1) The freedom of wage labor (that is to say free labor) was reified, >fetishized, and projected upon 'human nature.' When Hegel, Kant, etc. spoke >of freedom, they meant freedom in the sense of the spirit of the market: >"liberty, equality, and Bentham." One may also consult Max Weber and think >of the relation between the Reformation and the dawn of capitalism. (2) On >the other hand, the Enlightened philosophers were not unaware of unfreedom >of the colonized and the enslaved. And that is why, for instance, in the >Hegelian system Africans had to be defined away from world history: the >sphere of the Spirit and its realization. First, segments of humanity (e.g. >women in general, enslaved Africans) were *condemned to unfreedom*, and >then they were accused of being *incapable of freedom*. Here we find the >birth of properly modern racism: the justification of racial and gender >inequality at the same time as (and required by) the proclamation of >freedom for the (white male bourgeois) individual. ((((((((((((((( Z: Wouldn't be more accurate to say that the Enlightenment thinkers (contrary to their own advertising and that of their adulators) failed to transcend their own socioeconomic environment, just like the vast majority of other thinkers? It was this environment, i.e., merchant capital developing into full-scale capitalism, which (1) created what Marx called "doubly free labor" (via the process of primitive accumulation described in volume I of CAPITAL) and (2) slowly unified European countries into nation-states (via Absolutism and Mercantilism) which spread over the rest of the world, conquering, looting, and dominating them and imposing European male, and eventually bourgeois, rule. (((((((((((((((((( Charles: I don't know if it is more accurate to say it this way. It might be a way of looking at it from a different angle. But it is not only that the Enlightenment thinkers failed to transcend their own socioeconomic environment, but that they helped to provide a rationale for slavery, colonialism and male supremacy. Afterall, after founding the doctrine of equality of all men (sic), if it was followed consistently, slavery and colonialism would have been in violation of that principle of equality. So, the non-humanity of some "men" had to be an amendment to the liberals' conception. All men are equal, but these darker beings are not people. By the way, I think if you look at Chapter XXXI_Capital_ Vol. 1, you will find that the primitive accumulation was in the removal of the peasants from the land ( in the "doubly free" process) AND it had its "chief momenta" ,as Marx puts it, in slavery and colonialism. Quoth: "Chapter XXXI "Genesis of The Industrial Capitalist" The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population , the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation...Today industrial supremacy implies commercial supremacy. In the period of manufacture properly so called, it is, on the other hand, the commercial supremacy that gives industrial predominance. Hence the preponderant role that the colonial system plays at that time ..." As "chief momenta" ("prime movers" ?) and in the preponderant role, the colonial system and colonial and slave labor were as necessary to the origin and constitution of capitalism as removing the European peasants from their land and making them "doubly free" or "free labor" or "wage-labor". ((((((((((((((( Z: Like bourgeois society itself, the Enlightenment was a two-edged sword, (1) breaking with parochialism, feudal hierarchy, scholasticism, and the obscurantism of the Roman Catholic Church, while (2) leaving unquestioned and, more often apologizing for, the European conquest of the periphery. I think this is one of those cases where the materialist conception of history helps a lot. It opens up the possibility that with the benefit of hindsight and because we are perceiving and thinking in a different socioeconomic environment, we might help Enlightenment thinkers transcend their own socioeconomic environment. That is, instead of rejecting the Enlightenment one hundred percent, we might clean it up, dumping the Eurocentric, racist, or sexist aspects the way we should dump the alchemy and astrology from Newton. ((((((((((((( Charles: Agree. But what do you think of modifying the materialist conception of history of the capitalist mode of production by saying that it is not only defined by wage-labor but by a racist/colonialist division of labor ? Racism and colonialism are and have always been as fundamental to capitalist relations of production as is wage-labor. Racism is part of the infrastructure, not just superstructure. It is not just ideology, but a material practice fundamental and necessary to capitalist relations of production. As you say above, it is inherent to the socio-economic environment of the Enlightenment. It does not originate in the thinking of the Enlightenment thinkers as superstructure. It appears in superstructure, in Enlightenment thinking , as a reflection of its existence in the infrastructure or relations of production, which as you say, the Enlightenment thinkers were not able to transcend. To say the Enlightenment thinkers were not able to transcend it is to say impliedly that it was a s! ubstantial aspect of that socio economic formation. From the primitive accumulation to globalism, racism and colonialsim are a necessary condition of capitalism. --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From Left-Transparency at Leninism.org Thu Jul 8 01:27:14 1999 From: Left-Transparency at Leninism.org (Ben Seattle) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: Will democratic rights undermine China's struggle against imperialism? (reply to Vladimir) Message-ID: <01bec913$4ce6d370$0100007f@penelope> [ Of all of the criticisms I received in response [ to my series on the principles bound up with [ Zhang Shanguang, the most sober and [ thoughtful was by Vladimir Bilenkin. [ I include the most relevant excepts from it [ here, together with my response. The full [ text of Valdimir's letter can be seen on my [ web page devoted to these issues at: [ www.Leninism.org/stream/99/zhang/intro.asp Hi Vladimir, First, I want to express, again, my appreciation for your thoughtful email. Many people (quite possibly the majority) on the various lists will find themselves in agreement with your views. What you have done, however, is to express these views clearly, calmly and concisely. Your views set an example of the power of calm and thoughtful discussion. Your views will help to outline some of the principles we must keep in mind as we explore the question of what attitude genuine communists must take in relation to the development of the workers' movement in China. I will discuss your three key paragraphs. I have given each of the three paragraphs a number and a heading. First, for the benefit of readers who have not seen them, I reproduce the three paragraphs (broken down here into eight smaller paragraphs). My comments will follow. > ----------------------------------------------- > -- 1 -- > A victorious "democratic movement" > will be ruinous to Chinese workers and peasants > ----------------------------------------------- > > I think that your solidarity with Lee on > the Tienanmen affair is a mistake. By this > I mean your agreement that bourgeois democratic > reforms in China and the freedom of information > implied in this development will benefit Chinese > proletariat, as well as the cause of the > international working class as we, communists, > understand it. I believe that a victorious > "democratic movement," in the form and content it > exists under present historical circumstances, > will be as ruinous to China's position in the > world AND chinese workers and peasants as it has > been for the USSR and Soviet workers. > > China today > is national-bourgeois state controlled by its > state-party bureaucracy. This bureaucracy is > venal, it merges more and more with the national > bourgeoisie, it ruthlessly puts down any > opposition to its course from workers and > peasants, etc, etc. But this regime, as you have > readily acknowledged in your letter, provides an > extraodinary rapid development of China's > productive forces. This is why this regime finds > significant support among the population. With > this regime China is on the way to becoming a > superpower, or a state capable of preventing > Western imperialism from achieving its global > goals. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > -- 2 -- > Victory of Western imperialism would reduce China to > client states, puppet regimes and dependent economies > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Now, it is not hard to foresee what will happen to > China should its "democratic forces" succeed. We > have seen this in the SU, and, on a smaller scale, > are going to see shortly in what remains of > Yugoslavia. The scenario is well-known. There will > be ethnic strife and separatist movements assisted > by imperialist agencies. If succeeded, in place > of a powerful nation and the state--still > preserving some socially progressive features and > capable of making independent political, social, > and economic choices--there will be a number of > client states, puppet regimes, and dependent > economies which will serve as huge pools of cheap > labor force, raw materials, and dumping sites for > their imperialist masters. > > What will be the > consequences of this for class struggle in the > West? Most likely, it will come to a standstill. > A well-organized exploitation of this region will > allow the ruling classes of Western Empire to > pacify its population completely, to turn it into > a Roman plebs satiated with spectacles and bread > (we have a lot of this plebs already). > > --------------------------------------------------- > -- 3 -- > The preservation of existing political institutions > is an absolute precondition for socialist reversal > --------------------------------------------------- > > I also think that you dismiss the Chinese CP and > its present state institutions too easily. But > even if we assume that the millions of rank and > file party members no longer present any hope for > a socialist reversal in China and that the party, > People's Assembly and other institutions have > become just empty vessels--even then they must be > defended by Chinese workers because even as empty > forms (and I don't think so) they are incompatible > with a politically victorious bourgeois society. > > We had a striking example of this in Russia in > 1993. From 1989 to 1992 our soviets were > indispensable instruments of political > counterrevoliution, but only up to a certain > point! Even in their degraded form--no longer > having anything to do with socialist politics and > filled with pro-bourgeois representatives--they > became the major obstacle for capitalist > restoration, simply because they were forms of > socialist democracy, even if completely vacuous of > its content. They had to be destroyed in a > violent confrontation and replaced by the forms of > bourgeois parliamentrism before the restoration > could begin in serious, i.e. in the realm of > property relations. > > In short, looking at the > situation in China from the vantage point of a > possibility for a socialist reversal, however > unlikely it may appear now, there is no doubt in > my mind that the preservation of existing > political institutions is absolute precondition > for such a reversal. If they are replaced by > bourgeois-democratic ones, let alone bourgeois > authoritarian, a renewal of socialism in China > would have much less chance to take place. > > For > such a renewal in Russia our workers would have to > conduct a total revolution, both in the basis and > superstructure. In China, workers would have to > seize control over the existing political > institutions, without replacing them, and turn > them against capitalist property relations. ============================================================ I had to take some time to study and digest your remarks, Vladimir. I thought it over for several days (and considered the possibility that I was mistaken) before I could begin to put together some notes in the margin. The big factor here, it seems clear, is the catastrophe that has befallen Russian workers. This has to have a very sobering impact on the thinking of anyone with knowlege of what "free-market capitalism" has brought to the Russian people. I am very isolated from the conditions of Russian workers. The ordeal they are facing is, for me, unimaginable. I have heard that the life expectancy of Russian men has dropped ten years and is now lower than India. Having thought it over, however, I came to the conclusion that your argument has several weaknesses that I will try to sketch out. Like you, I often feel the pressure of time and exhaustion and feel that what I write is inadequate. But I know that a solid start is better than nothing--and is a worthwhile goal. (I will also apologize, Vladimir, for my long-windedness. When I am working out ideas I often end up saying the same thing twenty different times. I know that this frequently infuriates readers. As my analysis deepens, I hope that eventually my militancy can be reflected in concision--as is yours.) Here is what appears to be the key sentence: > I believe that a victorious "democratic movement" > (in the form and content it exists > under present historical circumstances) > will be as ruinous to China's position in the world > AND chinese workers and peasants > as it has been for the USSR and Soviet workers. The key weakness, it appears to me, is your concept of a "democratic movement". You clarify this in the phrase which I have put inside parentheses. I think it is very important how we understand the "democratic movement" in China. I don't think it is a simple phenomenon. And if we focus on it I believe that we will be able to discover that it contains within itself a host of contradictory features. The 1989 protest movement centered around Tiananmen has been compared (I think most often by Western news reporters) to the famous May 4th movement of 1919 that emerged in China in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. I am fairly ignorant about the May 4th movement and, in any event, such comparisons are easy to overdo. But isn't it the case that the May 4th movement contained the embryos of the trends that went on to be led, respectively, by Mao Tsetung and Chiang Kai-Shek? (I assume so.) Rampantly pro-capitalist ? -------------------------- Adrian (June 10, on M-U) described the Tiananmen protests as "rampantly pro-West and 'democratic' (ie: bourgeois)" and noted that the so-called 'goddess of democracy' was heavily influenced by the US Statute of Liberty. I think that such a view is somewhat distorted. It is probably safe to say that there were a very wide spectrum of views within the movement. Of course the US news media tried to give a different impression: that the movement was fighting for a liberal capitalist regime. But this revealed more about the desires of the capitalist media manipulators than the aspirations of the students and workers who were protesting. The protestors were not denouncing socialism but felt they were renewing it. Yes, they had that stupid statute but they also sang the international. At least some workers and youth denounced the regime for not being "real communists" and there was widespread support for demands for greater social equality. In this sense, we can see that the immediate roots of the 1989 protests were more closely connected to the upsurge of mass revolutionary energy of the "Cultural Revolution" than the May 4th movement. The confused goals and methods of the Cultural Revolution led to chaos, demoralization and defeat. But it did establish the precedent of millions of people rising up to settle political and social questions. It said that socialism must be won through the actions of the masses themselves. It raised to millions the idea that it is right to question and defy the bureaucrats. (Unfortunately it gave few answers to the questions it asked.) Scientific language ------------------- I don't agree with the use of the term "democratic movement" to describe the 1989 Tiananmen protests. The terms we use to describe a social movement have great importance in how we think about it. Was the movement in the US against the war in Vietnam a "peace" movement or an "anti-war" movement? The former term is a concession to pacifism while the later term is an encouragement of militancy and a step in the direction of an anti-imperialist perspective. There is a struggle over the use of language and we communists must fight on this front. The capitalist news media present the 1989 protests as the "democratic movement" to imply that its goal was, or should be, "democracy" (ie: "abstract democracy", which is always a fig leaf for bourgeois democracy). While those elements were present in the 1989 protests, it would be much closer to the truth to say that the mainstream views within the movement were in favor of increased democratic rights (ie: the right of speech and assembly). But democratic rights are very much different than "democracy" (whether "abstract" or bourgeois). (This distinction is much less clear than it should be due to the extreme bankruptcy on this question of "communist" theory that has been prostituted for so many years in the service of a corrupt strata. That is one reason I hammer so hard on this.) Contradictory trends -------------------- Any time there is a powerful social movement all classes will attempt to put their stamp on it and shape it in the image of their own class interests. The 1989 movement was a movement that was still undeveloped--was marked by demands that were indefinite--had not had time to give birth to the opposing trends still developing within itself. The 1989 activists called for extending the rights of the masses without being clear about what sort of society can ensure the rights the masses are interested in. It is the students who initiated the struggle but students do not form a class. They come from different class backgrounds and they reflect different interests. Within the 1989 movement signs of different interests were apparent. Factions of the ruling regime had some influence and were pushing for a Gorbachev-type system. Some of the views in favor of a Western-style bourgeois order were directly fed into the movement by the emerging Chinese capitalist entrepreneurs (who put money into the movement). There were also signs of the elitism of the aspiring petty bourgeoisie, who sought more for themselves but were not really interested in the discontent of the poor. Some students were clearly apprehensive about protesting inflation or of welcoming the workers' support. They feared that the working class would sharpen the militancy of the movement as well as raise class demands of the toilers. And there were also signs of obvious sympathy for the workers. There were stirring cries against the privileges of the rich. These reflected the connections of students with the toiling poor. At its heart, the popular upsurge in 1989 represented an awakening of the masses. Grievances had accumulated after a decade of capitalist reform. It was a movement of protest more clear about what it opposed--corruption, a lying straitjacketed press and a lack of essential democratic rights--than what system it thought could ensure its ideas. Unlike what the ruling regime claims, it was not a conspiracy of a handful but a movement that touched a chord of discontent deep in society. That's why it drew millions into the streets; that's why it brought out not just students, but also workers and even sympathy from sections of soldiers (this appears to be how weapons got into the hands of militant protesters) [-1-]. ------------------------------------------------ Workers need political rights to gain experience and build a movement independent of both foriegn imperialism and internal reaction ------------------------------------------------ In China the ruling regime restricts the ability of students and workers to participate in political life and take part in the open clash of trends. In these conditions the "metabolism" of political movements is slowed down--their differentiation into trends representing the opposing material interests of contending classes is slowed to a crawl. This works to the detriment of the development of a movement of the toilers that can lead the masses in struggle against exploitation by the privileged. The result will be that, as China's economy continues its rapid evolution in the direction of free-market capitalism, the workers' movement will remain undeveloped. The economy will make its steady march into capitalist methods and the workers will find themselves confused, divided and unable to effectively fight back. The working class in Russia today is still paying dearly for its lack of experience, its lack of organization, its lack of development. It is necessary that workers have the right to organize so that they can gain experience; learn from their own experience what works and what doesn't; learn from the lessons of their own struggle who their real friends are. Until this happens, the various mouthpieces of US imperialism (ie: Radio Free Asia, and also the capitalist media in general) will have a relatively free hand to pose as a friend of the workers' movement in China. If we want the Chinese masses to fully understand the nature of "friends" like Radio Free Asia--we must support their right to develop their own politics--independent of _both_ foreign imperialism and the regime that rules China. The problem with your analysis, Vladimir, is that it tends to support the idea that communists must accept a passive role for Chinese workers in order for China to resist the domination of US imperialism. We should, on the contrary, be extremely skeptical of any analysis that tends to go in this direction. Marxism teaches us that history is made by the actions of the masses. I think a powerful movement of the masses in China could act to counter the penetration of imperialist ideology and influence. But, for this to happen, the movement must be able to develop, so that left trends within it can emerge and play their role. One way or another, the emergence of a workers' movement in China is inevitable. If we do not want to see this movement fall under the hedgemony of imperialist-influenced trends like Poland's Solidarity--then we must support the right of workers today to organize in their own interest. US imperialism seeks a weak and divided China. The reasons for this, I think, are obvious. China will emerge in the 21st century as a superpower capable of replacing US imperialism as the earth's most powerful national state. Such transitions are frequently accompanied by war. US imperialism seeks to use the workers' movement in China as a Trojan horse, a vehicle of influence and a means of weakening its rival. As communists, I believe that we must support a workers' movement in China that is independent of imperialist influence. That is how we must see things: it is not a question of _whether_ a workers' movement will emerge in China--but of the _character_ of the workers' movement, of the degree to which it matures and gives birth to trends committed to the independent class interests of the toilers. Such political development takes time. I feel so awkward trying to say this and I don't know how to say it any better. I have the experience of my own organization (the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA--which, unfortunately, lost its way and dissolved itself in 1993). We made all kinds of mistakes in the late 1960's and early 1970's. These mistakes were inevitable because we had no other way to learn and we were surrounded by treachery on all sides. Activists in the US had no organization that could provide an analysis of what tasks were decisive or provide continuity with the revolutionary traditions of the past. That is why, at the time, we said "China's Chairman is our Chairman" and similar things--because _everything else_ in the movement, all the other ideas, were _worse_. We had to start from scratch because the revolutionary traditions of workers in the US had been corroded, corrupted and lost. We eventually gained our footing to what, in my view, was a remarkable extent. I believe the MLP, despite its mistakes and errors, stood out as a minor beacon that gave encouragement and direction to activists who wanted to build movements in the US that were independent of bourgeois influence. --------------------------------------------- Can the development of workers' consciousness ever be irreconcilable with defending China against US imperialism ? --------------------------------------------- Yes it is true that China must maintain its independence from US imperialism; that communists must support China's independence. Vladimir to Ben (June 10): > I defend Zhang's right to organize workers and > to give interviews to reporters (even reporters > for reactionary imperialist mouthpieces like > Radio Free Asia). I also defend the right of > the Chinese state to defend China against > imperialist designs (even if this state is > controlled by the nationalist state-bourgeois > bureaucracy). In case these two rights become > irreconcilable, the right of the Chinese state > should prevail. First, again, I very much appreciate your taking the time to outline your views in such a clear, calm and concise way and believe that your statement serves as an example of how activists on these lists can contribute to discussion even in the face of demands on their time. Second, I have tried to think about this statement and decide whether or not I agree with it. I am still undecided because your short little statement contains quite a lot of complexity! For example, there is the little word "irreconcilable". I am still not sure what to make of it. Is it the case that the right of Chinese workers to organize could ever be truely irreconcilable with the defense of China against foriegn imperialism? Maybe in some situations it could. What is the extreme case? When Hitler was attacking Russia that was not the time for Russian workers to organize against their exploitation (except possibly in some low-key way not inconsistent with the war effort). The class struggle is always present. The workers should always be in motion. But such motion is not necessarily identical with the right to organize and give interviews as I advocate for Chinese workers. Neither, of course, are the circumstances of China's defense against US imperialism identical to the circumstances of the war against Hitler. The bottom line is that I do not believe that the two rights above _are_ irreconcilable today in China. Aside from extreme cases or unlikely circumstances--Chinese workers having democratic rights will in the long term lead to greater political consciousness among Chinese workers, a better and more clear understanding of the class struggle in China and internationally and a better understanding of the nature of imperialism. This would assist the efforts of China to defend itself against imperialism and it would also assist the development of the future unity of Chinese and American workers. ------------------------ What happened in Russia? ------------------------ The heart of your argument is the catastrophe that has befallen Soviet workers. Is it the case that the catastrophe in Russia was caused by workers having the right to organize? I don't think so. I think we are in agreement on this. What you oppose is the victory of the "democratic movement". But, as I have said, I oppose the use of the term "democratic movement" because I think that phrase obscures many things--including the likelyhood that we may be in agreement in what we oppose. First of all, what actually happened in the Soviet Union? Gorbachev granted various democratic rights to workers and so forth. People like Razlatsky and Isayev were released from prison camps. But was this the heart of the changes he brought about? I don't think so. I think the democratic rights that Gorbachev granted were mainly window dressing that he used to help sell his agenda of free-market restructuring and "reform". As I see it (from great distance and great ignorance) there are essentially two explanations for the catastrophe and collapse the accompanied the transition in Russia. a) US imperialism did to Russia what Rome did to defeated Carthage ------------------------------------- The extent and scale of the catastrophe in Russia is such that it very much looks like US imperialism said to some small section of the Russian bourgeoisie: "We will make you fabulously wealthy and powerful as individuals. What we want in exchange is for you to betray the interests of your country and bring Russia to ruin. We want Russia so severely crippled and prostrate that it will be _decades_ before your country will be able to again lift its head and play a major role in world affairs." Some of the mechanisms by which the ruin of Russia was accomplished would be multi-billion dollar loans to Russia that would end up being deposited into the Swiss bank accounts of the bourgeois traitors--and which could then be endlessly recycled as new loans, etc. It would appear to me that there may be quite a lot of truth in this explanation but I consider this explanation as being completely secondary to the more prosaic explanation (b) below. I imagine that the explanation above, however, is relatively popular and is also the explanation pushed by Russian fascists (with the "minor" modification that the traitors would be Jews). b) The Russian bourgeoisie is unable to act as a unified class--ie: lacks the mechanisms and class institutions necessary to manage its interests in conditions of free-market capitalism and the absence of the comprehensive centralized institutions of a command economy -------------------------------------------------- In order for the bourgeoisie to rule as a class they need complex institutions that can only develop in the course of decades (the West had _centuries_ to evolve these institutions). I believe that the Soviet bourgeoisie, under Gorbachev, realized that their existing methods of class rule would be at an increasing disadvantage in comparison to the methods of class rule used in the West. The methods of a command economy are simply less efficient in comparison to the mechanisms of more traditional free-market capitalism. This inefficiency may not have existed when the economy itself was more primitive (it seems clear to me that the Soviet economy did far better under Stalin than it would or could have under ordinary bourgeois rule) but became far more pronounced as the economy became more complex. Hence the decision to embark on the new course. The problem is that institutions of class rule cannot be created overnight. The Russian bourgeoisie gave up their old institutions but were unable to grow new ones in time to avoid the collapse. Without these institutions there was (and remains) the problem of coordination. It becomes "every bourgeois for himself" instead of "every bourgeois for the common bourgeois class interest". There are probably many examples of this. The Russian mafia (or whatever it is called) is strong even though their methods are hardly very efficient in terms of the needs of the Russian bourgeoisie as a whole. There are few effective mechanisms to balance and coordinate the many competing sectional and regional interests. Regional governments or power centers probably couldn't care less about the need for a strong central government, etc. But, in these conditions, the Russia bourgeoisie as a whole suffers. The many references to the need for the "rule of law" probably refer to the lack of competant and functioning institutions. This state of fairly unsophisticated methods of class rule (corruption, assasination, etc) stands in stark contrast to the far more developed methods used in the West. Example: Bill Gates gets his wings clipped ------------------------------------------ The example that I will use to illustrate the sophistication of the institutions of class rule in the West is the Microsoft trial. I am sure there would be thousands of better examples. I use the Microsoft trial for the simple reason that I am familar with it (I have been following the trial because it represents a relatively easy and convenient way to better understand the dynamics and internal contradictions of the software industry). The US bourgeoisie is determined to clip Bill Gates' wings. Why is this? Because, in the absence of restraint, Microsoft would be able to destroy its competition and prolong its hedgemony in the software industry--at the expense of the productivity and international competitiveness of the US economy as a whole. I cannot predict what the courts will decide. The sanctions against Gates may be large or small. Even if the sanctions turn out to be relatively small their significance will be that of a shot over the bow. The US government did not hestiate to humiliate and subject to ridicule the richest man in the world in order to make it clear to Gates that he must play by the rules favoring the _collective_ bourgeois interest (Gates gave $5 billion to charity in an an effort to partially repair the damage to his image resulting from the video clips of his deposition that had provoked derisive laughter in court). Gates will not be allowed to turn the emerging digital economy into his private playground because the stakes for the bourgeosie, as a class, are simply too large. Now what is interesting here are the _mechanisms_ used to assist the bourgeosie to determine how best to measure the impact of its various alternatives. The testimony of executives and experts, the email messages that have so amused followers of the trial, are part of a very precise and sophisticated machine aimed at determining policy that will guide the development of the industry that is destined to become the heart of the modern economy. In spite of the very powerful financial interests of the various parties--and the _extreme_ complexity of the laws of development of this industry--the bourgeoisie needs a _machine_ capable of creating an objective picture of what must be done. Such a machine exists and has been perfected. And it is the existence of a large number of such machines, mechanisms and institutions that allow the US bourgeosie to create an economy with a fairly high productivity of labor (ie: the bottom line around which all else revolves). Such are the machines which the Russian bourgeoisie (so far) lacks. And this (together with the first factor (a) above) is the probable reason for the catastrophe in Russia. Now, are either of these two factors the result of the struggle of Russian workers for democratic rights of speech or assembly? I don't think so. Shaky analogy to China ------------------------ Furthermore, the argument that this analogy extends to China strikes me as somewhat speculative and shaky. Yes there may be _some_ validity to it. There is _some_ validity to a lot of views. But China is not Russia. And the Chinese bourgeoisie is not the Russian bourgeosie. The meltdown of the Russian economy has probably put a considerable damper on that section of the ruling regime in China that was in favor of a Gorbachev-type solution. I remain confident that the ruling circles in China have made up their mind to continue the expansion of the capitalist sector of the economy and liquidate the state-owned enterprises as rapidly as practical (without setting off either an economic meltdown or a social explosion). At the same time, they are going to be far more cautious concerning the forces (market forces and the power of capital) that will be unleashed in the process and which threaten to escape all control and sweep away all existing institutions. I believe this is the significance of Deng Xiaoping's frequently quoted slogan of "crossing the river by feeling the stones on the bottom". We need to consider some of the forces that will be released as China continues to modernize. The force which is of great interest to me is the revolution in communications. I believe the revolution in communications will, as decade rolls after decade, act as oxygen on the fire of class struggle. The eventual result will be an explosion of stellar magnitude. --------------------------------- What will bring democratic rights to Chinese workers? --------------------------------- It seems clear to me that Chinese workers will certainly win democratic rights and the workers' movement in China will emerge to play its role in China and internationally. This may take ten years or it may take twenty. It is difficult to imagine it taking much longer. We need only consider the various forces or directions from which it may come. ** from above China's rulers, like Gorbachev, offer various democratic rights as window dressing to help sell capitalist "reforms". ** from below Workers and students protest and demand democratic rights and eventually the ruling regime decides it can discard many of the repressive measures it currently relies on and instead adopt more modern methods of political thought control as have been developed by the bourgeoisie in the West. ** Deus Ex Machina The communications revolution smashes the monopoly of media and culture like a sledgehammer against an eggshell. These three different phenomena must be considered and studied separately although, of course, they will interact with one another in very complex ways. It is easy to see, for example, how the first factor might combine with the second. And the third factor would easily combine with either or both of the first two. I won't try to explore how these factors would combine. Rather, I will simply say that my conviction is that, as communists, we must support the second. Also, as communists, we must strive to be aware of the third factor which I consider largely unappreciated within "our" movement. I will not repeat here your arguments that I am overestimating the speed and impact of the communications revolution in China, that the machines will be too expensive and even that workers will not have time to use them. I believe that you are mistaken. I will have to postpone presentation of most of my counter-arguments because the subject is too big and my own time is too short. I will say this however. Moore's Law is estimated to have at least another 15 years of life. That means that the cost of the computing power required for a communications device will likely fall by a factor of approximately one thousand. This may be a conservative estimate. Your arguments in regard to a shortage of time may reflect a lack of experience, on your part, with revolutionary organization. I have seen first-hand what even a small group can do when it is dedicated and well-organized. There will be little problem with lack of resources because the cost of the necessary communications infrastruture needed by a workers' organization or revolutionary group is rapidly approaching the price of sand. The labor power exists in abundance. The problem with regard to labor power is that it must be better organized in order to be useful. Much of the labor that is mobilized by the existing quasi-marxist elists, for example, is absorbed in stupid squabbles that have roots in the low level of political culture and theoretical knowlege of the participants. This situation, however, is not eternal. It is developing before our eyes. I hope, Vladimir, that I can eventually get around to replying to the rest of your email. It is so pleasant, and refreshing, to be opposed by someone who behaves like a marxist revolutionary! Sincerely, your comrade Ben Seattle ----//-// 8.Jul.99 ===================================================== [Note 1] This essay drew heavily in places from the analysis of the 1989 protests presented in the April, June and July 1989 issues of the "Workers' Advocate" (newspaper of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA). --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From poseidon at tinet.ie Wed Jul 7 09:30:32 1999 From: poseidon at tinet.ie (George Pennefather) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re:Linux/Unix References: Message-ID: <000701bec938$00988660$0afe869f@tinet.ie> Very Good Russ George Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank Website: http://homepage.tinet.ie/~beprepared ----- Original Message ----- From: Russ To: marxism-thaxis@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 12:07 PM Subject: Re: M-TH: Re:Linux/Unix > Hi Russ, Interesting piece. But what about Unix. I hear people >talking about Unix and its advantages. I still dont really understand, >I'm a philistine here, what is all this about Unix. Could I run Microsoft >Word on it. How do I install etc. George Be free to check out our >Communist Think-Tank Website: >http://homepage.tinet.ie/~bepreparedHi Chris, > Hi George, Unix is a major league operating system best suited for corporate sites, though some techies might disagree with that. Sun systems (who developed Java) pump out a lot of Unix related stuff and they own at least one brand of Unix operating systems- http://www.sun.com . It aint easy and is run in much the same way that Microsoft's old DOS system was- ie by tapping in text commands, though there are probably easier interfaces nowadays. Linux is a Unix type system, with the difference that it's free and easier interfaces are being developed- see earlier mail. To install either you'd need to get hold of a copy on disk or download it. I've never done it and I understand that it's not especially easy! If there's a Word for Unix it should run on it, but Word for 95 won't. My advice, stick with an operating system with an easy GUI (Graphical User Interface) and spend the extra time and headaches saved by arguing on Thaxis or drinking beer or making a revolution! Russ --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2775 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/attachments/19990707/982471f6/attachment.txt From poseidon at tinet.ie Wed Jul 7 09:27:58 1999 From: poseidon at tinet.ie (George Pennefather) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: Give me the child when he is seven ... References: <199907061432.AAA21077@m0.dynamite.com.au> Message-ID: <000601bec937$ff8bf860$0afe869f@tinet.ie> Hi Jim, Who is Dave. George Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank Website: http://homepage.tinet.ie/~beprepared Anyone in London tomorrow (Wednesday) night might be interested in this: Dave Chandler will be discussing his book Bosnia: Faking Democracy After Dayton, Weds., 7 July, 7.30pm, Room 10, Friends House, 173-7 Euston Road, London NW1, opposite Euston station. Admission ?3. Dave has also written an article on the Bosnian model for Kosovo in the new issue of New Left Review. -- Jim heartfield --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1217 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/attachments/19990707/a3261443/attachment.txt From Left-Transparency at Leninism.org Thu Jul 8 10:26:48 1999 From: Left-Transparency at Leninism.org (Ben Seattle) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: Will democratic rights undermine China's struggle against imperialism? (reply to Vladimir) Message-ID: <01bec95e$ad75a630$657366d1@penelope> My apologies to all Thaxians if this long post is a repeat. I sent it out 9 hours ago but it does not appear to have cme back via m-thaxis so I have resent.--Ben [ Of all of the criticisms I received in response [ to my series on the principles bound up with [ Zhang Shanguang, the most sober and [ thoughtful was by Vladimir Bilenkin. [ I include the most relevant excepts from it [ here, together with my response. The full [ text of Valdimir's letter can be seen on my [ web page devoted to these issues at: [ www.Leninism.org/stream/99/zhang/intro.asp Hi Vladimir, First, I want to express, again, my appreciation for your thoughtful email. Many people (quite possibly the majority) on the various lists will find themselves in agreement with your views. What you have done, however, is to express these views clearly, calmly and concisely. Your views set an example of the power of calm and thoughtful discussion. Your views will help to outline some of the principles we must keep in mind as we explore the question of what attitude genuine communists must take in relation to the development of the workers' movement in China. I will discuss your three key paragraphs. I have given each of the three paragraphs a number and a heading. First, for the benefit of readers who have not seen them, I reproduce the three paragraphs (broken down here into eight smaller paragraphs). My comments will follow. > ----------------------------------------------- > -- 1 -- > A victorious "democratic movement" > will be ruinous to Chinese workers and peasants > ----------------------------------------------- > > I think that your solidarity with Lee on > the Tienanmen affair is a mistake. By this > I mean your agreement that bourgeois democratic > reforms in China and the freedom of information > implied in this development will benefit Chinese > proletariat, as well as the cause of the > international working class as we, communists, > understand it. I believe that a victorious > "democratic movement," in the form and content it > exists under present historical circumstances, > will be as ruinous to China's position in the > world AND chinese workers and peasants as it has > been for the USSR and Soviet workers. > > China today > is national-bourgeois state controlled by its > state-party bureaucracy. This bureaucracy is > venal, it merges more and more with the national > bourgeoisie, it ruthlessly puts down any > opposition to its course from workers and > peasants, etc, etc. But this regime, as you have > readily acknowledged in your letter, provides an > extraodinary rapid development of China's > productive forces. This is why this regime finds > significant support among the population. With > this regime China is on the way to becoming a > superpower, or a state capable of preventing > Western imperialism from achieving its global > goals. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > -- 2 -- > Victory of Western imperialism would reduce China to > client states, puppet regimes and dependent economies > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Now, it is not hard to foresee what will happen to > China should its "democratic forces" succeed. We > have seen this in the SU, and, on a smaller scale, > are going to see shortly in what remains of > Yugoslavia. The scenario is well-known. There will > be ethnic strife and separatist movements assisted > by imperialist agencies. If succeeded, in place > of a powerful nation and the state--still > preserving some socially progressive features and > capable of making independent political, social, > and economic choices--there will be a number of > client states, puppet regimes, and dependent > economies which will serve as huge pools of cheap > labor force, raw materials, and dumping sites for > their imperialist masters. > > What will be the > consequences of this for class struggle in the > West? Most likely, it will come to a standstill. > A well-organized exploitation of this region will > allow the ruling classes of Western Empire to > pacify its population completely, to turn it into > a Roman plebs satiated with spectacles and bread > (we have a lot of this plebs already). > > --------------------------------------------------- > -- 3 -- > The preservation of existing political institutions > is an absolute precondition for socialist reversal > --------------------------------------------------- > > I also think that you dismiss the Chinese CP and > its present state institutions too easily. But > even if we assume that the millions of rank and > file party members no longer present any hope for > a socialist reversal in China and that the party, > People's Assembly and other institutions have > become just empty vessels--even then they must be > defended by Chinese workers because even as empty > forms (and I don't think so) they are incompatible > with a politically victorious bourgeois society. > > We had a striking example of this in Russia in > 1993. From 1989 to 1992 our soviets were > indispensable instruments of political > counterrevoliution, but only up to a certain > point! Even in their degraded form--no longer > having anything to do with socialist politics and > filled with pro-bourgeois representatives--they > became the major obstacle for capitalist > restoration, simply because they were forms of > socialist democracy, even if completely vacuous of > its content. They had to be destroyed in a > violent confrontation and replaced by the forms of > bourgeois parliamentrism before the restoration > could begin in serious, i.e. in the realm of > property relations. > > In short, looking at the > situation in China from the vantage point of a > possibility for a socialist reversal, however > unlikely it may appear now, there is no doubt in > my mind that the preservation of existing > political institutions is absolute precondition > for such a reversal. If they are replaced by > bourgeois-democratic ones, let alone bourgeois > authoritarian, a renewal of socialism in China > would have much less chance to take place. > > For > such a renewal in Russia our workers would have to > conduct a total revolution, both in the basis and > superstructure. In China, workers would have to > seize control over the existing political > institutions, without replacing them, and turn > them against capitalist property relations. ============================================================ I had to take some time to study and digest your remarks, Vladimir. I thought it over for several days (and considered the possibility that I was mistaken) before I could begin to put together some notes in the margin. The big factor here, it seems clear, is the catastrophe that has befallen Russian workers. This has to have a very sobering impact on the thinking of anyone with knowlege of what "free-market capitalism" has brought to the Russian people. I am very isolated from the conditions of Russian workers. The ordeal they are facing is, for me, unimaginable. I have heard that the life expectancy of Russian men has dropped ten years and is now lower than India. Having thought it over, however, I came to the conclusion that your argument has several weaknesses that I will try to sketch out. Like you, I often feel the pressure of time and exhaustion and feel that what I write is inadequate. But I know that a solid start is better than nothing--and is a worthwhile goal. (I will also apologize, Vladimir, for my long-windedness. When I am working out ideas I often end up saying the same thing twenty different times. I know that this frequently infuriates readers. As my analysis deepens, I hope that eventually my militancy can be reflected in concision--as is yours.) Here is what appears to be the key sentence: > I believe that a victorious "democratic movement" > (in the form and content it exists > under present historical circumstances) > will be as ruinous to China's position in the world > AND chinese workers and peasants > as it has been for the USSR and Soviet workers. The key weakness, it appears to me, is your concept of a "democratic movement". You clarify this in the phrase which I have put inside parentheses. I think it is very important how we understand the "democratic movement" in China. I don't think it is a simple phenomenon. And if we focus on it I believe that we will be able to discover that it contains within itself a host of contradictory features. The 1989 protest movement centered around Tiananmen has been compared (I think most often by Western news reporters) to the famous May 4th movement of 1919 that emerged in China in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. I am fairly ignorant about the May 4th movement and, in any event, such comparisons are easy to overdo. But isn't it the case that the May 4th movement contained the embryos of the trends that went on to be led, respectively, by Mao Tsetung and Chiang Kai-Shek? (I assume so.) Rampantly pro-capitalist ? -------------------------- Adrian (June 10, on M-U) described the Tiananmen protests as "rampantly pro-West and 'democratic' (ie: bourgeois)" and noted that the so-called 'goddess of democracy' was heavily influenced by the US Statute of Liberty. I think that such a view is somewhat distorted. It is probably safe to say that there were a very wide spectrum of views within the movement. Of course the US news media tried to give a different impression: that the movement was fighting for a liberal capitalist regime. But this revealed more about the desires of the capitalist media manipulators than the aspirations of the students and workers who were protesting. The protestors were not denouncing socialism but felt they were renewing it. Yes, they had that stupid statute but they also sang the international. At least some workers and youth denounced the regime for not being "real communists" and there was widespread support for demands for greater social equality. In this sense, we can see that the immediate roots of the 1989 protests were more closely connected to the upsurge of mass revolutionary energy of the "Cultural Revolution" than the May 4th movement. The confused goals and methods of the Cultural Revolution led to chaos, demoralization and defeat. But it did establish the precedent of millions of people rising up to settle political and social questions. It said that socialism must be won through the actions of the masses themselves. It raised to millions the idea that it is right to question and defy the bureaucrats. (Unfortunately it gave few answers to the questions it asked.) Scientific language ------------------- I don't agree with the use of the term "democratic movement" to describe the 1989 Tiananmen protests. The terms we use to describe a social movement have great importance in how we think about it. Was the movement in the US against the war in Vietnam a "peace" movement or an "anti-war" movement? The former term is a concession to pacifism while the later term is an encouragement of militancy and a step in the direction of an anti-imperialist perspective. There is a struggle over the use of language and we communists must fight on this front. The capitalist news media present the 1989 protests as the "democratic movement" to imply that its goal was, or should be, "democracy" (ie: "abstract democracy", which is always a fig leaf for bourgeois democracy). While those elements were present in the 1989 protests, it would be much closer to the truth to say that the mainstream views within the movement were in favor of increased democratic rights (ie: the right of speech and assembly). But democratic rights are very much different than "democracy" (whether "abstract" or bourgeois). (This distinction is much less clear than it should be due to the extreme bankruptcy on this question of "communist" theory that has been prostituted for so many years in the service of a corrupt strata. That is one reason I hammer so hard on this.) Contradictory trends -------------------- Any time there is a powerful social movement all classes will attempt to put their stamp on it and shape it in the image of their own class interests. The 1989 movement was a movement that was still undeveloped--was marked by demands that were indefinite--had not had time to give birth to the opposing trends still developing within itself. The 1989 activists called for extending the rights of the masses without being clear about what sort of society can ensure the rights the masses are interested in. It is the students who initiated the struggle but students do not form a class. They come from different class backgrounds and they reflect different interests. Within the 1989 movement signs of different interests were apparent. Factions of the ruling regime had some influence and were pushing for a Gorbachev-type system. Some of the views in favor of a Western-style bourgeois order were directly fed into the movement by the emerging Chinese capitalist entrepreneurs (who put money into the movement). There were also signs of the elitism of the aspiring petty bourgeoisie, who sought more for themselves but were not really interested in the discontent of the poor. Some students were clearly apprehensive about protesting inflation or of welcoming the workers' support. They feared that the working class would sharpen the militancy of the movement as well as raise class demands of the toilers. And there were also signs of obvious sympathy for the workers. There were stirring cries against the privileges of the rich. These reflected the connections of students with the toiling poor. At its heart, the popular upsurge in 1989 represented an awakening of the masses. Grievances had accumulated after a decade of capitalist reform. It was a movement of protest more clear about what it opposed--corruption, a lying straitjacketed press and a lack of essential democratic rights--than what system it thought could ensure its ideas. Unlike what the ruling regime claims, it was not a conspiracy of a handful but a movement that touched a chord of discontent deep in society. That's why it drew millions into the streets; that's why it brought out not just students, but also workers and even sympathy from sections of soldiers (this appears to be how weapons got into the hands of militant protesters) [-1-]. ------------------------------------------------ Workers need political rights to gain experience and build a movement independent of both foriegn imperialism and internal reaction ------------------------------------------------ In China the ruling regime restricts the ability of students and workers to participate in political life and take part in the open clash of trends. In these conditions the "metabolism" of political movements is slowed down--their differentiation into trends representing the opposing material interests of contending classes is slowed to a crawl. This works to the detriment of the development of a movement of the toilers that can lead the masses in struggle against exploitation by the privileged. The result will be that, as China's economy continues its rapid evolution in the direction of free-market capitalism, the workers' movement will remain undeveloped. The economy will make its steady march into capitalist methods and the workers will find themselves confused, divided and unable to effectively fight back. The working class in Russia today is still paying dearly for its lack of experience, its lack of organization, its lack of development. It is necessary that workers have the right to organize so that they can gain experience; learn from their own experience what works and what doesn't; learn from the lessons of their own struggle who their real friends are. Until this happens, the various mouthpieces of US imperialism (ie: Radio Free Asia, and also the capitalist media in general) will have a relatively free hand to pose as a friend of the workers' movement in China. If we want the Chinese masses to fully understand the nature of "friends" like Radio Free Asia--we must support their right to develop their own politics--independent of _both_ foreign imperialism and the regime that rules China. The problem with your analysis, Vladimir, is that it tends to support the idea that communists must accept a passive role for Chinese workers in order for China to resist the domination of US imperialism. We should, on the contrary, be extremely skeptical of any analysis that tends to go in this direction. Marxism teaches us that history is made by the actions of the masses. I think a powerful movement of the masses in China could act to counter the penetration of imperialist ideology and influence. But, for this to happen, the movement must be able to develop, so that left trends within it can emerge and play their role. One way or another, the emergence of a workers' movement in China is inevitable. If we do not want to see this movement fall under the hedgemony of imperialist-influenced trends like Poland's Solidarity--then we must support the right of workers today to organize in their own interest. US imperialism seeks a weak and divided China. The reasons for this, I think, are obvious. China will emerge in the 21st century as a superpower capable of replacing US imperialism as the earth's most powerful national state. Such transitions are frequently accompanied by war. US imperialism seeks to use the workers' movement in China as a Trojan horse, a vehicle of influence and a means of weakening its rival. As communists, I believe that we must support a workers' movement in China that is independent of imperialist influence. That is how we must see things: it is not a question of _whether_ a workers' movement will emerge in China--but of the _character_ of the workers' movement, of the degree to which it matures and gives birth to trends committed to the independent class interests of the toilers. Such political development takes time. I feel so awkward trying to say this and I don't know how to say it any better. I have the experience of my own organization (the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA--which, unfortunately, lost its way and dissolved itself in 1993). We made all kinds of mistakes in the late 1960's and early 1970's. These mistakes were inevitable because we had no other way to learn and we were surrounded by treachery on all sides. Activists in the US had no organization that could provide an analysis of what tasks were decisive or provide continuity with the revolutionary traditions of the past. That is why, at the time, we said "China's Chairman is our Chairman" and similar things--because _everything else_ in the movement, all the other ideas, were _worse_. We had to start from scratch because the revolutionary traditions of workers in the US had been corroded, corrupted and lost. We eventually gained our footing to what, in my view, was a remarkable extent. I believe the MLP, despite its mistakes and errors, stood out as a minor beacon that gave encouragement and direction to activists who wanted to build movements in the US that were independent of bourgeois influence. --------------------------------------------- Can the development of workers' consciousness ever be irreconcilable with defending China against US imperialism ? --------------------------------------------- Yes it is true that China must maintain its independence from US imperialism; that communists must support China's independence. Vladimir to Ben (June 10): > I defend Zhang's right to organize workers and > to give interviews to reporters (even reporters > for reactionary imperialist mouthpieces like > Radio Free Asia). I also defend the right of > the Chinese state to defend China against > imperialist designs (even if this state is > controlled by the nationalist state-bourgeois > bureaucracy). In case these two rights become > irreconcilable, the right of the Chinese state > should prevail. First, again, I very much appreciate your taking the time to outline your views in such a clear, calm and concise way and believe that your statement serves as an example of how activists on these lists can contribute to discussion even in the face of demands on their time. Second, I have tried to think about this statement and decide whether or not I agree with it. I am still undecided because your short little statement contains quite a lot of complexity! For example, there is the little word "irreconcilable". I am still not sure what to make of it. Is it the case that the right of Chinese workers to organize could ever be truely irreconcilable with the defense of China against foriegn imperialism? Maybe in some situations it could. What is the extreme case? When Hitler was attacking Russia that was not the time for Russian workers to organize against their exploitation (except possibly in some low-key way not inconsistent with the war effort). The class struggle is always present. The workers should always be in motion. But such motion is not necessarily identical with the right to organize and give interviews as I advocate for Chinese workers. Neither, of course, are the circumstances of China's defense against US imperialism identical to the circumstances of the war against Hitler. The bottom line is that I do not believe that the two rights above _are_ irreconcilable today in China. Aside from extreme cases or unlikely circumstances--Chinese workers having democratic rights will in the long term lead to greater political consciousness among Chinese workers, a better and more clear understanding of the class struggle in China and internationally and a better understanding of the nature of imperialism. This would assist the efforts of China to defend itself against imperialism and it would also assist the development of the future unity of Chinese and American workers. ------------------------ What happened in Russia? ------------------------ The heart of your argument is the catastrophe that has befallen Soviet workers. Is it the case that the catastrophe in Russia was caused by workers having the right to organize? I don't think so. I think we are in agreement on this. What you oppose is the victory of the "democratic movement". But, as I have said, I oppose the use of the term "democratic movement" because I think that phrase obscures many things--including the likelyhood that we may be in agreement in what we oppose. First of all, what actually happened in the Soviet Union? Gorbachev granted various democratic rights to workers and so forth. People like Razlatsky and Isayev were released from prison camps. But was this the heart of the changes he brought about? I don't think so. I think the democratic rights that Gorbachev granted were mainly window dressing that he used to help sell his agenda of free-market restructuring and "reform". As I see it (from great distance and great ignorance) there are essentially two explanations for the catastrophe and collapse the accompanied the transition in Russia. a) US imperialism did to Russia what Rome did to defeated Carthage ------------------------------------- The extent and scale of the catastrophe in Russia is such that it very much looks like US imperialism said to some small section of the Russian bourgeoisie: "We will make you fabulously wealthy and powerful as individuals. What we want in exchange is for you to betray the interests of your country and bring Russia to ruin. We want Russia so severely crippled and prostrate that it will be _decades_ before your country will be able to again lift its head and play a major role in world affairs." Some of the mechanisms by which the ruin of Russia was accomplished would be multi-billion dollar loans to Russia that would end up being deposited into the Swiss bank accounts of the bourgeois traitors--and which could then be endlessly recycled as new loans, etc. It would appear to me that there may be quite a lot of truth in this explanation but I consider this explanation as being completely secondary to the more prosaic explanation (b) below. I imagine that the explanation above, however, is relatively popular and is also the explanation pushed by Russian fascists (with the "minor" modification that the traitors would be Jews). b) The Russian bourgeoisie is unable to act as a unified class--ie: lacks the mechanisms and class institutions necessary to manage its interests in conditions of free-market capitalism and the absence of the comprehensive centralized institutions of a command economy -------------------------------------------------- In order for the bourgeoisie to rule as a class they need complex institutions that can only develop in the course of decades (the West had _centuries_ to evolve these institutions). I believe that the Soviet bourgeoisie, under Gorbachev, realized that their existing methods of class rule would be at an increasing disadvantage in comparison to the methods of class rule used in the West. The methods of a command economy are simply less efficient in comparison to the mechanisms of more traditional free-market capitalism. This inefficiency may not have existed when the economy itself was more primitive (it seems clear to me that the Soviet economy did far better under Stalin than it would or could have under ordinary bourgeois rule) but became far more pronounced as the economy became more complex. Hence the decision to embark on the new course. The problem is that institutions of class rule cannot be created overnight. The Russian bourgeoisie gave up their old institutions but were unable to grow new ones in time to avoid the collapse. Without these institutions there was (and remains) the problem of coordination. It becomes "every bourgeois for himself" instead of "every bourgeois for the common bourgeois class interest". There are probably many examples of this. The Russian mafia (or whatever it is called) is strong even though their methods are hardly very efficient in terms of the needs of the Russian bourgeoisie as a whole. There are few effective mechanisms to balance and coordinate the many competing sectional and regional interests. Regional governments or power centers probably couldn't care less about the need for a strong central government, etc. But, in these conditions, the Russia bourgeoisie as a whole suffers. The many references to the need for the "rule of law" probably refer to the lack of competant and functioning institutions. This state of fairly unsophisticated methods of class rule (corruption, assasination, etc) stands in stark contrast to the far more developed methods used in the West. Example: Bill Gates gets his wings clipped ------------------------------------------ The example that I will use to illustrate the sophistication of the institutions of class rule in the West is the Microsoft trial. I am sure there would be thousands of better examples. I use the Microsoft trial for the simple reason that I am familar with it (I have been following the trial because it represents a relatively easy and convenient way to better understand the dynamics and internal contradictions of the software industry). The US bourgeoisie is determined to clip Bill Gates' wings. Why is this? Because, in the absence of restraint, Microsoft would be able to destroy its competition and prolong its hedgemony in the software industry--at the expense of the productivity and international competitiveness of the US economy as a whole. I cannot predict what the courts will decide. The sanctions against Gates may be large or small. Even if the sanctions turn out to be relatively small their significance will be that of a shot over the bow. The US government did not hestiate to humiliate and subject to ridicule the richest man in the world in order to make it clear to Gates that he must play by the rules favoring the _collective_ bourgeois interest (Gates gave $5 billion to charity in an an effort to partially repair the damage to his image resulting from the video clips of his deposition that had provoked derisive laughter in court). Gates will not be allowed to turn the emerging digital economy into his private playground because the stakes for the bourgeosie, as a class, are simply too large. Now what is interesting here are the _mechanisms_ used to assist the bourgeosie to determine how best to measure the impact of its various alternatives. The testimony of executives and experts, the email messages that have so amused followers of the trial, are part of a very precise and sophisticated machine aimed at determining policy that will guide the development of the industry that is destined to become the heart of the modern economy. In spite of the very powerful financial interests of the various parties--and the _extreme_ complexity of the laws of development of this industry--the bourgeoisie needs a _machine_ capable of creating an objective picture of what must be done. Such a machine exists and has been perfected. And it is the existence of a large number of such machines, mechanisms and institutions that allow the US bourgeosie to create an economy with a fairly high productivity of labor (ie: the bottom line around which all else revolves). Such are the machines which the Russian bourgeoisie (so far) lacks. And this (together with the first factor (a) above) is the probable reason for the catastrophe in Russia. Now, are either of these two factors the result of the struggle of Russian workers for democratic rights of speech or assembly? I don't think so. Shaky analogy to China ------------------------ Furthermore, the argument that this analogy extends to China strikes me as somewhat speculative and shaky. Yes there may be _some_ validity to it. There is _some_ validity to a lot of views. But China is not Russia. And the Chinese bourgeoisie is not the Russian bourgeosie. The meltdown of the Russian economy has probably put a considerable damper on that section of the ruling regime in China that was in favor of a Gorbachev-type solution. I remain confident that the ruling circles in China have made up their mind to continue the expansion of the capitalist sector of the economy and liquidate the state-owned enterprises as rapidly as practical (without setting off either an economic meltdown or a social explosion). At the same time, they are going to be far more cautious concerning the forces (market forces and the power of capital) that will be unleashed in the process and which threaten to escape all control and sweep away all existing institutions. I believe this is the significance of Deng Xiaoping's frequently quoted slogan of "crossing the river by feeling the stones on the bottom". We need to consider some of the forces that will be released as China continues to modernize. The force which is of great interest to me is the revolution in communications. I believe the revolution in communications will, as decade rolls after decade, act as oxygen on the fire of class struggle. The eventual result will be an explosion of stellar magnitude. --------------------------------- What will bring democratic rights to Chinese workers? --------------------------------- It seems clear to me that Chinese workers will certainly win democratic rights and the workers' movement in China will emerge to play its role in China and internationally. This may take ten years or it may take twenty. It is difficult to imagine it taking much longer. We need only consider the various forces or directions from which it may come. ** from above China's rulers, like Gorbachev, offer various democratic rights as window dressing to help sell capitalist "reforms". ** from below Workers and students protest and demand democratic rights and eventually the ruling regime decides it can discard many of the repressive measures it currently relies on and instead adopt more modern methods of political thought control as have been developed by the bourgeoisie in the West. ** Deus Ex Machina The communications revolution smashes the monopoly of media and culture like a sledgehammer against an eggshell. These three different phenomena must be considered and studied separately although, of course, they will interact with one another in very complex ways. It is easy to see, for example, how the first factor might combine with the second. And the third factor would easily combine with either or both of the first two. I won't try to explore how these factors would combine. Rather, I will simply say that my conviction is that, as communists, we must support the second. Also, as communists, we must strive to be aware of the third factor which I consider largely unappreciated within "our" movement. I will not repeat here your arguments that I am overestimating the speed and impact of the communications revolution in China, that the machines will be too expensive and even that workers will not have time to use them. I believe that you are mistaken. I will have to postpone presentation of most of my counter-arguments because the subject is too big and my own time is too short. I will say this however. Moore's Law is estimated to have at least another 15 years of life. That means that the cost of the computing power required for a communications device will likely fall by a factor of approximately one thousand. This may be a conservative estimate. Your arguments in regard to a shortage of time may reflect a lack of experience, on your part, with revolutionary organization. I have seen first-hand what even a small group can do when it is dedicated and well-organized. There will be little problem with lack of resources because the cost of the necessary communications infrastruture needed by a workers' organization or revolutionary group is rapidly approaching the price of sand. The labor power exists in abundance. The problem with regard to labor power is that it must be better organized in order to be useful. Much of the labor that is mobilized by the existing quasi-marxist elists, for example, is absorbed in stupid squabbles that have roots in the low level of political culture and theoretical knowlege of the participants. This situation, however, is not eternal. It is developing before our eyes. I hope, Vladimir, that I can eventually get around to replying to the rest of your email. It is so pleasant, and refreshing, to be opposed by someone who behaves like a marxist revolutionary! Sincerely, your comrade Ben Seattle ----//-// 8.Jul.99 ===================================================== [Note 1] This essay drew heavily in places from the analysis of the 1989 protests presented in the April, June and July 1989 issues of the "Workers' Advocate" (newspaper of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA). --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From Left-Transparency at Leninism.org Thu Jul 8 14:59:23 1999 From: Left-Transparency at Leninism.org (Ben Seattle) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: Zhang series ends--Ben takes break Message-ID: <01bec984$c1bb5ba0$0100007f@penelope> Hi everyone, A workers' movement in China will eventually emerge and win the basic and elementary rights of speech and association. A genuine communist movement will eventually support such developments as part of a lengthy process of regaining its footing after decades of betrayal and disorientation. As this process unfolds, the communist movement will, again, find itself deserving of the respect of workers. It is my hope that I have raised some interest and clarified some principles in the course of my series, which began with a post concerning Zhang Shanguang. I am ending the series, and the discussion, because the major points of principle have been raised. I have made a strong effort to reply to all serious questions. It is time for me to move on to other projects which require my attention. I am uns*bbing from this email list. I hope to eventually return. If anyone here considered my series to be useful, interesting or thought-provoking, I would very much appreciate hearing about it. I can be reached at left-transparency@Leninism.org. Sincerely, Ben Seattle www.Leninism.org ----//-// 8.Jul.99 --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From malecki at algonet.se Fri Jul 9 04:34:01 1999 From: malecki at algonet.se (Bob Malecki) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: thaxis homepage Message-ID: Russ, I got the new codes and moved the index.html to the site and now the address to the thaxis page works. But you got to download the rest of the stuff. Just send me a note so I can post the codes to you. My computer crashed along with all the addresses. The address for thaxis page is; http://host.bip.net/thaxis Just now Russ's index page is there. The meat on the bones will come when Russ download's the rest of the stuff to the site.. Bob --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk Fri Jul 9 05:26:59 1999 From: r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk (Russ) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: thaxis homepage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Russ, >I got the new codes and moved the index.html to the site and now the address >to the thaxis page works. But you got to download the rest of the stuff. >Just send me a note so I can post the codes to you. My computer crashed >along with all the addresses. > >The address for thaxis page is; > >http://host.bip.net/thaxis > >Just now Russ's index page is there. The meat on the bones will come when >Russ download's the rest of the stuff to the site.. > >Bob Thanks for setting this up Bob! I've uploaded all the materials and will begin work on the links page soon. I've kept the pages simple so that they will load quickly over a slow connection. Earlier Rob asked: >G'day Russ, > >How was that pint(s) of Pedigree and the weekend off? Very nice, ta. Good flat, warm English beer can't be bettered, though Marstons, who brew the Pedi, have been taken over by a rival brewery. Could all turn very sour. Same thing happened to Ruddles County, which used to be brewed in Rutland, Englands smallest county. Now it's brewed elsewhere and officianados tell me it aint quite the same. Anyway, that's enough beer talk, I'm starting to sound like a member of CAMRA (the Campaign for Real Ale-, a bunch of leftish saddoes). > Tell us more about >these meta tags, mate. The manipulation of search engines has to be an >issue for all this democratic discourse we're being promised, no? These tags are 'hidden' descriptors of the page, the contain a description of the page and a list of key words. Once a search engine has been told about the site it sends a spider (!) which records the description and logs all the key word. So, when someone does a search of the word 'marxism' it should pick up the Thaxis page. Here are the tags for the home page: Anyone want to add any more keywords or change the description? Russ --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From carob at dynamite.com.au Fri Jul 9 10:00:57 1999 From: carob at dynamite.com.au (Rob Schaap) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re: thaxis homepage Message-ID: <199907091557.BAA21728@dynamite.com.au> G'day Russ, You drool: >Good flat, warm English beer can't be bettered, though >Marstons, who brew the Pedi, have been taken over by a rival brewery. Could >all turn very sour. Same thing happened to Ruddles County, which used to be >brewed in Rutland, Englands smallest county. Now it's brewed elsewhere and >officianados tell me it aint quite the same. Anyway, that's enough beer >talk, I'm starting to sound like a member of CAMRA (the Campaign for Real >Ale-, a bunch of leftish saddoes). Yeah, Ozzies have no idea how voluptuous a pint of ale can be. And anyway, room temperature ain't quite the same thing over there. McEwen's Eighty Shilling Real Ale anchored me to an otherwise grimly wet Fort Augustus for a week one winter. >These tags are 'hidden' descriptors of the page, the contain a description >of the page and a list of key words. Once a search engine has been told >about the site it sends a spider (!) which records the description and logs >all the key word. So, when someone does a search of the word 'marxism' it >should pick up the Thaxis page. Ta, Russ. I hear tell some commercial sites (I bet the porn sites do this a lot) put the whole dictionary at 'keywords' in hidden text. Does that make sense? Else, why do I get stuff like 'shaven teens' out when I key 'political economy' in (impressed my beloved no end)? > > >Anyone want to add any more keywords or change the description? Well, the larger the net and the smaller the mesh, the more souls we might catch - would anyone mind if we added words like 'political economy'; 'Marxist'; 'critical'; 'Grundrisse'; 'class'; 'labour'; 'commodity'; 'progressive' etc etc? And good on yez, Bob and Russ! Night all, Rob. --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From davidb at ak.planet.gen.nz Sat Jul 10 07:33:33 1999 From: davidb at ak.planet.gen.nz (Dave Bedggood) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: thaxis homepage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <199907100124.NAA24355@planet.ak.planet.gen.nz> Yeah. Add Trotsky. >Russ, >I got the new codes and moved the index.html to the site and now the address >to the thaxis page works. But you got to download the rest of the stuff. >Just send me a note so I can post the codes to you. My computer crashed >along with all the addresses. > >The address for thaxis page is; > >http://host.bip.net/thaxis > >Just now Russ's index page is there. The meat on the bones will come when >Russ download's the rest of the stuff to the site.. > >Bob Thanks for setting this up Bob! I've uploaded all the materials and will begin work on the links page soon. I've kept the pages simple so that they will load quickly over a slow connection. Earlier Rob asked: >G'day Russ, > >How was that pint(s) of Pedigree and the weekend off? Very nice, ta. Good flat, warm English beer can't be bettered, though Marstons, who brew the Pedi, have been taken over by a rival brewery. Could all turn very sour. Same thing happened to Ruddles County, which used to be brewed in Rutland, Englands smallest county. Now it's brewed elsewhere and officianados tell me it aint quite the same. Anyway, that's enough beer talk, I'm starting to sound like a member of CAMRA (the Campaign for Real Ale-, a bunch of leftish saddoes). > Tell us more about >these meta tags, mate. The manipulation of search engines has to be an >issue for all this democratic discourse we're being promised, no? These tags are 'hidden' descriptors of the page, the contain a description of the page and a list of key words. Once a search engine has been told about the site it sends a spider (!) which records the description and logs all the key word. So, when someone does a search of the word 'marxism' it should pick up the Thaxis page. Here are the tags for the home page: Anyone want to add any more keywords or change the description? Russ --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From malecki at algonet.se Fri Jul 9 23:12:10 1999 From: malecki at algonet.se (Bob Malecki) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: SV: M-TH: thaxis homepage Message-ID: <000601beca92$c3e5b600$39e4a3c3@malecki> Looks great Russ! Maybe everybody should put a line in their signatures to the site... Bob --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From Estevm at aol.com Sat Jul 10 04:58:28 1999 From: Estevm at aol.com (Estevm@aol.com) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: Russian Workers Victory! & Gunmen Attack Workers Factory! Message-ID: Russian Workers Victory! & Gunmen Attack Workers Factory! Dear Comrades, Below are three letters put on the new Russi Info-List from International Solidarity with Workers in Russia - ISWoR. Any worthwhile Marxist must be able to see that Russia is now key to the international situation because of its internal dire political and economic situation and because US imperialism specifically, but also the EU in a different way, want and need Russia to become a semi-colony. Further, the struggle by the US, the EU and Russia (and secondary: China, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, India, etc) for control of the Caspian basin energy resources and its strategic geo-political significance, will now move into more and more open and direct conflict. In this next period, only Russian workers have the political and physical weight, and possibility, to unify workers across the whole of central Eurasia - but not if they come under the thumb of an ultra-nationalist movement. This is why international practical and political solidarity is so important - and why I am involved in ISWoR - and why you should be. for principled Communist unity in action - Steve Myers. ps - if you want to get on the Russia Info-List send a note to antek5@aol.com _________________________- RUSSIA INFO-LIST 10th July 1999 from International Solidarity with Workers in Russia - ISWoR *********************************************************** If you appreciate receiving this mail please distribute it to your friends and post it to internet forums; if not, send a "no more" message to: antek5@aol.com *********************************************************** *********************************************************** Dear Friends, 10 July 1999 Now the war in Yugoslavia is sort of over, class struggle in Russia is back in the headlines. Below are two current articles. The first shows the seriousness with which the bosses in Russia are taking the new wave of militancy and the lengths to which they are prepared to go to crush it. The gunmen assault on the Vyborg factory - observed by special police soldiers and local authorities - seems of particular significance in this next period. It does seem as though a vigorous campaign of international protest to the relevant authorities may be needed regarding this incident. (ISWoR will send out more details on this as soon as more info becomes available.) They must know in practice that Russian workers are not isolated, and that the world?s labour movement will not stand back and allow fascistic militias to destroy the new militant workers? movement in the bud. The second item, which concerns the very important Yasnogorsk workers victory is wonderful news, and we would like to congratulate all those workers, and thank their supporters in Russia, and ISWoR?s supporters world-wide who have given financial and political support to this struggle. Well done all. See also ISWoR letter to the Yasnogorsk workers below. Steve Myers ISWoR. GUNMEN ASSAULT WORKERS? FACTORY 9th July On the 9th of July a group of gunmen assaulted the building of Vyborg pulp and paper mill. The regional public prosecutor and a group of special police soldiers were watching the storm. Vyborg pulp and paper mill is famous for its workers' committee that took over the mill and has been running it since then. This was not the first attempt by the authorities and the bosses to return the control over the mill. During the latest assault two workers were wounded. The workers say they are not scared. Despite the prohibition they returned to the mill and started again the work. They say they will never stop fighting till they win. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- Moscow - July, the 9th, 1999 - from the Union of Marxists press centre - mgo@ahu.ru YASNOGORSK 8-MONTH OCCUPATION VICTORY! The strike is over the struggle is going on. One of the biggest and most important occupational strikes in Russia has ended in success. Yasnogorsk workers went on strike in December 1998 protesting against huge wage arrears and arrest of the two directors of the plant who had been appointed on the general meeting of the workers. The workers took over their plant last September. Since then Yasnogorsk workers' committee and trade-union committee had been running the plant for almost one year. The workers' committee has become the core and the centre of the struggle. It came into contact with many other strike and workers' committees as well as with revolutionary proletarian organisations in Russia and abroad. The struggle has destroyed all the illusions about so called ?human? people's capitalism and made them understand that the real enemy of every worker is not only the boss or the government but the private property and capitalism itself. Proletarian revolution is the only solution to all the problems the workers of Russia are facing. Every strike has its end. But this time the bosses were forced to sign a collective agreement drafted by the workers' committee and to admit ALL the terms that the workers insisted on. The workers are being paid. They are receiving money for all the months they were on strike. Their wages have been raised. The workers' committee has got the right to control the plant administration and can cancel any of the decision taken by the bosses in case it is considered unacceptable for the workers. It's an unprecedented case hardly imaginable not only in Russia but in any developed country of the world. At the same time Yasnogorsk workers do realise that their success will be finally destroyed unless they go on [continue - Ed] the struggle for the proletarian revolution. A good work has been done in this direction in order to unite strike and workers committees, other proletarian groups. But there is an urgent need for a co-ordinating centre. There is a huge amount of work to be done. But Yasnogorsk workers' committee believes that even the forthcoming Duma elections may help the process. A workers' candidate will run [stand in - Ed] the elections in Tula region. That will facilitate him the possibility to use mass media for the propaganda of revolutionary ideas. And in case he wins all the Duma facilities could be used for this purpose. "It will be difficult to win the elections. And the lack of money is the biggest problem of course. Bourgeois candidates have everything, we have nothing except for ourselves. But we will challenge them and do our best to win this small battle in order to make the next step on the road to revolution", - say Yasnogorsk workers. END ___________________________________________________________ ISWoR LETTER TO YASNOGORSK To the Yasnogorsk Workers Committee and Trade Union Committee - 10 July 1999 Dear Sisters, Brothers and Comrades, We are delighted to hear of your victory yesterday. It is an inspiration and great example to workers all across Russia that workers united in militant struggle are in fact a very powerful force. Indeed your fight been observed by many workers and their organisations around the world (possibly more than you are aware) and this will obviously now give our movement a much needed boost in general. The moment we received the message from the Moscow Union of Marxists informing us of your victory, we produced a leaflet for distribution containing their press statement of your victory. We are also sending your news world-wide by internet. It is our hope that in the course of future workers? and anti-fascist struggles in Russia, the practical and moral international support ISWoR and others have managed to achieve for your struggle will be multiplied many times over. Steve Myers - for the ISWoR International Committee. Ps - I hope to meet many of you in Yasnogorsk in October this year. *********************************************************** *********************************************************** Russia Info-List International Solidarity with Workers in Russia puts out information and, analysis from a wide range of sources. Messages posted to Russia Info-List do not necessarily reflect the views of ISWoR. We are a broad united front of individuals and organisations internationally who support Russian workers struggles, who oppose the IMF-Yeltsinite privatisation project, who oppose racism and fascism, and who want to build internationalism between workers of all nations. If you have something you would like to distribute on Russia Info-List, or want to help in our practical solidairty contact: antek5@aol.com Box R, 46 Denmark Hill, London SE5 8RZ --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From cburford at gn.apc.org Sat Jul 10 11:08:25 1999 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: Russian Workers Victory! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990710180825.013d691c@pop.gn.apc.org> At 06:58 10/07/99 EDT, you wrote: >Russian Workers Victory! >& Gunmen Attack >Workers Factory! > >Dear Comrades, > > Below are three letters put on the new Russi Info-List from >International Solidarity with Workers in Russia - ISWoR. Any worthwhile >Marxist must be able to see that Russia is now key to the international >situation because of its internal dire political and economic situation and >because US imperialism specifically, but also the EU in a different way, want >and need Russia to become a semi-colony. > >Further, the struggle by the US, the EU and Russia (and secondary: China, >Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, India, etc) for control of the Caspian basin energy >resources and its strategic geo-political significance, will now move into >more and more open and direct conflict. > >In this next period, only Russian workers have the political and physical >weight, and possibility, to unify workers across the whole of central Eurasia >- but not if they come under the thumb of an ultra-nationalist movement. This >is why international practical and political solidarity is so important - and >why I am involved in ISWoR - and why you should be. > >for principled Communist unity in action - Steve Myers. It sounds a very important terrain of struggle, above all to see whether there is enough socialism and democracy there to find the way to insulate the economy from global finance capital. But as for it being key? Sounds instead like the old argument of capitalism being ripest for revolution at its weakest link. What is the marxist strategy for the heartlands of imperialism? Solidarity with other revolutionary movements is not necessarily more than liberal democratic action. Chris Burford London --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk Mon Jul 12 08:19:44 1999 From: r.i.p at art.derby.ac.uk (Russ) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re: thaxis homepage In-Reply-To: <199907091557.BAA21728@dynamite.com.au> Message-ID: > >Ta, Russ. I hear tell some commercial sites (I bet the porn sites do this a >lot) put the whole dictionary at 'keywords' in hidden text. Does that make >sense? Else, why do I get stuff like 'shaven teens' out when I key >'political economy' in (impressed my beloved no end)? > Not sure what you did there Rob, my search didn't pick up any of these strange references! What sometimes happens though is that the metatags of 'free' 'sex' 'porn' and other addages that are best left out of Thaxis are used to secure more hits _regardless_ of the content of the site. Naturally the search engine owners don't like this as it messes up the purpose of their catalogues. I'll add the keywords below and Trotters once I gain access to the site- at the moment I'm getting an access refused message and I've asked Bob to check into this. > >Well, the larger the net and the smaller the mesh, the more souls we might >catch - would anyone mind if we added words like 'political economy'; >'Marxist'; 'critical'; 'Grundrisse'; 'class'; 'labour'; 'commodity'; >'progressive' etc etc? I've sent the details of the address to a number of engines already and these should be catalogued in a week or so. Hopefully these will attract potential new subbers as and when they do searches on any of the keywords. Just had a thought- if I add 'fetishism' as well as 'commodity' to the keywords I expect we'll attract some rather odd new Thaxians...! Russ --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From cburford at gn.apc.org Mon Jul 12 14:00:21 1999 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re: thaxis homepage In-Reply-To: References: <199907091557.BAA21728@dynamite.com.au> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990712210021.0164ef2c@pop.gn.apc.org> >Just had a thought- if I add 'fetishism' as well as 'commodity' to the >keywords I expect we'll attract some rather odd new Thaxians...! > >Russ Yes, and what about "moral depreciation"? Chris --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From billc at waikato.ac.nz Mon Jul 12 14:40:02 1999 From: billc at waikato.ac.nz (Bill Cochrane) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re: thaxis homepage Message-ID: <199907122039.IAA06240@mailserv.waikato.ac.nz> Odd compared to what? the current subscribers, Rob ..... lets test the waters with a discussion of the dialectics of rubber ---------- >From: Russ >To: marxism-thaxis@buo319b.econ.utah.edu >Subject: Re: M-TH: Re: thaxis homepage >Date: Tue, Jul 13, 1999, 2:19 AM > > Just had a thought- if I add 'fetishism' as well as 'commodity' to the > keywords I expect we'll attract some rather odd new Thaxians...! > > Russ --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From cburford at gn.apc.org Tue Jul 13 01:06:00 1999 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: Odd discussions In-Reply-To: <199907122039.IAA06240@mailserv.waikato.ac.nz> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990713080600.0165568c@pop.gn.apc.org> At 08:40 13/07/99 +1200, Bill wrote: >Odd compared to what? the current subscribers, Rob ..... lets test the >waters with a discussion of the dialectics of rubber >> Just had a thought- if I add 'fetishism' as well as 'commodity' to the >> keywords I expect we'll attract some rather odd new Thaxians...! dialectics of rubber. hm. I'm inclined to finger this rather cautiously. This is the ultimate test of the contoversial negation of the negation, is it Bill? But of course truth ultimately comes from social practice and from it alone. I am trying to remember whether you are likely to be using the word in the English or the American sense. Where does New Zealand lie on this great divide? What were you taught in school? Is the word censored from "Neighbours"? (I know they are not "neighbours" of yours, and I avoid watching it myself, but this could be a further sign of the decline of British imperialism.) Rubber is a rather metaphysical concept just viewed in the abstract. Could you perhaps get the ball rolling by saying exactly what your problem is with rubber? Chris --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Jul 13 09:12:35 1999 From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:56 2006 Subject: M-TH: Big Brother: Mind control is freedom of thought Message-ID: The Independent Monday, June 28, 1999 MONDAY BOOK: THE INTELLIGENTSIA AND THE CIA A grainy black-and-white photograph from the Fifties graces the cover of Frances Stonor Saunders's new history of the CIA's cultural cold warriors. Four men sit hunched round a table strewn with the remains of a meal; there are wine glasses smeared with fingerprints and the dregs of a bottle, while an afternoon sun slants through large windows. One man throws a menacing glance over his shoulder at the photographer. That look, and this clutch of figures, speak volumes about the mission of that tight network of intellectuals and espionage agents who worked alongside the CIA to promote the ideal of a new age of enlightenment - the pax Americana. Fearful of the Soviet Union's cultural influence, the agency operated a sophisticated cultural front to win over leftist artists and their audiences. This was the cold warriors' "battle for men's minds", stockpiled with a vast arsenal of journals, books, conferences, seminars, exhibitions, concerts and awards. Among the agency's most powerful operators was Michael Josselson, a former agent in the intelligence section of the Psychological Warfare Division. He went on to head the influential Congress for Cultural Freedom. Stonor Saunders vividly captures both Josselson's character, and the dynamic appeal of the pax Americana to a young Jewish intellectual with a passionate interest in literature and the right political bent. His network relied on his friends, many former members of the wartime Office of Strategic Services, and on his wife, Diana Dodge. After their wedding in Paris in 1953, he confessed that he was not really in the import- export business. Together, the couple formed an effective partnership. Diana describes an idyllic life in postwar Paris where "you felt you were in touch with everything going on everywhere - things were blossoming, it was vital". She also succumbed to the romantic fantasy of the intelligence world, and was given her own code name. An agent would hand over memos and cables from Washington to Michael during their Martini hour at the Josselsons's apartment. "We'd read the incoming cables, then I'd flush them down the toilet." But there was more to the American cultural frontline than romance and ideological conviction. The agency's biggest weapon was its bank account. From its inception in 1952, the Congress that Josselson headed received millions of dollars to act as America's unofficial Ministry of Culture. "We couldn't spend it all," recalled former CIA agent Gilbert Greenway. "There were no limits, and nobody had to account for it. It was amazing." Radio Free Europe alone received a budget of $10m at its founding in Berlin in 1950. Elsewhere, a former case officer described piling his car high with bundles of dollar bills for distribution into "quiet channels". By the Sixties a joke was circulating that, if any American philanthropic or cultural organisation carried the words "free" or "private", it must be a CIA front. While thousands reaped the benefits of their position, others were victimised by the agency's relentless pursuit of Communist "fellow travellers" in the arts. During spring 1953, when the impact of the Rosenbergs' treason trial and execution had exposed resentment at America's presence in Europe, the United States Information Agency conducted a purge of "pro-Communist writers". More than 30,000 books were banned from USIA libraries, including works by Dashiell Hammett, Langston Hughes, John Reed and Herman Melville. The number of titles shipped abroad by USIA in 1953 plunged from 119,913 to 314. When the CIA's involvement in American culture was finally exposed in the Sixties, it revealed a staggering number of household-name artists who had received its tainted funds. Through myriad projects, from cash- heavy prizes to magazines such as Encounter and international conferences, the beneficiaries included WH Auden, AA Milne, Nancy Mitford, Mary MacCarthy, Stephen Spender, Jackson Pollock, Isaiah Berlin and George Orwell. Did they realise they were being used? Stonor Saunders argues that most of these artists knew where their money was coming from and "if they didn't they were... cultivatedly and culpably, ignorant". The damage the CIA caused was irreparable and pervasive. Behind the "unexamined nostalgia for the `Golden Days' of American intelligence lay a more devastating truth," Stonor Saunders writes. "The same people who read Dante and went to Yale and were educated in civic virtue recruited Nazis, manipulated the outcome of democratic elections, gave LSD to unwitting subjects, opened the mail of thousands of American citizens, overthrew governments, supported dictatorships, plotted assassinations, and engineered the Bay of Pigs disaster." "In the name of what?" asked one critic. "Not civic virtue, but empire." Who Paid the Piper? illuminates a dark corner of America's cultural history, drawing on an extraordinary range of interviews and recently opened documents. Frances Stonor Saunders is strong on biographical sketches, and a thorough researcher. But questions about the real impact of the cultural cold war remain to be answered. In spite of its murky sources, did this money still produce some of the most significant art of the 20th century? --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Jul 13 11:42:29 1999 From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Fwd: Russian workers establish full control over administration Message-ID: Moscow July, the 9th, 1999 The strike is over the struggle is going on One of the biggest and most important occupational strikes in Russia has ended in success. Yasnogorsk workers went on strike in December 1998 protesting against huge wage arrears and arrest of the two directors of the plant who had been appointed on the general meeting of the workers. The workers took over their plant last September. Since then Yasnogorsk workers' committee and trade-union committee had been running the plant for almost one year. The workers' committee has become the core and the centre of the struggle. It came into contact with many other strike and workers' committees as well as with revolutionary proletarian organisations in Russia and abroad. The struggle has destroyed all the illusions about so called human people's capitalism and made them understand that the real enemy of every worker is not only the boss or the government but the private property and capitalism itself. Proletarian revolution is the only solution to all the problems the workers of Russia are facing. Every strike has its end. But this time the bosses were forced to sign a collective agreement drafted by the workers' committee and to admit all the terms that the workers insisted on. The workers are being paid. They are receiving money for all the months they were on strike. Their wages have been raised. The workers' committee has got the right to control the plant administration and can cancel any of the decision taken by the bosses in case it is considered unacceptable for the workers. It's an unprecedented case hardly imaginable not only in Russia but in any developed country of the world. At the same time Yasnogorsk workers do realise that their success will be finally destroyed unless they go on the struggle for the proletarian revolution. A good work has been done in this direction in order to unite strike and workers committees, other proletarian groups. But there is an urgent need for a co-ordinating centre. There is a huge amount of work to be done. But Yasnogorsk workers' committee believes that even the forthcoming Duma elections may help the process. A workers' candidate will run the elections in Tula region. That will facilitate him the possibility to use mass media for the propaganda of revolutionary ideas. And in case he wins all the Duma facilities could be used for this purpose. "It will be difficult to win the elections. And the lack of money is the biggest problem of course. Bourgeois candidates have everything, we have nothing except for ourselves. But we will challenge them and do our best to win this small battle in order to make the next step on the road to revolution", - say Yasnogorsk workers. UM press centre mgo@aha.ru -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Vladimir Bilenkin Subject: Russian workers establish full control over administration Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:50:42 -0400 Size: 4451 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/attachments/19990713/f7c3870d/attachment.mht From magellan at netrio.com.br Thu Jul 15 13:02:55 1999 From: magellan at netrio.com.br (magellan@netrio.com.br) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Please, where Rosa Luxemburg X Lenin ? Message-ID: <199907151902.QAA05639@web.momentus.com.br> Could anyone tell me where in the Net can I find a translation into English or into any Romance language of "Die russische Revolution" by Rosa Luxemburg? The German original may be found at Thanks in advance, R. Magellan magellan@netrio.com.br 1919 / 1999: Entweder Sozialismus oder Barbarei ! --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From cburford at gn.apc.org Fri Jul 16 00:04:26 1999 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Please, where Rosa Luxemburg X Lenin ? In-Reply-To: <199907151902.QAA05639@web.momentus.com.br> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990716070426.0151c704@pop.gn.apc.org> At 16:02 15/07/99 -0300, you wrote: > >Could anyone tell me where in the Net can I find a translation into English >or into any Romance language of "Die russische Revolution" by Rosa >Luxemburg? The German original may be found at > > >Thanks in advance, >R. Magellan > >magellan@netrio.com.br > > 1919 / 1999: Entweder Sozialismus oder Barbarei ! On the Marxists Internet Archive, http://www.marxists.org/index.htm specifically http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxembur/ [sic] Can I ask the origin of "Either Socialism or Barbarism", which is often used. Is this a work by Luxemburg? A quote? By whom? Date 1919 presumably? Chris Burford London --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From magellan at netrio.com.br Fri Jul 16 10:20:33 1999 From: magellan at netrio.com.br (magellan@netrio.com.br) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Please, where Rosa Luxemburg X Lenin ? Message-ID: <199907161620.NAA21474@web.momentus.com.br> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 From: Chris Burford Subject: Re: M-TH: Please, where Rosa Luxemburg X Lenin ? Reply-To: marxism-thaxis@buo319b.econ.utah.edu At 16:02 15/07/99 -0300, you wrote: > >Could anyone tell me where in the Net can I find a translation into English >or into any Romance language of "Die russische Revolution" by Rosa >Luxemburg? The German original may be found at > > >Thanks in advance, >R. Magellan > >magellan@netrio.com.br > > 1919 / 1999: Entweder Sozialismus oder Barbarei ! On the Marxists Internet Archive, http://www.marxists.org/index.htm specifically http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxembur/ [sic] Can I ask the origin of "Either Socialism or Barbarism", which is often used. Is this a work by Luxemburg? A quote? By whom? Date 1919 presumably? Chris Burford London Thank you, Chris ! "Either Socialism or Barbarism !" is said to be an expression used by Rosa in the wake of World War I. It was a prophetic one and today is more up-to-date than never. 1919 is the year when she and Karl Liebeknecht were murdered. Now in January about 100 thousand people gathered in Berlin to celebrate her 80th __death__day. I said 100 thousand, so she and Karl are really alive ! In solidarity, R. Magellan --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From cburford at gn.apc.org Sat Jul 17 08:49:44 1999 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Luxemburg v Lenin? In-Reply-To: <199907161620.NAA21474@web.momentus.com.br> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990717154944.0126ad5c@pop.gn.apc.org> At 13:20 16/07/99 , >>R. Magellan >> >>magellan@netrio.com.br >> >> 1919 / 1999: Entweder Sozialismus oder Barbarei ! > > >On the Marxists Internet Archive, http://www.marxists.org/index.htm > >specifically http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxembur/ [sic] > >Can I ask the origin of "Either Socialism or Barbarism", which is often >used. Is this a work by Luxemburg? A quote? By whom? Date 1919 presumably? > >Chris Burford > >London > > >Thank you, Chris ! > >"Either Socialism or Barbarism !" is said to be an expression used by Rosa >in the wake of World War I. It was a prophetic one and today is more >up-to-date than never. 1919 is the year when she and Karl Liebeknecht were >murdered. Now in January about 100 thousand people gathered in Berlin to >celebrate her 80th __death__day. I said 100 thousand, so she and Karl are >really alive ! She sounds like a symbol of subjective revolutionary passion, like Che Guevara. I know little about her except that Lenin argued against her errors on the national question, and regarded her as an eagle, even though eagles can sometimes swoop lower than chickens. (ref?) Last weekend I went to a seminar with the above title at the London Socialist Discussion Forum sponsored by the left discussion journals "What Next?" and "New Interventions". The speaker, from the editorial boards of New Interventions and Revolutionary History, quickly distanced himself from the title. These are some of the points made by him and other contributors. Luxemburg was opposed to the distribution of land to the peasants and to the right of nations to self-determination. She considered this latter to be unrealisable in a capitalist world. She was very much influenced by Leo Jogiches, an older comrade with whom she worked in the Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland. In 1904 she argued about Lenin on party building, writing On the Organisational Questions of Social Democracy. However it was alleged in the discussion she could be as centralist as she accused Lenin of being: she had authoritarian control over the SDKP even at one time considering beating a group of political enemies by putting it about that they were police agents. She was in favour of a broad party and criticised the existence of a large number of factions in exile. She over-emphasised the possibilities of appealing directly to the masses. She was with Lenin on the principle of splitting with social chauvinism at Zimmerwald, having already in 1910 split with Kautsky, but differed from Lenin about the timing of making the split absolute which she regarded as a tactical question. It was alleged that up to 1910 she was the deputy editor of Neue Zeit, and therefore in a position of considerable influence which it would have been a mistake to abandon prematurely. After the war German Social Democracy was influenced by the Bremen Left Radicals who were indluenced by Pannekoek and Gorter. Paul Levy was in due course expelled as a rightist. There was an element of ultra-left impatience in Rosa Luxemburg. Her book on the Accumulation of Capital predicted that a closed capitalist economy must break down automatically. No one knew of anything she had written on philosophical questions, including dialectics. In the discussion some argued that the differences between her and Lenin were overstated. In 1925 at the 5th Congress of the Communist International it was stated that it "real Bolshevisation" of the International was not possible without overcoming "Luxemburgism". The slogan Either Socialism or Barbarism does seem to me to exclude intermediate positions of struggle for democratic rights. This would be consistent with her opposition to the right of nations to self=determination and the distribution of land to the peasants. She regarded the collapse of socialism as inevitable, unless barbarism supervened. To some extent this a crucial issue in her criticism of Bernstein in "Reform and Revolution". Asking what was the right thing to do, in retrospect, is a confusing question. It is not clear whether it implies "knowing what revolutionaries knew then", or whether it implies "knowing what we know now". But surely the question has to be asked whether Luxemburg, like Che Guevara, gave her life prematurely, and whether her assassination was a manifestation of an uncompromising class-against-class line that by the early thirties left Germany vulnerable to a fascist coup. Chris Burford London PS Some of Lenin's criticisms of Luxemburg are contained in "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination". Section 8, "The Utopian Karl Marx, and the Practical Rosa Luxemburg" starts: "Calling Polish independence a 'utopia' and repeating this ad nauseam, Rosa Luxemburg exclaims ironically: Why not raise the demand for the independence of Ireland? The 'practical' Rosa Luxemburg evidently does not know what Karl Marx's attitude to the question of Irish independence was." --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From carob at dynamite.com.au Sat Jul 17 11:23:55 1999 From: carob at dynamite.com.au (Rob Schaap) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re: Luxemburg v Lenin? Message-ID: <199907171514.BAA21352@m0.dynamite.com.au> Awright, Chris. You have a bite. You write: >She sounds like a symbol of subjective revolutionary passion, like Che Guevara. Leaving poor Che out of it for a minute - where do you get that 'subjective revolutionary passion' bit from? Don't you like that quip of hers about 'the false steps which a real revolutionary labour movement makes are historically immeasurably more fruitful and valuable than the infallibility of the best central committee'? I do. >Luxemburg was opposed to the distribution of land to the peasants and to >the right of nations to self-determination. Luxemburg opposed this only in the short term - thinking that efficiencies would be given up if the large estates were to be broken up at a time when things were a tad fragile food-wise. Er, she had a point, didn't she? >She considered this latter to be unrealisable in a capitalist world. That wasn't her argument. She thought the nationalist component of the Polish working class were too ready to compromise with their nationalist allies in the petit bourgeoisie and borgeoisie. This at a time when she considered it essential that nothing confuse or qualify the potential tide of proletarian revolutionary sentiment coming from the east. She was a great one for applying class analyses at the moment, and revising these as moments changed. Tolerably Marxist position, really. >She was very much influenced by Leo Jogiches, an older comrade with whom >she worked in the Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland. Who was himself hunted down and killed straight after Rosa and Karl died. >In 1904 she argued about Lenin on party building, writing On the >Organisational Questions of Social Democracy. However it was alleged in the >discussion she could be as centralist as she accused Lenin of being: she >had authoritarian control over the SDKP even at one time considering >beating a group of political enemies by putting it about that they were >police agents. I hadn't heard this last. In fact I thought the reason she did not split from the rightist socdem warmongers immediately in 1914 was that she did not feel she should try to impose from above what was not yet sufficiently widely and deeply inculcated within the rank and file. Her commitment to democratic processes was such that she was prepared to join her comrades in a 'false step'. Mebbe an early split might have been a good idea - but then we'll never know. >She was in favour of a broad party and criticised the existence of a large number of factions in exile. You'd be okay with that, wouldn't you. >She over-emphasised the possibilities of appealing directly to the masses. She had a nascently revolutionary moment on her hands, and at such times masses are are very different things than we are in other times. 'Revolution from below' has to mean something, doesn't it? >After the war German Social Democracy was influenced by the Bremen Left >Radicals who were indluenced by Pannekoek and Gorter. Paul Levy was in due >course expelled as a rightist. Pannekoek rewards another read, too. Failed revolutions are better than none at all, but *only* if people learn from what went wrong. Pannekoek has some compelling things to say on this. >No one knew of anything she had written on philosophical questions, including dialectics. I still think her approach to the masses a more two-sided one than the one so arrogantly advanced by Radek and some of the more centralist bolshies of the time. Her philosophy was in her practice, and her practice caused her to change her theory (she was a great one for speaking up when she felt a change of mind was suggested by events). >In the discussion some argued that the differences between her and Lenin were overstated. Lelio Basso's *Rosa Luxemburg: A reappraisal* takes this line. I don't know enough to take a firm position, but my inclination is to disagree. I reckon there were fundamental differences. It's in Lenin's tone when he takes Luxemburg to task on stuff like the national question. But Rosa did grow much more understanding over time - as Lenin's invidious plight started becoming apparent in 1918. >In 1925 at the 5th Congress of the Communist International >it was stated that it "real Bolshevisation" of the International was not >possible without overcoming "Luxemburgism". > >The slogan Either Socialism or Barbarism does seem to me to exclude >intermediate positions of struggle for democratic rights. You're stretching a bit here. But if I were to go along, I'd argue that we should bear in mind the cleavage in the left in her time and place. Rosa saw one side of that left as a potential emasculator of the left as a whole within a miltarist and dangerous milieu. That, she thought, could lead to barbarism. It did. >This would be >consistent with her opposition to the right of nations to >self=determination and the distribution of land to the peasants. She did NOT oppose self-determination as a matter of course (she affirmed the big fella's stance on Poland in the First International, for instance - she just thought times had changed a bit, that's all). Really, Chris. She was much more the Marxist student of the historical moment than you seem to be prepared to allow. >She regarded the collapse of socialism as inevitable, unless barbarism supervened. I hadn't heard this either. I'd need a cite - just to see if she wasn't being historically sensitive again. Just as we should not equate Marxism with cemented principles for all seasons, neither should we think this of Rosa, who herselk went on and on about how Marxism was a method alive to the moment, not a frozen recipe. >But surely >the question has to be asked whether Luxemburg, like Che Guevara, gave her >life prematurely, and whether her assassination was a manifestation of an >uncompromising class-against-class line that by the early thirties left >Germany vulnerable to a fascist coup. Am I to infer you think Rosa unwittingly brought forth Nazism? That'd take some substantiation, I reckon. More than I reckon anyone could muster. Okay, I'm a bit of a fan, so mebbe I'm a tad touchy. But you're going a long way with very little here, I think. As for your implicit broader point - which, if I read you right, attempts to enlist Rosa's shortcomings in your argument with this list's more sanguine Trots on the subject of possible incremental progress versus possible self-disqualification from the socio-political milieu - well, I reckon you've better ammo in your clip than this lot. Apologies if I read you wrong. Cheers, Rob. --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From lew at lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk Sat Jul 17 15:50:14 1999 From: lew at lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk (Lew) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re: Luxemburg v Lenin? In-Reply-To: <199907171514.BAA21352@m0.dynamite.com.au> References: <199907171514.BAA21352@m0.dynamite.com.au> Message-ID: In article <199907171514.BAA21352@m0.dynamite.com.au>, Rob Schaap writes >>This would be >>consistent with her opposition to the right of nations to >>self=determination and the distribution of land to the peasants. > >She did NOT oppose self-determination as a matter of course (she affirmed >the big fella's stance on Poland in the First International, for instance - >she just thought times had changed a bit, that's all). Really, Chris. She >was much more the Marxist student of the historical moment than you seem to >be prepared to allow. Not sure that this is correct, Rob. I think Chris's summary is right (!). Have you read something of hers which argues the above? Certainly from what I have read her general position was one of intransigent opposition to all nationalism. She described Marx's position on Polish independence as "obsolete and mistaken" and wrote: "A 'right of nations' which is valid for all countries and all times is nothing more than a metaphysical cliche of the type of 'rights of man' and 'rights of the citizen'. When we speak of the 'right of nations to self-determination', we are using the concept of the 'nation' as a homogeneous social and political entity... In a class society, 'the nation' as a homogeneous socio-political entity does not exist. Rather, there exist within each nation, classes with antagonistic interests and 'rights'". (From _The National Question: Selected Writings of Rosa Luxemburg_, ed. by Horace Davis, 1976) -- Lew --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From feldman at apex.net.au Sun Jul 18 09:11:29 1999 From: feldman at apex.net.au (Harry Feldman) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Luxemburg v Lenin? References: <3.0.2.32.19990717154944.0126ad5c@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <3791EEA1.ED1@apex.net.au> Chris Burford writes: 'The slogan Either Socialism or Barbarism does seem to me to exclude intermediate positions of struggle for democratic rights.' I reckon he has the wrong end of the stick. The source of the 'slogan' is towards the end of 'The crisis in German Social Democracy', part 1 of the _Junius Pamphlet_ (1916, not 1919), where she writes: Friedrich Engels once said: "Capitalist society faces a dilemma: either an advance to socialism or a reversion to barbarism." What does a "reversion to barbarsim"mean at the present stage of European civilisation? We hace all read and repeated these words thoughtlessly, without a notion of their terrible seriousness. At this moment, one glance around us will show what a reversion to barbarism in bourgeois society means. This World War?that is a reversion ot barbarism. The triumph of imperialism leads to the destruction of culture, sporadically during a modern war, and forever if the period of world wars which has just begun is allowed to take its course to its logical end. Thus, we stand today, as Friedrich Engels prophesied more than a generation ago, before the choice: Either the triumph of imperialism and the destruction of all culture and, as in ancient Rome, depopulation, desolation, degeneration, a vast cemetary. Or, the victory of socialism, that is, the conscious struggle of the international proletariat against imperialism and its method: war. This is the dilemma of world history, an Either/Or whose scales are trembling in the balance, awaiting the decision of the class-conscious proletariat. The future of culture and humanity depends on whether the proletariat throws the sword of revolutionary struggle with manly decisiveness upon the scales. Imperialism has been victorious in this war. Its blooody sword of mass murder has dashed the scales with overwhelming brutality into the abyss of shame and misery. If the proletariat learns from this war to assert itself, to cast off its serfdom to the ruling classes, to become the lord of its own destiny, the same and misery will not have been in vain. [Dick Howard's translation in Howard, Dick, ed. 1971. _Selected political writings of Rosa Luxemburg_. NY:MR Press. p. 334.] (A cursory search of the Colorado archive has not revealed the source of the Engels quote.) In part, this is a restatement of the point Marx and Engels make at the outset of _The Communist Manifesto_: '...oppressor and oppressed...carried on an uninterrupted...fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.' At one level, what she is asserting, like Marx and Engels, is that the systematic internal contradictions inherent in capitalism ensure its demise. The question is whether a victorious working class will form a new, socialist society, or whether it will collapse of its own accord, so to speak. But she goes further than Marx and Engels by identifying barbarism as inherent within capitalism itself. Barbarism is the inevitable outcome of capitalist competition expressed militarily?imperialism. She is clearly using the expression 'barbarism' in a less technical sense than Engels did, following Morgan, in _The origin of the family, private property and the state_. War is barbarism. Luxemburg most assuredly did not 'exclude intermediate positions of struggle for democratic rights.' In 'Reform or revolution' she writes, 'If democracy has become partially superfluous and partially troublesome to the bourgeoisie, it is necessary and indispensable to the working class.' [Howard's translation, p.119] I take it that when he writes: 'She regarded the collapse of socialism as inevitable, unless barbarism supervened. To some extent this a crucial issue in her criticism of Bernstein in "Reform and Revolution".' he intends, 'the collapse of capitalism'. I concur that it is crucial to her polemic against Bernstein, but in precisely the opposite way from what I understand Chris to suggest. In fact, 'Reform or revolution' argues, conclusively to my mind, that the central reformist idea that capitalism will 'collapse' through the gradual introduction of reforms, through the extension of credit, through globalisation, etc., is an idealist dream. 'It is absolutely false and totally unhistorical to represent work for reforms as a drawn-out revolution, and revolution as a condensed series of reforms. A social transformation and a legislative reform do not differ according to their _duration_ but according to their _essence_...He who pronounces himself in favour of legal reforms _in place of and as opposed to_ the conquest of political power and social revolution does not really choose a more tranquil, surer and slower road to the _same_ goal. He choses a _different_ goal.' [Howard translation, pp. 115-116.] I'm not sure how this thread got its title, but I don't see any conflict in the objectives of Lenin and Luxemburg. All revolutionaries, like other mortals, make mistakes and miss out important stuff. Marx never adequately elaborated what he called 'countervailing tendencies' to the falling rate of profit. Luxemburg was wrong on the national question. Lenin was right. More importantly, Luxemburg's error on the role of the party led her to delay splitting with the SPD, which may have been the crucial factor in the defeat of the 1918 revolution. We have the advantage of being able to evaluate their theory and practice with the benefit of hindsight and that's exactly what we need to do. Luxemburg has left revolutionaries a great legacy. As I typed in the passage I quoted from the 'Junius pamphlet', I couldn't help thinking of how timely it was in the wake of the NATO's imperialist adventure in Kosovo. Those who have to intersect with people swayed by Blairism, 'New Labour', the 'Third Way' and all that other reformist shit?and that means all of us?can do a lot worse than a reread of 'Reform or revolution'. --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From carob at dynamite.com.au Sat Jul 17 23:46:40 1999 From: carob at dynamite.com.au (Rob Schaap) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re: Luxemburg v Lenin? Message-ID: <199907180337.NAA18798@m0.dynamite.com.au> G'day Lew, Chris & Harry, Lew writes: >Not sure that this is correct, Rob. I think Chris's summary is right >(!). Have you read something of hers which argues the above? Well, yeah - although I'll have to 'fess up at the outset that the second half of the quote Lew provides seems to sit well with Chris's reading. I think we should begin with her insistence against uncritical pro-nationalism as 'metaphysical cliche' in terms of her moment, and her argument in 'Preface to the Polish Question & the Socialist Movement' (English translations of which can be gleaned from the last chapter of the Basso book): "For the socialists, the indubitable right of every nation to independence was and is clear, for this, too, proceeds from the basic principles of socialism ... (but) elucidating phenomena of Poland as created by capitalism and having regard to the country's special historical and political conditions ... . the objective analysis of the social evolution of Poland leads to the conclusion that the trends towards a re-establishment of a Polish state at this time are a petit-bourgeois Utopia; as such, they are suited only to confuse the proletariat's class struggle and lead it astray. That sounds more like the woman I thought she was, anyway. And it makes of that bit about 'antagonistic interests' a much more complex issue. The capitalist state is always a contradictory incompleteness, but nationalist movements can serve progress (as when a unified Polish state might constitute an irksome bulwark against Russian Tsarism) as well as inhibit it (as when it leads workers from addressing the ever-pre-eminent social cleavage at a time when Tsarism is on its knees and an adjacent socialist revolution is in train). This is the contemporary substance of the general point with which she opens the quote you proffer: >"A 'right of nations' which is valid for all countries and all times is >nothing more than a metaphysical cliche of the type of 'rights of man' >and 'rights of the citizen'. When we speak of the 'right of nations to >self-determination', we are using the concept of the 'nation' as a >homogeneous social and political entity... In a class society, 'the >nation' as a homogeneous socio-political entity does not exist. Rather, >there exist within each nation, classes with antagonistic interests and >'rights'". > >(From _The National Question: Selected Writings of Rosa Luxemburg_, ed. >by Horace Davis, 1976) Cheers, Rob. --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From Estevm at aol.com Sun Jul 18 07:58:30 1999 From: Estevm at aol.com (Estevm@aol.com) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: RUSSIA ACTION - Support Vyborg Workers Message-ID: <6c425f15.24c33786@aol.com> Forward: RUSSIA INFO-LIST from International Solidarity with Workers in Russia - ISWoR *********************************************************** If you appreciate receiving this mail please distribute it to your friends and post it to internet forums; if not, send a "no more" message to: International Solidarity with Workers in Russia - email antek5@aol.com *********************************************************** *********************************************************** Back Vyborg Workers Now! Bosses Use Armed Mercenary Gangs On 9 July 1999, eighty masked, uniformed gunmen accompanied by the local prosecutor and other officials tried to storm the Vyborg Pulp and Paper Mill, under occupation by workers for the past eighteen months. One special police unit, normally used to put down prison riots, is reported to have been particularly vicious. At the same time, another private armed militia linked to the mill owners captured the workers? elected director Vantorin and tried to force (and made him a substantial bribe) him to call off the strike. He stood firm and the workers, using the mill?s own alarm system managed to mobilise enough people (including local residents who support their struggle) to beat off the attack. However, the fighting was fierce, and two workers are seriously injured. Some Background Information The Vyborg Pulp and Paper Mill, in the town of Sovietsky (Leningrad Oblast), sits in a highly strategic location near the Russo-Finnish border, one of the busiest border and trade crossings in the country, as well as being nearby the railway line that links Russia with Scandinavia. The mill itself is very large and features some of the most modern equipment in the industry. Formerly owned by American Cellulose, this plant was bankrupted in 1996, in a process which has become very typical of Russian capitalism today, where firms are allowed to run to the ground, then asset-stripped and auctioned at low prices. Profits made are inevitably salted away abroad. Meanwhile the local workforce, often highly skilled and experienced, are left to starve. What made the Vyborg situation different was that the workers, as in Samara, Yasnogorsk (Tula) and other struggles which we have supported, refused to accept their impoverishment and they seized complete control of their plant. They ran production themselves, electing their own (unpaid) plant director. A few months later, the new owners, Nimonor Investments, sued the workers committee and trade union. A counter-suit was filed by another group of vultures, the creditors of the bankrupt mill, who felt the property had been unfairly awarded to Nimonor. Nevertheless, though the courts ruled in favour of Nimonor, the latter was unable to drive out the occupying workers and establish control over the mill. Key areas of strength for the workers were the solidarity they received from other local and regional workers organisations, the massive local sympathy (the mill produces the electricity that supplies people?s homes), and perhaps most importantly of all, their threat to cut off all traffic on the Russia-Scandinavia highway and the railway. The mass blockades of last summer?s ?rail war? in support of the miners and other workers showed just how important this tactic is proving to be. The mill has since been sold by Nimonor to a company called Alcem UK Ltd., apparently linked to some of the most mafia-ridden sections of Russian industry, the alcohol and aluminium sectors. The relationship of Nimonor and Alcem to each other is not clear, nor is it clear whether these are actually front companies for a larger firm. One thing is clear, however. The combined attack by government authorities and private company militias, armed with guns and batons, was designed to destroy in the bud the new, rising militancy of Russian workers, sick of their plight. The IMF-Yeltsin privatisation programme has reduced much of the economy of this former superpower to that of a Third World Country. Russian workers, who once enjoyed a life expectancy similar to western levels, now live on average to the age of 56. They will not put up with this situation any longer. The ruthless attack on the Vyborg workers comes hard on the heels of an unprecedented victory by the workers of the Yasnogorsk (Tula region) machine plant, who also took control of their factory in a similar scenario to the Vyborg one. Nearly all of their demands were conceded after a long occupation during which the workers ran production, shared the profits and fed their town. Every boss in Russia is terrified that this method of fighting will become widespread, and that the authorities will lose more and more control. Clearly they hope to roll back the tide now by using violent, fascistic methods, before this militancy goes any further. Now is the time to answer the Vyborg workers appeal for international solidarity with Vyborg workers. All workers and progressive organisations around the world need to send their messages of protest to the regional authorities (see inset), and to stand by ready for further action. We are also interested to hear any information regarding the true identity of Alcem UK Ltd., its major shareholders, its trading partners, etc.. Contact ..... TAKE ACTION NOW! The Government of the Leningrand Region say they are going to discuss ?the situation with the Vyborg mill.? Now (17th July) is a good time to send them many faxes and e-mails of protest about the attacks by armed militia?s against the Vyborg workers, etc. the acting governor is Serdiukov, V. P. Fax: (007) 812-271-56-27 Head of the Press Center: Veretin, A. I. phone (007) 812-312-46-35, 276-61-08 fax (007) 812-110-78-41 E-mail: lobl@mail.lanck.net President?s Representative Poltavchenko, G. tel/fax (007) 812-274-08-25 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Friends, International Solidarity with Workers in Russia - ISWoR - is collaborating with others in Russia and around the world to make our voice heard loudly in support of the Vyborg workers. Please take action as requested above and more information will be forthcoming on what action can be taken next. Please let ISWoR know of any fax's or e-mails you send in protest. e-mail - antek@aol.com fax: +44 171 733 9622 Regards, Steve Myers for ISWoR. *********************************************************** *********************************************************** The RUSSIA INFO-LIST - puts out information and analysis from a wide range of sources. Messages posted to Russia Info-List do not necessarily reflect the views of ISWoR. We are a broad united front of individuals and organisations internationally who support Russian workers struggles, who oppose the IMF-Yeltsinite privatisation project, who oppose racism and fascism, and who want to build international solidarity between workers of all nations. If you have something you would like to distribute on Russia Info-List, or want to help in our practical solidarity work, contact: antek5@aol.com Box R, 46 Denmark Hill, London SE5 8RZ --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From cburford at gn.apc.org Sun Jul 18 17:29:06 1999 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re: Luxemburg v Lenin? In-Reply-To: References: <199907171514.BAA21352@m0.dynamite.com.au> <199907171514.BAA21352@m0.dynamite.com.au> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990719002906.00be7bb8@pop.gn.apc.org> At 22:50 17/07/99 +0100, Lew wrote: >I think Chris's summary is right >(!). I liked the exclamation mark. I did actually check the Dictionary of Marxist Thought before posting. What I overlooked on my shelves and did not check was Rosa Luxemburg by Paul Froelich, 1940, Left Book Club, Victor Gollancz, translated by Edward Fitzgerald. It looks potentially anti-communist in the timing of its publication. But I see from the translator's preface that he was one of the Bremen Left Wing Radicals, that he was a member of the Central Committee of the KPD. He was expelled together with Brandler and Thalheimer. For a time he was leader of the Communist Opposition, then with a large section of that movement joined the Socialist Workers Party (SAP) which had in the meantime formed as a radical breakaway from the SDP. How good is his reputation, and how reputable is his book? Chris Burford London --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From jorn.andersen at vip.cybercity.dk Sun Jul 18 22:01:19 1999 From: jorn.andersen at vip.cybercity.dk (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rn_?= Andersen) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Luxemburg v Lenin? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19990719053923.03d556cc@vip.cybercity.dk> At 08:11 18-07-99 -0700, Harry Feldman wrote: >I reckon he has the wrong end of the stick. The source of the 'slogan' >is towards the end of 'The crisis in German Social Democracy', part 1 of >the _Junius Pamphlet_ (1916, not 1919), where she writes: > >Friedrich Engels once said: "Capitalist society faces a dilemma: either >an advance to socialism or a reversion to barbarism." >(A cursory search of the Colorado archive has not revealed the source of >the Engels quote.) > >In part, this is a restatement of the point Marx and Engels make at the >outset of _The Communist Manifesto_: '...oppressor and >oppressed...carried on an uninterrupted...fight that each time ended, >either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the >common ruin of the contending classes.' A quote with a similar message from Engels: _The Condition of England_ (1844 in _Deutsch-Franz?sische Jahrb?cher_): "Democracy, Chartism must soon be victorious, and then the mass of the English workers will have the choice only between starvation and socialism." Jorn -- Jorn Andersen Internationale Socialister Copenhagen, Denmark IS-WWW: http://soc.revy.homepage.dk/ --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From k.bullimore at student.canberra.edu.au Sun Jul 18 23:28:24 1999 From: k.bullimore at student.canberra.edu.au (Bullimore / Kim Maree (COM)) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: DITA SARI RELEASED FROM PRISON Message-ID: On July 5, Dita Indah Sari, who has been jailed for almost 3 years was freed unconditionaly by the Habibie government. Dita was the only women political prisoner in INdonesian goals. Dita had been jailed for leading 20,000 people in a protest for better wages and conditions. She was arrested on July 8, 1996. When the military went into arrest her at the rally she was leading, workers attempted to protect her by surrounding her, but to no avail. While she was in jail she contracted typhoid, and at one stage it was thought she would die. Dita continued lead the struggle for the Indonesian workers and people from goal. In Australia and around the world, activists mounted a campaign for her freedom. It is expected that Dita will visit Australia in August/September this year, to not only thank activists for their support but to carry out solidarity work for the Indonesian democracy movement. While Dita has been released, many pro democracy activist including a substantial number from her party, the People's Democratic Party (PRD) remain imprisoned. Included are PRD leader: Budiman Sudjatmiko, Petrus Heriyanto, Ken Budha Kusumandaru, Yakobus Eko Kurniawan, Suroso, Garda Sembiring - all were convicted on trumpted up charges and scapegoated by the Suharto government of inciting riots in July 1996. All are in their mid to late twenties and are jailed for between 4 and 13 years. Below is a report that appeared in the Jakarta Post following Dita Sari's release. Comradely, Kim B _______________________________________________- Labor activist Dita released from prison 06 July 1999 TANGERANG (JP): Jailed labor activist Dita Indah Sari of the Democratic People's Party (PRD) left the women's penitentiary here on Monday after spending two years in prison. The release of Dita, 25, who was sentenced in July 1997 to five years imprisonment under the controversial 1963 Subversion Law, was part of an amnesty granted by President B.J. Habibie in presidential decree number 68 issued on July 2, 1999. A few steps outside the prison, Dita announced: "My freedom is not the mercy of the government, but a pure political measure." According to her, Habibie's administration was facing mounting criticism from the public, and her release was simply part of the government's efforts to increase its popularity. Dita, also chairwoman of the Center for Indonesian Workers Struggle, was arrested along with other labor activists in July 1996 for organizing two rallies involving some 10,000 workers from 10 factories in the Tandes industrial estate in southern Surabaya, East Java. The rallies, which called for the minimum wage in Surabaya to be raised from Rp 5,200 to Rp 7,000 per day, ended violently after the military moved in to disperse protesters.Dita was given a five-year sentence by the Surabaya District Court in1997 and was soon transferred to the capital. She was found guilty of attempting to subvert the state and topple the government through her activities in Jakarta, Surabaya and other cities. Dita left the penitentiary on Monday at 12:30 p.m., accompanied by her father Adjidar Ascha and colleagues from local and international non- governmental organizations. To mom's grave The fifth of six children, Dita is the only member of her family who became involved in politics. Her mother passed away in Jakarta while Dita was being held in prison in Surabaya, and she was not allowed to attend her mother's funeral. "I want to go to my mother's grave," she said about her plans. She said she would then concentrate her energies on the labor struggle, adding that she had already established a national labor front which was the seed for an Indonesian labor organization. "This (national labor front) is a transitional organization prior to the establishment of a national labor organization," she said. Leaving the penitentiary in a Honda Civic sedan, Dita headed to Menteng Pulo cemetery in Central Jakarta. Her release caught many off guard because the government had given no prior signals of a possible amnesty for her. Minister of Manpower Fahmi Idris visited Dita last Monday and held a closed-door meeting with her, but did not say anything about the possibility of her being released. Dita quoted Fahmi as saying at the time that the idea of releasing her sparked arguments among government officials. Dita said it was most likely the Indonesian Military which did not want to see her freed. "If I'm released, they fear fresh labor rallies which, they think, would threaten national stability," she said last week. Dita said her freedom was a gift from God. She also thanked the endless support of her fellow labor activists. Dita also urged Habibie to release imprisoned activist Budiman Sudjatmiko and East Timorese proindependence leader Alexander "Xanana" Gusmao. --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From magellan at netrio.com.br Tue Jul 20 09:28:55 1999 From: magellan at netrio.com.br (magellan@netrio.com.br) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: To prevent a hold-up of multinationals on life Message-ID: <199907201528.MAA14156@web.momentus.com.br> This is a call presented by ATTAC --- Action pour une Taxation des Transactions financi?res pour l'Aide aux Citoyens before the European Parliaments and the Union?s one on the subject of manipulations on life. ATTAC is the fastest growing movement against neoliberalism all over the world. Though having just 13 months of existence in France, its country of origin, ATTAC's first world congress last June gathered about 1,500 delegates from 71 countries. From: "Laurent JESOVER" To: Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 Subject: [ATTAC] To prevent a hold-up of multinationals on life Original document: http://attac.org/fra/cons/inter7en.htm RTF : http://attac.org/fra/asso/doc/tele/berlanen.zip PDF: http://attac.org/fra/asso/doc/tele/berlanen.pdf CALL ON THE PUBLIC AND ITS ELECTED MEMBERS To prevent a hold-up of multinationals on life The current hold-up on life (in the name of "progress" and "competition") is a threat to our future and the one of this planet. With the avent of biotechnologies (the transformation of living matter into a source of profit), the seeds industry has been taken over by a small number of multinational companies of the chemical-pharmaceutical sector in the last fifteen years (Monsanto, Novartis, DuPont, Zenaca, Aventis.). Yet the seeds industry determines the evolution of agriculture as well as to a large extent that of nutrition since the success of agricultural innovations depends on how plants and animals react to them. Up to now, this genetic factor widely remained under the control of public research in agronomy. The companies that lead the transformation of agriculture during this century (through mechanization, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides) preferred that the plants (or animals) be adapted to their innovations by the taxpayers. Neither McCormick nor International Harvester would fund any research to develop some varieties of corn or wheat fit for mechanical harvesting. All over the world, public research in agronomy therefore had this important responsibility of adaptation which in fact was dictated by the agro-industry. Its objective part - it matters little that all of it was done in the name of general interest or the one of farmers- was to ensure the disappearance of the pre-capitalist farming production. At its heart is the improvement of plants and animals. This improvement, although useful, was not directly a source of profit: as long as the plants and animals would reproduce in the farmer's field, the seed breeder's capital could not. This situation has been deeply altered by biotechnologies. And this privatization of living matter logically induces the one of public research. The (molecular) biologists who replace traditional agronomists don't have their ethical scruples (I). The ultimate aim of the multinational seed producers is to avoid, at all costs, that plants and animals reproduce at the farm. In other words, they want to manufacture sterile plants and animals. This is nothing new (2), except that the amount of money that these powerful investors allocated to biotechnologies during the least fifteen years leaves them no other choice then to tighten their grasp on the living. For their capital to live, life itself needs to be sterilized. The political economics of our society, so good at walking on dead bodies, as well as the financial voracity of the shareholders now impose that objective with a sense of urgency. Terminator, the well-named necrotechnology In this line, the Terminator biotechnology (immediately acquired by Monsanto) allows plants to be genetically modified so as to destroy their own germ once mature. A complex genetic system is introduced into the plant (transgenes, i.e. genes coming from other species) and it works according to the principle of an antipersonnel mine: a neutralizing device (repressor gene), a detonator (promoter gene) and an explosive (gene producing the suicide-toxin). Before their being sold, the seeds are soaked in a tetracycline bath (but many methods of activation exist) in order to "unpin" the system. The detonator then comes into contact with the explosive. The plant's state of ripeness triggers the promoter, that activates the gene producing the toxin which finally kills the developing germ. The seed harvested by the farmer is then biologically sterile. As emphasized by the director for plant production research unit at the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), this technique - of which there exist many versions with patent pending - " also allows a complete collection of the genetic resources". (3) Actually, as farming started with our ancestors putting apart some of the harvested seeds and sowing them the next year, this confiscation of the most fundamental property of living beings - to be able to re-produce and to multiply - is the final blow to farmers and farming. What comes afterwards will still be called "farming": as we continue to call "breeding" (and even subsidize) pig plants floating on a sea of excrements. A few multinationals are thus in the process of acquiring with no other control than the "markets" they shape an tremendous power upon our food resources and our lives, in industrialized as well as Third World countries. Patents versus farmers and farming Terminator is such a disgusting (necro)technology that the current international campaign for its ban will perhaps succeed in outlawing it. But this tree must not hide the forest. The patent permits the same goal to be reached, as shown by the example of the USA. When a farmer wishes to use Monsanto patented and GMOed seeds, he must sign a contract on not sowing his harvested grain. If the farmer has obtained his seeds without any contract, from neighbors for instance (a current practice), Monsanto then has the possibility to sue him for using patented seeds. Yet the farmer was guaranteed that his practice - to sow his harvested grain - was a right. But according to Monsanto and the bio-industry, this right is applying only to seeds obtained by ordinary methods of selection and not to the ones with a GMO patent! Therefore, the patent is used against the farmer, against the ability of plants and animals to reproduce, against life and, consequently, against each one of us. The same way that the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) meant to protect investors against economic risks, the patent protects them against the unfortunate possibility of living beings to reproduce by declaring plants and animals legally sterile. Isn't the mystification of an ultraliberal society the creation of new priviledges, as we celebrate the two hundred years of their abolition? The patent is a formidable incentive for the generalization of transgenetic techniques at the expense of research work on the improvement of plants and animals using available, efficient, but devoid (for the time being) of priviledges for anybody. Leading the way, Monsanto invites farmers to report their "pirate neighbors and puts at their disposal a free informer line. The patent is a legalized Terminator with the big advantage to spare the multinationals the manufacturing of this complex biologic sterilization and have the tax-payer-and-citizen pay for the costs of its own expropriation! Indeed, the patent allows a "complete collection of the genetic resources" too. GMO's rape of the public The same seed producers concurrently organize the rape of the public by trying to make us consume products manufactured from GMOs that we do not want. And this for two ligitimate reasons: they are useless and expose us to long-term risks. The majority of scientists are against the widespread use of poorly controlled techniques that were not subject to any health danger assessment and that introduce into our environment a new risk: a genetic pollution which nobody knows how get rid of. To create genetic chimeras like pesticide or herbicide plants (2/3 of the current GMOs) is to accelerate the movement towards a yet more industrial agriculture and nutrition, factors of the alarming advance of diseases like obesity (one fourth of the population in the United States), cancers and cardiovascular diseases.That means turning our back on sustainable agriculture and the respect of biodiversity. That means increasing the level of chemical pollution. That means going on with the announced destruction of farming jobs and of our extraordinary agricultural heritage. Brussels helps the "investors ". It is worrying to see that in July 1998 the European Parliament and Council passed, within the frame of the codecision procedure, a directive (98/44/CE) for the "legal protection of biotechnological inventions". July 30, 2000, is the deadline for the member States to conform their legislation to this directive. On october 21, 1998, the Netherlands appealed against the directive to the European Court of Justice in order to have it cancelled. Certain points put forth by La Haye are of legal order but others go to the heart of the problem. The appeal addresses for instance the violation of the convention on biodiversity and the one on fundamental human rights: "Under directive 98/44/CE, it will be possible to patent individual parts of the human body. Such a materialistic partition of the human body is against human dignity". Italy as well as Norway, a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) also appealed against the directive, arguing that it should have been accepted by unanimous approval according to article 235 of the CE treaty and not by a qualified majority (article 100 A of the treaty). The legal services of the Parliament and the Council now draw up a report for the Court of Justice in the hope to convince the recently elected Parliament not to come back on last year's decision. According to certain officials, this would trigger a legal and political mess. The French government also is preparing such a report via the National Institut for Industrial Property and the legal affairs department of the Foreign Ministry. Since in both cases the work has been given to "technicians", public representatives are put aside. It is important that they take back the advantage and this time be fully informed about the issue. This to counter the life patent lobbyists' hope that since the appeal has no suspensory effect, the directive has already been transposed to a national level at the time the Coiurt of Justice takes its decision. It will then be too late to step back . The European Commission, which prepared the text passed by the Parliament and the Council is also flying to the rescue of the directive, with its own report to the Court of Justice. Neither the Commission nor the executive officials of the Union seem to recognize that they organize a worldwide hold-up of living matter by a handful of multinationals, i.e. on our biological future and the one of this planet. Do they realize the absurd character of directive 98/44/CE ? The re-production and multiplication of plants and animals are as ubiquitous as sunshine. They are even the fundamental property of living beings. What a shame ! We better be careful : this logic will soon force us shut our doors and windows to let candel retailers fight against the unfair competition from the sun. And why ? To support the investments of the cartel of multinationals in genetic chimeras that neither farmers nor the public want! G?noplante or the private ownership of public research In any case, this dimension entirely escaped to the management of INRA and its guardian ministers who just celebrated the "wedding between computer science and biology" with the program G?noplante aimed at "manufactuting industrial property", i.e. patents. The operational responsible of G?noplante goes as far as to invite scientists to be an active part of the "Economic war". G?noplante, with its two technological platforms (in Evry and Montpellier) and a FRF1.4 billion budget over five years associates public research institutions (INRA, CIRAD, IRD, CNRS) and private companies into a scientific interest group meant to spawn into an economic interest group. The private companies will mostly benefit from it since they only pay 30% of the funds and have the majority in the executive boards: the "strategic committee" of G?noplante counts the head of the INRA (also member of the board of directors of Rh?ne-Poulenc Agro from 1989 to 1994), the head of Rh?ne-Poulenc Agro and the president of Limagrain who has close tights to Rh?ne-Poulenc. G?noplante will partly subcontract its projects through invitations to bid. The laboratories, whose fundings were first punctured to finance the scientific interest group, will then have to send in proposals to it in order to stay afloat. Public research is being funneled towards private interests. The non-profit globalization of genetic resources and knowledge, the common good of humanity are being replaced by the promoters of G?noplante with a market cartelization and an "economic war". This represents a tremendous regression. The self-proclaimed multinational "life sciences" companies have declared war to living beings and to farmers, i.e. to humanity. We do not accept these threats on our freedom. We refuse that the farmer become a "pirate". We refuse a biototalitarian society governed by multinationals and their allies. We refuse the denaturation of the powerful fundamental research tools of transgenetics. We refuse that war. ATTAC asks the European and National Parliaments, via their governments to : - demand the setup of a moratorium on genetically modified organisms by the European Commission and its Council of Ministers. - outlaw necrotechnologies like the Terminator. - File reports with the European Court of Justice to back up the request made by the Netherlands, Italy and Norway to cancel the European directive on a "legal protection of biotechnological inventions". ATTAC particularly asks the French deputies and senators to: - convince the Foreign Ministry to act against and in favor of this directive. - demand from the Minister for Research to stop the G?noplante project, which aims at making more social the price to pay for the privatisation of living matter, and in the contrary to restructure research for a sustainable, autonomous and farmer-oriented agriculture. - create democratic controls for the powerful tool of biotechnological research to serve life, not profit or death. - ask the French government, then the European Union and finally the United Nations to solemnly proclaim a new human right: the right on living matter and genetic resources as a common good of humanity, not subject to property. NOTES (1) Those great agronomists would reject with disdain the offer of reap a personal advantage from their works. The traditional public moral collapse, the general disorder of the minds appears in this, that now, a socialist government incites the public researchers to deposit patents in their names and for valorization. (2) Read Jean-Pierre Berlan and Richard Lewontin. " La menace du complexe genetico-industriel " (genetic-industrial threats.) Le Monde diplomatique. D?cembre 1998. And Jean-Pierre Berlan. " Confiscation du vivant " (Confiscation of the living). Transversales Science/Culture, n?55. F?vrier-Mars 1999. (3) Le Monde. 12 Mars 1999. (4) That concerns some plants made tolerant by genetic manipulations to its main herbicide: the Round-up. Those plants can keep it in stock in their texture without damage. Those chemical firm's aim is then to increase the use of herbicides. So much for the genetically modified Organisms (GMO) which "protect the environment." (5) The INRA Genoplant aims to " fabricate industrial property". They transfer part of the public laboratories resources to Genoplant which might conclude an agreement with it in order to recover the credits they have been deprived of. Thus the promoters hope mobilize I8O scientists, that means the most part of the INRA researchers in vegetal biology. The " strategic board of Genoplant is made by the general director of INRA (member of the board of directors of Rh?ne-Poulenc agro- chemie from 1989 to 1994), the general director of Rh?ne-Poulenc Agrochimie, and the president of Limagrain who holds straight contacts with Rh?ne-Poulenc. Attac discussion list in English For any information about the list and the work done by the Association http://attac.org/ In this same address there will be found the discussion lists in French, Galician-Portuguese, German and Spanish. --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From cburford at gn.apc.org Tue Jul 20 23:55:28 1999 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Kurds in retreat? Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990721065528.00687410@pop.gn.apc.org> There have been very few statements by Kurdish or Turkish marxist sources in marxism space about the trial of Ocalan. Obviously the bourgeois media may not be sympathetic. It is beginning to look as if Ocalan's tactical defence is not being repudiated by his party but may reflect an overall reappraisal of their ability to win the long standing war for Kurdish liberation. Chris Burford London Ocalan Praises End of Rebel Attacks Tuesday July 20, 1999 10:00 pm ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - Imprisoned Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan praised a decision by his top commanders to end attacks on civilians, and urged Turkey to take concrete steps toward peace, his lawyers said Tuesday. Ocalan was sentenced to death June 29 by a Turkish court for treason and separatism. Turks have since debated whether hanging him would serve Turkey. ``Rather than talking about executing or not executing the death penalty that was given to me, it is important to take some concrete steps for a solution to the number one problem of the country,'' Ocalan said in a statement released by his lawyers. Ocalan praised last week's decision of the Kurdistan Workers Party to end attacks on civilians. The rebels are held responsible for a string of attacks after Ocalan's sentence that killed six people and injured over 50. But Ocalan said Turkey also had to take steps toward peace. Turkish authorities have refused to negotiate with the rebels, whom they regard as terrorists. Ocalan also spoke of an amnesty bill being debated in the Turkey's Cabinet. Ocalan said that the proposed law, which currently excludes rebels convicted of terrorism-related crimes, should extend to everyone if peace is to be achieved. Some 37,000 people have died in the 15-year war for Kurdish autonomy in southeast Turkey. Ocalan's sentence will be reviewed in an appeals court later this year and has to be approved by parliament and the president before it is carried out. --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk Wed Jul 21 11:26:02 1999 From: jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk (Jim heartfield) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re: Luxemburg v Lenin? In-Reply-To: <199907180337.NAA18798@m0.dynamite.com.au> References: <199907180337.NAA18798@m0.dynamite.com.au> Message-ID: In message <199907180337.NAA18798@m0.dynamite.com.au>, Rob Schaap writes >Well, yeah - although I'll have to 'fess up at the outset that the second >half of the quote Lew provides seems to sit well with Chris's reading. I >think we should begin with her insistence against uncritical pro-nationalism >as 'metaphysical cliche' in terms of her moment, On nationalism, I tend to think that Luxemburg was wrong at the time, but right for now. Today, national liberation is a spent force. On her attitude to 'self-activity' there is a very fair assessment of the Lenin/Luxemburg debate in Lukacs History and Class Consciousness. But no-one should forget that it was Luxemburg who first properly identified the reformist current in the Second International. As Lukacs argues, she ought to have drawn the conclusion sooner and left. Breaking organisationally too late cost her her own life, as the SPD set the Freikorps on her revolutionary group. Brecht was not wrong to sing her praises in not one but two elegies. The book Accumulation of Capital was flawed, but to her credit she trained the Marxist who best corrected her, Paul Mattick (See his Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory). -- Jim heartfield --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From lew at lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk Thu Jul 22 03:34:47 1999 From: lew at lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk (Lew) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re: Luxemburg v Lenin? In-Reply-To: References: <199907180337.NAA18798@m0.dynamite.com.au> Message-ID: In article , Jim heartfield writes >On nationalism, I tend to think that Luxemburg was wrong at the time, >but right for now. Today, national liberation is a spent force. But Luxemburg's argument took the point of view of the working class within capitalism: national liberation was mistaken when she wrote and when Marx wrote, and by implication, national liberation would continue to be a mistake in the future of capitalism. That national liberation is now a spent force is irrelevant to her argument against national liberation, even if it is a confirmation of its validity concerning the material interests of the working class. >On her attitude to 'self-activity' there is a very fair assessment of >the Lenin/Luxemburg debate in Lukacs History and Class Consciousness. This is somewhat mitigated by his glorification of the Party in the same work, where the Party is "the active incarnation of class consciousness" whose strength is "fed by the trust of the spontaneously revolutionary masses" and their "feeling that the party is the objectification of their will (obscure though this may be to themselves)." >But no-one should forget that it was Luxemburg who first properly >identified the reformist current in the Second International. As Lukacs >argues, she ought to have drawn the conclusion sooner and left. Luxemburg was not the first, though she was the most famous. And her condemnation of the Second International included more than an identification and critique of reformism; rather it included what can only be called national socialism. Of course she should have drawn the obvious conclusion sooner and left. But look at all the people who remained clueless and stayed in. -- Lew --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From poseidon at tinet.ie Thu Jul 22 06:30:46 1999 From: poseidon at tinet.ie (George Pennefather) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re: Commodity fetishism and reification References: Message-ID: <01f401bed440$72192ac0$28fe869f@tinet.ie> Hi Philip Philip: In fact, concentration on the surface appearances can even lead to demanding 'progressive' reforms which end up strengthening, rather than weakening, the hold of capital over society. This was the case with much of the radicalism of the 1960s. Essentially the social conventions against which many young people rebelled were a hangover from a previous period of problem-ridden capital accumulation and had been rendered obsolete by the post-WW2 boom. What much of the rebellion of the 1960s did was get rid of the by-then obsolete aspects of bourgeois society and modernise the social structure, bringing it in line with the more dynamic process of accumulation which continued until the new slump set in in the 1970s. Understanding the 1960s in this light helps explain why so many youthful radicals of that period went on to become ardent supporters of the (reworked) status quo in the 1980s and 1990s. George: Despite its interesting nature the above analysis is misleading. Even if you are correct in your claim that what "much of the rebellion of the 1960s did was to get rid of the by-then obsolete aspects of bourgeois society and modernise the social structure, bringing it in line with the more dynamic process of accumulation" this does not mean that the issues over which "the rebellion of the 1960s" proceeded were invalid. The problem was not with the issues themselves but with the basis and form by which popular mobilisation proceeded. The basis and methods employed, in large part, determined the outcome --an outcome according to you that suited the class interests of the bourgeoisie even enhancing the further development of capitalism. The problem, generically speaking, was not with the issues but with the political form within which the issues were fought. That has been the perennial problem both then and now. Philip: For 60s radicals, bourgeois society was also a set of distinct spheres. They would fight in one sphere, rather than challenging social relations as a whole. George: Again the problem is not that of fighting in "distinct spheres". This may not be avoidable. The problem concerns, as I have already said, the political form within which these fights take place. To bear a revolutionary communist character they must be fought in such a way as to entail an inseparable link into the challenge to social relations as a whole. In this way as the struggle unfolds on a principled revolutionary basis the link between the particular issue and its necessary connection with the character of capitalism as a whole. Consequently the need to abolish capitalism is increasingly revealed as the struggle assumes deeper and wider properties. Warm regards George Pennefather Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank Website: http://homepage.tinet.ie/~beprepared -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3705 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/attachments/19990722/f4dca19b/attachment.txt From poseidon at tinet.ie Thu Jul 22 06:38:12 1999 From: poseidon at tinet.ie (George Pennefather) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re: Luxemburg v Lenin? References: <199907180337.NAA18798@m0.dynamite.com.au> Message-ID: <01f501bed440$73474a80$28fe869f@tinet.ie> The book Accumulation of Capital was flawed, but to her credit she trained the Marxist who best corrected her, Paul Mattick (See his Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory). -- Jim heartfield ---- Jim, Whats this about training Paul Mattick? Please explain. Warm regards George Pennefather Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank Website: http://homepage.tinet.ie/~beprepared -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 861 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/attachments/19990722/c19a2cdd/attachment.txt From rws at comserver.canberra.edu.au Thu Jul 22 14:40:29 1999 From: rws at comserver.canberra.edu.au (Rob Schaap) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: George on WTO In-Reply-To: <01f401bed440$72192ac0$28fe869f@tinet.ie> References: Message-ID: Le Monde Diplomatique: "Globalising designs of the WTO" Le Monde Diplomatique, July 1999 http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/en/1999/07/?c=05george STATE SOVEREIGNTY UNDER THREAT Globalising designs of the WTO ________________________________________ Header (Appendix of Monde Diplo redaction): The Atlantic Alliance's intervention in Kosovo is a spectacular example of the erosion of state sovereignty, helped along by globalisation and the "right to interfere". This evolution is spreading to a growing number of spheres ? first and foremost the economy. However, the principle of sovereignty is not breaking down with any degree of uniformity: the social and environmental spheres remain relatively unaffected, while a higher economic order is emerging only too clearly founded on the primacy of the markets and guarded by irresponsible and complicit international organisations, led by the World Trade Organisation. _______________________________________ by SUSAN GEORGE * Despite the victory against the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) - thanks to France's withdrawal from the negotiations in October 1998 - questions remain. Why were governments ready to sign this scandalous treaty and renounce huge areas of their sovereignty, without any discernible advantage in exchange? The only explanation seems to be, as Marx and Engels put it, that "modern state power is merely the executive committee charged with managing the affairs of the bourgeoisie" (1). This "bourgeoisie", now embodied in huge transnational industrial and financial corporations, makes itself heard loud and clear by "state power" via multiple lobbies. Among these, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has a special place, claiming, as it does, to be "the only representative body that speaks with authority on behalf of enterprises from all sectors in every part of the world" (2). It makes its demands known directly to heads of state. All matters concerning Europe and trade, including negotiations at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) are handled by the outgoing European commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, who appears not to have noticed his resignation and still speaks for all the governments of the European Union. These governments have accepted their individual loss of sovereignty in trade as in other areas because they consider that the advantages of cooperation outweigh the drawbacks of limiting their room for manoeuvre. But cooperating is one thing. Choosing the ultra-liberal heir presumptive of Margaret Thatcher as spokesman is quite another. In the case of the WTO, we risk witnessing a contest of sovereignty-stripping, making the prospect of a social and political Europe recede. Sir Leon is after exactly the same thing as the ICC - a world ruled by free trade. Their views on the big WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle next November are interchangeable both in form and content (3). For the time being, our "sovereign" European governments have fallen behind them with gusto, making them look suspiciously like Marx and Engels' perfect executive committee. The Brittan/ICC tandem believe that agriculture must be further liberalised, which will put the future of rural communities in danger. The poorest risk losing control over their peoples' food security. The Agreement on Intellectual Property - going under the banner of Trips (the Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) and including patenting of life - is also up for discussion in Seattle. Less well known than these two important dossiers is the General Agreement on Trade in Services (Gats), which is also on the agenda. Here, Sir Leon and the ICC seek the "breaking down of domestic regulatory barriers across a wide range of services" in order to "expand the number and improve the quality of countries' commitments on market access and national treatment" (4). Services should be open to foreign investment worldwide, it being understood that the agreement will include "commercial presence" and "the movement of natural persons" in order to furnish the said service. We may ask what is wrong with that? Here are some fine prospects for our own firms. But do governments have any idea of the huge losses of sovereignty they are likely to undergo? "Services", which are about to fall under the yoke of the WTO, represent thousands of billions of dollars worth of commercial transactions. This seemingly innocent terms take in almost every imaginable human activity: distribution, wholesale, retail and franchising; construction, architecture, decoration, maintenance; civil, mechanical and other types of engineering; financial services, banking and insurance; research and development; real estate services, rental, credit and hire-purchase; communications, postal services, telecommunications and audio visual, information technologies; tourism and travel, hotels and restaurants; environmental services including road construction and maintenance, rubbish collection, sewage disposal, water delivery, protection of the landscape and urban planning; recreational, cultural and sports services, including entertainment, libraries, archives and museums; publishing, printing, advertising; transportation by every imaginable conveyance including space-travel; and also education (primary, secondary, tertiary and adult) and human and animal health. In all this covers over 160 sub-sectors and activities (5). Privatising health The countries of the European Union have a maximum of a few dozen civil servants working on these questions, for which the European Commission is in any event setting the parameters. In contrast, the US is devoting the talents of several hundred specialists to these issues and whetting its knives for full liberalisation of services in all branches. The US Special Trade Representative (USTR), Charlene Barshevky, instigated Washington's successful battles over bananas, genetically manipulated organisms and hormone-fed beef. Naturally she is working hand in hand with American business interests. She asked them to list their demands for Seattle - a request to which the Coalition of Service Industries responded with a detailed 31-page document (6). Not all of the dozens of service sectors listed above have yet got themselves organised to extract maximum concessions via the WTO. Nor are all the areas cited objects of potential US aggression - at least not yet. The European health sector has, however, been singled out as a special target of liberalisation. Expenses are exploding due to an increase in their aged populations, the demographic segment that uses health care services most intensively. The coalition is sure that it "can make much progress in the negotiations to allow the opportunity for US business to expand into foreign health care markets". Until now, unfortunately, "health care services in many foreign countries have largely been the responsibility of the public sector ... [making] it difficult for US private sector health care providers to market in foreign countries." But the WTO offers a way out. Among the "barriers" Barshevsky is expected to help demolish are "restricting licensing of health care professionals" and "excessive privacy and confidentiality regulations." Her "negotiating objectives" include "encouraging more privatisation" and "promoting pro-competitive regulative reform". The coalition also wants "market access and national treatment allowing provisions of all health care services cross-border" as well as "allowing majority foreign ownership of health care facilities". To sew the deal up, health care should also be included in the WTO public procurement rules so that foreign firms can bid on all government contracts in this area (7). If an agreement on health services including all these provisions is actually tabled and signed at the WTO, we can kiss goodbye our public health-care systems in Europe. In addition to this already-approved agenda, the ICC, Sir Leon and our own governments have many additional goals. They start with the elimination of remaining industrial tariffs, a classic demand. Then there is "trade facilitation", meant to "harmonise, modernise and simplify" bureaucratic, obsolete customs procedures, which, translated, means many fewer controls and inspections. Next comes government procurement which represents upwards of 15% of any nation's GNP. These markets must be opened up to suppliers from anywhere in the world according to the sacred principle of national treatment. Brittan and the ICC also seek a legal agreement on competition policy that requires developing a legal framework of binding international rules. Enemies of the MAI can rest assured: an agreement on investment has not been forgotten. Since the agreement was defeated at the OECD, Sir Leon has been trumpeting everywhere that he was always in favour of the WTO as a forum for negotiating a "comprehensive framework of international rules". Finally, the WTO should take up the environmental question because there are disparities and sometimes clashes between its rules and the content of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA) concerning climate change, the ozone layer, biodiversity, toxic wastes, endangered species, etc. A question to our governments: why sign MEAs if it is to call them into question at the WTO? This concern for the environment is touching, since up to now the tribunal-panels of the WTO have decided all disputes with environmental or public health implications with no regard whatsoever for either. The icing on the environmental cake is the Forest Products Agreement that is under way. This would eliminate all barriers to trade in forest-derived products and remove all obstacles to forest exploitation. Barshevsky was formerly a lobbyist for the Canadian timber industry; now she is being advised by the largest US transnational wood and paper products companies (8). This assortment of measures - the Seattle "built-in" agenda plus all the new subjects - has already been christened the Millennium Round by Sir Leon. He sees it as already approved, as do the ICC and the G-7 governments. He insists on a "single undertaking", meaning that "all participants have to accept the whole outcome of the negotiations rather than pick and choose". Sir Leon wants to have a multitude of issues on the WTO agenda negotiated at once: "Issues which are difficult for some but important for others cannot be blocked in isolation but must be weighed up as part of the overall calculation of advantage which each WTO member needs to make on the outcome ... it is this ability to make political calculations on the overall balance of advantage which enables trade-offs to occur between different issues" (9). If this huge programme is hard to manage even for developed countries, it is quite beyond the reach of developing countries, which will be even more heavily penalised than they are already. Many of them do not even have permanent representation to the WTO; some share an embassy. Even the large countries of the South lack the necessary numbers of qualified personnel to stay on top of complex, simultaneous negotiations on a wide variety of subjects. The declaration of the French prime minister, Lionel Jospin, according to which the WTO is "a more democratic venue" than the OECD because the countries of the South are included, takes no account of these realities. In fact, the "Quad" (the US, EU, Canada and Japan) will continue to impose its will and the US, with its plethora of highly professional personnel, will have the most influence of all. "Don't worry, everything's under control", our national civil servants, concerned with state sovereignty, will no doubt reply. But what we will really need in Europe is a kind of "combativeness index" on a scale from one to ten to register what our governments are prepared to defend, since it is obvious they will not be able to defend all the interests of their peoples. So, national negotiator, what will it be? Public health or small farmers? Hormone-fed beef or forest destruction? Audio-visual property rights or respect for the LomT Agreement, now forbidden by the "banana decision"? In this globalised world, you have to know what you are really willing to fight for. Governments need to make up their minds fast, because this whole agreement should be sewn up within three years. Why the rush? Quite simple: "Multilateral rule-making has to adapt itself to the faster pace of change in a global marketplace in order to keep the rules aligned with rapidly-evolving business realities and requirements" (10). And as we all know, the requirements of business supersede those of citizens - so full steam ahead for January 2003. This prospect of "overall calculation of advantage" and "trade-offs" has not, so far, given rise to any public debate. Yet such a debate is badly needed because civil society has no desire to be governed by the "executive committee" of the transnationals, and is massively opposed to any extension of the powers of the WTO. Civil society wants to participate in a full evaluation of this organisation (11). The real urgency lies in taking time to examine the present and likely future impact of the WTO and its overweening ambitions. Otherwise, sovereign states will have little left to say or do. * President of the Observatoire de la mondialisation (Globalisation Observatory), Paris; associate director of the Transnational Institute, Amsterdam 1.In the Communist Party manifesto. 2.ICC statement on behalf of world business to the heads of state and government attending the Cologne summit, 18-20 June 1999, Paris, Business and the Global Economy, 11 May 1999; see also ICC, World Business Priorities for the Second Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation, doc. 103/202, 3 April 1998. 3.Compare the ICC documents in note 2 with those of the European Commission [i.e. Sir Leon Brittan], note for the 113 Committee, 26 April 1999, EU Trade Ministers' Informal Meeting, Berlin 9-10 May 1999; and Sir Leon Brittan, The Contribution of the WTO Millennium Round to Globalisation: and EU View, speech delivered to the Herbert Batliner Symposium, "Europe in the Era of Globalisation, Economic Order and Economic Law", Vienna, 29 April 1999. 4.ICC, Business and the Global Economy, op.cit. 5.The author thanks the personnel of the WTO for sending her the Schedule of Specific Commitments, European Communities and their Member States, GATS/SC 31 and following, 14 April 1994. 6.Coalition of Service Industries, Services 2000, USTR Register Submission, Response to Federal Register Notice of 19 August 1998 [FR Doc 98-22279]. 7.Services 2000, op.cit. pp.14-16. 8.For more information, contact Mark Vallianatos: MVallianatos@foe.org 9.Sir Leon Brittan, The Contribution of the WTO Millennium Round to Globalisation, op. cit. 10.ICC, Business and the Global Economy, op. cit. p.5. 11.Statement from members of international civil society opposing the Millennium Round, signed mid-May by over 600 organisations from 75 countries. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ? 1999 Le Monde diplomatique ********************************** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Margrete Strand Rangnes MAI Project Coordinator Public Citizen Global Trade Watch 215 Pennsylvania Ave, SE Washington DC, 20003 USA mstrand@citizen.org 202-454-5106 202-547 7392 (fax) To subscribe to our MAI Listserv send an e-mail to mstrand@citizen.org, or subscribe directly by going to our website, www.tradewatch.org (Please indicate organizational affiliation if any, and also where you found out about this listserv) Search the MAI-NOT & MAI-INTL archives at http://lists.essential.org/ --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From cburford at gn.apc.org Thu Jul 22 17:08:11 1999 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re: Luxemburg v Lenin? In-Reply-To: References: <199907180337.NAA18798@m0.dynamite.com.au> <199907180337.NAA18798@m0.dynamite.com.au> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990723000811.012f7d60@pop.gn.apc.org> At 18:26 21/07/99 +0100, Jim Heartfield wrote: >On nationalism, I tend to think that Luxemburg was wrong at the time, >but right for now. Today, national liberation is a spent force. You would. Lenin's refutations of Luxemburg's leftism was not in the context of national liberation struggles - the importance of that was emphasised after the Russian Revolution. The importance of Lenin's position versus Luxemburg's is that the fight against all forms of national oppression is indispensible for building working class unity, *especially* under conditions of bourgeois rule! Including the upholding of the right to secession. And since racism is a form of national oppression, the theme is if anything of even greater importance in the later stages of capitalism, than when Luxemburg flew lower than a chicken. Chris Burford --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk Fri Jul 23 04:57:25 1999 From: jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk (Jim heartfield) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re: Luxemburg v Lenin? In-Reply-To: <01f501bed440$73474a80$28fe869f@tinet.ie> References: <199907180337.NAA18798@m0.dynamite.com.au> <01f501bed440$73474a80$28fe869f@tinet.ie> Message-ID: In message <01f501bed440$73474a80$28fe869f@tinet.ie>, George Pennefather writes > Jim, > ? > Whats this about training Paul Mattick? Please explain. > ? Mattick joined the youth section of Luxemburg's Spartacus League in 1918. There is an oblique reference to his own views in the essay 'The Epigones' in Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory (Merlin, 1981): 'it was just her insistence on the inescapable end of capital that assured her a following among the workers of the left opposition, whether or not they accepted her specific argument for it, as they did not care very much whether and how capital would break down from these or from any other causes, as long as it was doomed to breakdown from some cause'. (p92) You could say that Mattick's subsequent work (evidenced especially in this essay) is an attempt to put Luxemburg's intuition of the historical limits of capital accumulation upon a more scientific footing. In his anti-Leninist work Marxism, Last Refuge of the Bourgeoisie, Merlin, 1983, the distillation of Mattick's Luxemburgism is more openly political, especially in the essay The German Revolution, an account of the creation (and eventual 'subordination' to Leninism) of the Spartacus League. -- Jim heartfield --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From poseidon at tinet.ie Fri Jul 23 02:57:59 1999 From: poseidon at tinet.ie (George Pennefather) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Fw: CSM: One-way tickets to better lives Message-ID: <000001bed533$66206500$20fe869f@tinet.ie> ----- Original Message ----- From: Colombian Labor Monitor To: CSN-L@POSTOFFICE.CSO.UIUC.EDU Sent: Thursday, July 22, 1999 11:01 PM Subject: CSM: One-way tickets to better lives ================================================= "It's finally dawned on many Colombians that the country's future is in the balance, and when they don't see any light they say, 'Oh, I'm leaving.'" ______________ ================================================= CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Thursday, 22 July 1999 One-way tickets to better lives ------------------------------- By Howard LaFranchi The lines that once formed outside the trendiest restaurants and night clubs here are all gone now - replaced by lines in front of the United States, Canadian, and Spanish embassies. A sense of crisis here is fueling this exodus of Colombians (many are purchasing one-way airline tickets for places like New York or Miami). And the flight is indicative of problems that could have repercussions throughout the hemisphere. The Colombian economy is at its worst in 50 years. There is deep pessimism, too, over recent mass kidnappings and the prospects for peace in the country's 40-year civil war. The government announced Tuesday that it's imposing economic austerity measures - slashing the budget and streamlining the state bureaucracy. And it hopes to start talks with guerrillas in the south next week. But in the first four months of this year, 65,000 Colombians left the country, officials say. They estimate that nearly 1 percent of the population - some 300,000 - could legally leave the country this year, not to mention those settling in new countries illegally. "It's not exaggerating to say we are in the deepest and most complex crisis of this century," says Juan Manuel Ospina, a senator from the Conservative Party. The US Embassy in Bogota has registered a 27 percent increase in visa requests over last year. And the potential for mass departures into neighboring countries is even more worrisome to some analysts. "The war has created a huge population of 1 million internal migrants," says Alvaro Tirado, a diplomatic expert and political analyst. Neighbors Venezuela, Ecuador, and Panama have already confronted the Colombian government about guerrilla incursions and cross-border refugees. Last month several groups of hundreds of Colombians fled into Venezuela, causing "serious" concerns, a diplomat here says. With Venezuela and Ecuador especially in economic turmoil, an upsurge in economic or war refugees would lead to new tensions that would echo across the region. "What is happening in Colombia certainly could bring serious consequences for all Latin America," says Roberto Teixeira da Costa, president in Brasil of the Council of Latin American Business Leaders. "Our concern is for South America as a whole, because as we might like to claim that the situation in Colombia is an isolated case. The fact is that [it] sends out negative signals about regional stability." A year ago, when Andres Pastrana was elected president of Colombia, this country was brimming with optimism. After years of apathy at election time, Mr. Pastrana had won a heated three-way race in which voter turnout jumped 20 points from the usual 40 percent level. Taking their cue from a president-elect who made peace after 40 years of war his first priority, Colombians held huge peace demonstrations across the country. There was also a sense of relief that international treatment of Colombia as a pariah state, based on strong evidence that the former President Ernesto Samper had links to the country's cocaine cartels, was over. But today much of that optimism has vanished. Reasons are varied. First, the idea that Mr. Samper was the bad guy who would take many of the country's problems with him when he left office was destined to lead to disappointment, some observers say. Then despite some recent signs to the contrary, the Army has over the last year has not been able to check the country's two main guerrilla groups' advance. "A year ago I would have said an eventual military victory by the guerrillas was highly unlikely, but today I see how it might happen," says Bogota political analyst Sergio Uribe. "It's not because they have the military power to do it, but the military will." A recent poll by the Colombian television network RCN, highlights this lack of faith. It found that 66 percent of Colombians support a US military intervention to curb its problems. In a country where the strong-arm, take-no-prisoners tactics of Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori receive frequent accolades, Pastrana's more conciliatory political style is also faulted. Some media analysts have taken to calling the government "gobierno light," while even the president's political allies are not without criticism. "The country has been at a point where we were ready for a popular mobilization against war and violence," says Mr. Ospina. "But developing that predisposition requires political leadership, and the president came up short." Yet all of those factors probably wouldn't be enough to explain such a crisis - in a country that has basically been at civil war for four decades - if it weren't for the soured economy. Even through the worst of Latin America's economic turbulence in the 1980s, Colombia was the exception, always achieving positive annual growth rates. But in the first quarter of this year, the economy shrank nearly 6 percent, with prospects for the rest of the year hardly better. Unemployment surged into double digits. As one US official says, Colombia's mood plunge has several sources including too-high expectations after Pastrana's election, but the basic reason is "it's the economy, stupid." "The truth is that before, the war and other real problems weren't affecting many people's daily life, but adding the economy has changed that," says Ospina. "It's finally dawned on many Colombians that the country's future is in the balance, and when they don't see any light they say, 'Oh, I'm leaving.'" While not underestimating the gravity of his country's situation, Mr. Tirado says there are reasons for Colombians to feel optimistic. Recent Army battle victories should reassure Colombians that the guerrillas are not about to take the country, he says. And the number of violent deaths has fallen over the past four years, while recent mass demonstrations in several cities against kidnappings suggest the public is engaged and hanot giving up hope. "Of course there's an impatience for striking results now," says Tirado, "but there are small signs that should tell Colombians to hold on, we are going in the right direction." Copyright 1999 The Christian Science Publishing Society _____________________________________________________________________ ********************************************************************* * CSN-L is brought to you by the COLOMBIAN LABOR MONITOR at * * http://www.prairienet.org/clm * * and by the Champaign-Urbana Colombia Support Network chapter at * * http://www.prairienet.org/csncu * * To subscribe send request to listserv@postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu * * SUB CSN-L Firstname Lastname * * (Direct questions about CSN-L to dgrammen@prairienet.org) * * To subscribe to Colombia Bulletin: A Human RIghts Quarterly * * contact Colombia Support Network, P.O. Box 1505, Madison WI 53701 * * call:(608) 257-8753 or visit http://www.igc.org/csn * ********************************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 10419 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/attachments/19990723/2ca0b1f8/attachment.txt From poseidon at tinet.ie Fri Jul 23 11:54:52 1999 From: poseidon at tinet.ie (George Pennefather) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re: Luxemburg v Lenin? References: <199907180337.NAA18798@m0.dynamite.com.au><01f501bed440$73474a80$28fe869f@tinet.ie> Message-ID: <002401bed536$1f27b9c0$20fe869f@tinet.ie> So the Luxemburg connection may help explain Mattick anti-Leninism and particularly its form of centralism etc. Warm regards George Pennefather Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank Website: http://homepage.tinet.ie/~beprepared ------- Mattick joined the youth section of Luxemburg's Spartacus League in 1918. There is an oblique reference to his own views in the essay 'The Epigones' in Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory (Merlin, 1981): 'it was just her insistence on the inescapable end of capital that assured her a following among the workers of the left opposition, whether or not they accepted her specific argument for it, as they did not care very much whether and how capital would break down from these or from any other causes, as long as it was doomed to breakdown from some cause'. (p92) You could say that Mattick's subsequent work (evidenced especially in this essay) is an attempt to put Luxemburg's intuition of the historical limits of capital accumulation upon a more scientific footing. In his anti-Leninist work Marxism, Last Refuge of the Bourgeoisie, Merlin, 1983, the distillation of Mattick's Luxemburgism is more openly political, especially in the essay The German Revolution, an account of the creation (and eventual 'subordination' to Leninism) of the Spartacus League. -- Jim heartfield --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1966 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/attachments/19990723/c79f5f04/attachment.txt From cburford at gn.apc.org Sat Jul 24 03:01:43 1999 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Living Marxism and New Essays Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990724100143.0157611c@pop.gn.apc.org> Did "Living Marxism" take its title from Mattick's essay? >From the website of the International Institute of Social History Paul Mattick: Born in Berlin 1904, died in Cambridge, Mass., USA 1981; metal worker, mechanical engineer, council communist activist and theorist; member of the youth organization of the Kommunistische Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands (KAPD) after the Kapp-Putsch 1920; emigrated to the USA in 1926 and worked with the International Workers of the World (IWW), as editor of Chicagoer Arbeiterzeitung in 1931, and with the unemployed workers' movement of the 1930s; joined the short-lived United Workers' Party in 1934; held close contacts with the Dutch group around Anton Pannekoek and edited International Council Correspondence, Living Marxism and New Essays 1934-1943; contributed to Zeitschrift f?r Sozialforschung and after 1945 to various left-wing journals in Europe and the Americas; major publications include `Marx and Keynes' 1969 and posthumous `Marxism: last refuge of the bourgeoisie?' 1982 Chris Burford London --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From cburford at gn.apc.org Sat Jul 24 01:23:27 1999 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Mattick versus Keynes In-Reply-To: <002401bed536$1f27b9c0$20fe869f@tinet.ie> References: <199907180337.NAA18798@m0.dynamite.com.au> <01f501bed440$73474a80$28fe869f@tinet.ie> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990724082327.014660b4@pop.gn.apc.org> At 18:54 23/07/99 +0100, George wrote: Re: M-TH: Re: Luxemburg v Lenin? > So the Luxemburg connection may help explain Mattick anti-Leninism and >particularly its form of centralism etc. Warm regards >George Pennefather > Mattick joined the youth >section of Luxemburg's Spartacus League in >1918. There is an oblique reference to his own views in the essay 'The >Epigones' in Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory (Merlin, 1981): >'it was just her insistence on the inescapable end of capital that >assured her a following among the workers of the left opposition, >whether or not they accepted her specific argument for it, as they did >not care very much whether and how capital would break down from these >or from any other causes, as long as it was doomed to breakdown from >some cause'. (p92) > >You could say that Mattick's subsequent work (evidenced especially in >this essay) is an attempt to put Luxemburg's intuition of the historical >limits of capital accumulation upon a more scientific footing. > >In his anti-Leninist work Marxism, Last Refuge of the Bourgeoisie, >Merlin, 1983, the distillation of Mattick's Luxemburgism is more openly >political, especially in the essay The German Revolution, an account of >the creation (and eventual 'subordination' to Leninism) of the Spartacus >League. >-- >Jim heartfield I only have Mattick's Marx and Keynes. That has only one reference to Luxemburg: "at the turn of the century, the Marxist Rosa Luxemburg saw in the difficulties of surplus value realization the objective reason for crises and wars and for capitalism's eventual demise. All this has little to do with Marx, who saw that the actual world of capitalism was at once at once a production and a circulation process. If the production of surplus-value is adequate to ensure an accelerated capital expansion there is little reason to assume that capitalism will falter in its sphere of circulation." I wonder if Doug, who has give considerable thought to Keynes, knows Mattick's book and has an opinion on it. Chris Burford London --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk Sat Jul 24 03:24:55 1999 From: jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk (Jim heartfield) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Living Marxism and New Essays In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990724100143.0157611c@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <3.0.2.32.19990724100143.0157611c@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: In message <3.0.2.32.19990724100143.0157611c@pop.gn.apc.org>, Chris Burford writes > >Did "Living Marxism" take its title from Mattick's essay? Yes, it took it's title from Mattick's publication Living Marxism. The early LM group were keen fans of Mattick and Grossmann's reassertion of the historical limits of capital at a time when most people were reconciled to the eternal life of capital, or at best saw Capitalism's problems as the subjective disruption of the labour movement. Oh, and what's the URL for the social history website you cite? -- Jim heartfield --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From farmelantj at juno.com Sat Jul 24 06:48:33 1999 From: farmelantj at juno.com (James Farmelant) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:57 2006 Subject: M-TH: Living Marxism and New Essays References: <3.0.2.32.19990724100143.0157611c@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <19990724.090642.13790.0.farmelantj@juno.com> On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:01:43 +0100 Chris Burford writes: > >Did "Living Marxism" take its title from Mattick's essay? One would imagine so. They (including especially Jim Heartfield) are great fans of Paul Mattick, especially of his critiques of Keynesianism and of Keynesian influenced brands of Marxism (i.e. Paul Sweezy). They follow Mattick in accepting an overaccumulation theory of crisis (based on the law of falling profit rates) and in rejecting theories of underconsumption even though one can easily come up with plenty of citations from Marx, Engels, and Lenin which indicate that they accepted such theories. It should be noted though that since the dissolution of the Revolutionary Communist Party (UK) a couple or so years, their magazine is now known as LM rather than Living Marxism. LM is no longer officially Marxist. And Frank Furedi has in recent interviews taken to calling himself a "humanist" and a "libertarian" rather than a Marxist. Their position is that since the collapse of the USSR and the ending of the cold war, the working class has ceased to be class-for-itself. The class struggle in LM's view has effectively come to an end with the bourgeoisie as the victors. But in their view this victory by the bourgeoisie has been accompanied by the intellectual and moral exhaustion of that class which has in their view lost its traditional commitment to rationalism and science and has also lost its traditional willingness to take risks. Jim F. > > > > >>From the website of the International Institute of Social History > >Paul Mattick: Born in Berlin 1904, died in Cambridge, Mass., USA 1981; >metal worker, mechanical engineer, council communist activist and >theorist; >member of the youth organization of the Kommunistische Arbeiterpartei >Deutschlands (KAPD) after the Kapp-Putsch 1920; emigrated to the USA >in >1926 and worked with the International Workers of the >World (IWW), as editor of Chicagoer Arbeiterzeitung in 1931, and with >the >unemployed workers' movement of the 1930s; joined the short-lived >United >Workers' Party in 1934; held close contacts with the Dutch group >around >Anton Pannekoek and edited International Council Correspondence, >Living >Marxism and New Essays 1934-1943; contributed to Zeitschrift für >Sozialforschung and after 1945 to various left-wing journals in Europe >and >the Americas; major publications include `Marx and Keynes' 1969 and >posthumous `Marxism: last refuge of the bourgeoisie?' 1982 > > >Chris Burford > >London > > > > > > --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From cburford at gn.apc.org Sat Jul 24 10:18:10 1999 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:58 2006 Subject: M-TH: Living Marxism and New Essays In-Reply-To: <19990724.090642.13790.0.farmelantj@juno.com> References: <3.0.2.32.19990724100143.0157611c@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990724171810.01574b60@pop.gn.apc.org> At 08:48 24/07/99 -0400, Jim F wrote: > They follow Mattick in accepting an >overaccumulation theory of crisis (based on the law of falling >profit rates) and in rejecting theories of underconsumption >even though one can easily come up with plenty of citations >from Marx, Engels, and Lenin which indicate that they >accepted such theories. Are these separate theories or just aspects under analysis? Surely overaccumulation and underconsumption are just two sides of the same contradiction - that between the endless need for capital to accumulate surplus value and the limited purchasing power of the masses. I agree Marx referred to both aspects of course. How to express the interlocking contradictions is debatable: what is fundamental, what is primary, what is decisive. It can be said there is a contradiction between production and consumption in all societies. But under capitalism the contradiction between the social character of production and the capitalist form of appropriation is the chief cause of the crises. The contradiction between unlimited exploitation under capitalism and the limited possibilities of realisation of the results of this exploitation finds its sharpest expression in the crises. I have checked and reproduced formulations here from Political Economy, Marxist Study Courses originially published as pamphlets under the auspices of the British Communist Party in 1932 and 1933. They were later reprinted and distributed for a time in the USA. They were reprinted in 1976 by Banner Press, Chicago, Library of Concress No 76-43450. Whatever the wording of the contradictions, surely people who focus on overaccumulation and people who focus on underconsumption are looking at the same contradiction. Jim F: > The class struggle in LM's view has effectively >come to an end with the bourgeoisie as the victors. But in >their view this victory by the bourgeoisie has been accompanied >by the intellectual and moral exhaustion of that class which has >in their view lost its traditional commitment to rationalism and >science and has also lost its traditional willingness to take risks. I am not a fan of LM and there are all sorts of subjective factors about whether one feels drawn towards a particular group and wants to affiliate to it, and whether one would be received by it, but this characterisation of LM's position here does not seem so remarkable. That the bourgeoisie remain victors is uncontroversial. It is not in dispute that there are problems for the working class in overthrowing the bourgoisie, and few think the crisis of capitalism will be automatic - that it will fall without being pushed. So the propostion here is that LM thinks the working class has lost its willingness to take risks. Plus that the working class has lost its "traditional commitment to rationalism and science". What is meant here? Does not a lot hang on perceptions of rationalism and of science? Perhaps the traditional view was not very dialectical. Perhaps it also privileged consciousness, whereas marxism has an implicit theory of partial consciousness. Distaste though different groups may feel for each other, is the argument not about the same objective political and economic contradictions? Chris Burford London --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From cburford at gn.apc.org Sat Jul 24 09:18:01 1999 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:58 2006 Subject: M-TH: Living Marxism and New Essays In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.2.32.19990724100143.0157611c@pop.gn.apc.org> <3.0.2.32.19990724100143.0157611c@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990724161801.01574c98@pop.gn.apc.org> At 10:24 24/07/99 +0100, you wrote: >In message <3.0.2.32.19990724100143.0157611c@pop.gn.apc.org>, Chris >Burford writes >> >>Did "Living Marxism" take its title from Mattick's essay? > >Yes, it took it's title from Mattick's publication Living Marxism. > >The early LM group were keen fans of Mattick and Grossmann's reassertion >of the historical limits of capital at a time when most people were >reconciled to the eternal life of capital, or at best saw Capitalism's >problems as the subjective disruption of the labour movement. > >Oh, and what's the URL for the social history website you cite? >-- >Jim heartfield Aha. I just did an AltaVista search for Mattick and went to the home address. http://www.iisg.nl/? The Mattick reference is http://www.iisg.nl/archives/gias/10760610.html Chris Burford --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From farmelantj at juno.com Sat Jul 24 13:39:15 1999 From: farmelantj at juno.com (James Farmelant) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:58 2006 Subject: M-TH: Living Marxism and New Essays References: <3.0.2.32.19990724100143.0157611c@pop.gn.apc.org> <3.0.2.32.19990724171810.01574b60@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <19990724.154912.4334.0.farmelantj@juno.com> On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 17:18:10 +0100 Chris Burford writes: >At 08:48 24/07/99 -0400, Jim F wrote: > > >> They follow Mattick in accepting an >>overaccumulation theory of crisis (based on the law of falling >>profit rates) and in rejecting theories of underconsumption >>even though one can easily come up with plenty of citations >>from Marx, Engels, and Lenin which indicate that they >>accepted such theories. > >Are these separate theories or just aspects under analysis? Surely >overaccumulation and underconsumption are just two sides of the same >contradiction - that between the endless need for capital to >accumulate >surplus value and the limited purchasing power of the masses. I agree >Marx >referred to both aspects of course. > >How to express the interlocking contradictions is debatable: what is >fundamental, what is primary, what is decisive. It is my understanding that LM regards overaccumulation as by far the primary factor. Underconsumption seems in their view to be little more than an epiphenomena, hence the attack on Keynesianism and upon Keynesian Marxists. This was something that was made clear to me when Andy Austin and I were debating Jim Heartfield both in this list and in Proyect's Marxism List. > >It can be said there is a contradiction between production and >consumption >in all societies. But under capitalism the contradiction between the >social >character of production and the capitalist form of appropriation is >the >chief cause of the crises. > >The contradiction between unlimited exploitation under capitalism and >the >limited possibilities of realisation of the results of this >exploitation >finds its sharpest expression in the crises. Again LM seems to either downplay if not deny the existence or importance of realization crises. This leads them to argue that Marxists should refrain from supporting social democratic-style reformism. > > >I have checked and reproduced formulations here from Political >Economy, >Marxist Study Courses originially published as pamphlets under the >auspices >of the British Communist Party in 1932 and 1933. They were later >reprinted >and distributed for a time in the USA. They were reprinted in 1976 by >Banner Press, Chicago, Library of Concress No 76-43450. > > >Whatever the wording of the contradictions, surely people who focus on >overaccumulation and people who focus on underconsumption are looking >at >the same contradiction. > > >Jim F: > >> The class struggle in LM's view has effectively >>come to an end with the bourgeoisie as the victors. But in >>their view this victory by the bourgeoisie has been accompanied >>by the intellectual and moral exhaustion of that class which has >>in their view lost its traditional commitment to rationalism and >>science and has also lost its traditional willingness to take risks. > >I am not a fan of LM and there are all sorts of subjective factors >about >whether one feels drawn towards a particular group and wants to >affiliate >to it, and whether one would be received by it, but this >characterisation >of LM's position here does not seem so remarkable. > >That the bourgeoisie remain victors is uncontroversial. It is not in >dispute that there are problems for the working class in overthrowing >the >bourgoisie, and few think the crisis of capitalism will be automatic - >that >it will fall without being pushed. > >So the propostion here is that LM thinks the working class has lost >its >willingness to take risks. > >Plus that the working class has lost its "traditional commitment to >rationalism and science". What is meant here? Does not a lot hang on >perceptions of rationalism and of science? Perhaps the traditional >view was >not very dialectical. You have misread me, I said or at least I meant to say that LM is concerned about the bourgeoisie (not the working class) having lost its traditional commitment to rationalism and science. And it is the bourgeoisie that LM maintains has lost its traditional taste for risk taking. LM sees these factors as behind the rise of green politics. And in bashing greens LM has shown no qualms about working closely with big business oriented organizations. They have published in their magazine articles by writers from the Wall Street Journal and writers from right-wing organizations in the US like the Cato Foundation and the Wiseuse movement (which champions the rights of landowners, timber interests and mine owners in the US against environmentalists). In LM's view much of the bourgeoisie having lost its taste for risk taking has succumbed to green agendas thereby furthering capitalism's fettering of the forces of production. It may be of interest to note that over on Usenet in the newsgroup alt.politics.socialism.trotsky at least a couple LM camp followers including Justin Flude and Gary Dale have had no compunctions about citing right-wing authors in support of their views. Flude in particular has even gone as far as to quote favorably from the writings of Ayn Rand on the grounds that she was an effective champion of reason and science. Jim Farmelant > Perhaps it also privileged consciousness, >whereas >marxism has an implicit theory of partial consciousness. > >Distaste though different groups may feel for each other, is the >argument >not about the same objective political and economic contradictions? > >Chris Burford > >London > > > > > > > > --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From cburford at gn.apc.org Sun Jul 25 03:02:15 1999 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:58 2006 Subject: M-TH: Living Marxism and New Essays In-Reply-To: <19990724.154912.4334.0.farmelantj@juno.com> References: <3.0.2.32.19990724100143.0157611c@pop.gn.apc.org> <3.0.2.32.19990724171810.01574b60@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990725100215.00d5bd28@pop.gn.apc.org> At 15:39 24/07/99 -0400, Jim Farmelant wrote: >It is my understanding that LM regards overaccumulation as >by far the primary factor. Underconsumption seems in their >view to be little more than an epiphenomena, hence the attack >on Keynesianism and upon Keynesian Marxists. This was something >that was made clear to me when Andy Austin and I were debating >Jim Heartfield both in this list and in Proyect's Marxism List. I agree epiphenomenon does not sound right. Underconsumption is inevitable given the marxist theory of value predicts that the total social value in a society is finite and therefore as capitalism locks more of it up as privately owned capital there are bound to be periodic antagonistic contradictions in the form of crises. That is indeed the reason why Keynesian economics cannot provide an ultimate answer but may at best only reduce the relative amount of unemployment over the course of the business cycle. I suspect though that some of the impasse may have been due to one-sidedness in emphasising different aspects of the same contradiction of over-accumulation and under-consumption, or possibly nudge the business cycle to operate at a higher average level of employment. > >Again LM seems to either downplay if not deny the existence or >importance of realization crises. This leads them to argue that >Marxists should refrain from supporting social democratic-style >reformism. Because certain reforms have to some extent blunted the severity of crises? If so that is certainly no *political* reason for refusing to take up reforms but to ensure that they are used ultimately in a revolutionary way, not a reform*ist* way. >You have misread me, Yes I did. An interesting mistake. I had been concentrating on the issues raised by the book "The Hidden Injuries of Class" discussed on LBO talk, and speed read the remarks to refer to the working class not the bourgeoisie. > LM >is concerned about the bourgeoisie (not the working class) >having lost its traditional commitment to rationalism and science. Some truth in this. It is adopting a more pluralistic, post-modernist outlook. >And it is the bourgeoisie that LM maintains has lost its traditional >taste for risk taking. That depends on the reward and how much the state will underwrite the risk. At the moment the bourgeoisie is investing massively in information technology well ahead of proven dividends. >LM sees these factors as behind the rise >of green politics. And in bashing greens LM has shown no qualms >about working closely with big business oriented organizations. Jim H is often a challenging adversary even when wrong, but he may not wish to comment on the style aspect of the niche I see LM as now occupying. This style appears attractive to the young critical intelligentsia who do not just want to go with the crowd but want to go with a *different* crowd. It draws on the aspect of marxism that says "doubt everything". It responds to an identity need to say, I am a member of the critical intelligentsia, rather than, I am a member of the concerned intelligentsia. The former may at times make for easier business initiatives as it is not incompatible with intelligent capitalism. There are certainly petty bourgeois, luddite aspects to the green movement, and LM may play a useful role in a wider pluralist civil society in criticising this apparently from the left. Theoretically they are correct to say that monopoly capitalism may at times be more progressive relative to simple capitalism or to petty bourgeois production. But a) ultimately their theoretical position seems to me to be based on a radical application of bourgeois democratic rights: not qualitatively different, just more of the same, taken to its logical (or illogical) conclusion. b) the issue of the environment including genetic modification is one of the clearest issues on which, in the words of Marx's address to the First International, there is a need for "social production controlled by social foresight." Ultimately LM will have to concede this, but if they have found a way a satisfactory way of keeping their organisation going, they may not have to do so very loudly. But this thread may already have drifted far from Mattick's Living Marxism and New Essays 1934-1943. Maybe only Jim H knows. Chris Burford London. --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk Sun Jul 25 10:31:01 1999 From: jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk (Jim heartfield) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:58 2006 Subject: M-TH: Living Marxism and New Essays In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990725100215.00d5bd28@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <3.0.2.32.19990724100143.0157611c@pop.gn.apc.org> <3.0.2.32.19990724171810.01574b60@pop.gn.apc.org> <19990724.154912.4334.0.farmelantj@juno.com> <3.0.2.32.19990725100215.00d5bd28@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <3zmL8HAFvzm3MwQV@heartfield.demon.co.uk> I hesitate to intervene in this discussion of LM, since, by and large it's quite a fair account. But just on some points interspersed... In message <3.0.2.32.19990725100215.00d5bd28@pop.gn.apc.org>, Chris Burford writes >At 15:39 24/07/99 -0400, Jim Farmelant wrote: > >>It is my understanding that LM regards overaccumulation as >>by far the primary factor. Underconsumption seems in their >>view to be little more than an epiphenomena, hence the attack >>on Keynesianism and upon Keynesian Marxists. >I agree epiphenomenon does not sound right. Underconsumption is inevitable >given the marxist theory of value predicts that the total social value in a >society is finite and therefore as capitalism locks more of it up as >privately owned capital there are bound to be periodic antagonistic >contradictions in the form of crises. I can't agree with Chris, here. There is an underconsumptionist strand in reformist Marxism, but the revolutionary strand always criticised it pretty mercilessly: Firstly in Marx's critique of Sisimondi (Theories of Surplus Value); then in Lenin's critique of the Narodniks (Development of Capitalism in Russia); and finally in Mattick's critique of Luxemburg (Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory). So for eg, Chris' point that >marxist theory of value predicts that the total social value in a >society is finite and therefore as capitalism locks more of it up as >privately owned capital there are bound to be periodic antagonistic >contradictions in the form of crises Was answered years ago by Lenin in his debate with the Narodniks. They argued that Capitalism would never get off the ground in Russia because there was no internal market for capitalist goods. Lenin pointed out that the incomes of capitalists were not hoarded but spent purchasing capital goods, so that capital creates its own internal market. Superficial reading would suggest that Lenin was merely an optimistic pro-capitalist, like Tugan-Baranovsky. But Lenin's purpose was to show that the barrier to capital accumulation was not on the market, but rather in the relative displacement of variable capital by constant, leading to a falling rate of profit. > >That is indeed the reason why Keynesian economics cannot provide an >ultimate answer but may at best only reduce the relative amount of >unemployment over the course of the business cycle. So Chris' indication of the limits of Keynesianism is misplaced. If the main barrier to capital accumulation is lack of markets, then government purchasing would indeed overcome that barrier. Now we know that the Marxists were right and that capitalism cannot 'spend its way out of a crisis'. Rather the only way to overcome the intrinsic barrier to capital accumulation is by a wholesale writing off of capital and a reorganisation of production relations at the expense of the working class. And this is what happened in the eighties and early nineties. >> >>Again LM seems to either downplay if not deny the existence or >>importance of realization crises. This leads them to argue that >>Marxists should refrain from supporting social democratic-style >>reformism. > >Because certain reforms have to some extent blunted the severity of crises? >If so that is certainly no *political* reason for refusing to take up >reforms but to ensure that they are used ultimately in a revolutionary way, >not a reform*ist* way. It is a methodological point, really. Marx's analysis of capital seeks to go beyond market relations to production relations. The petit bourgeois theories of crises of realisation fail to rise above the standpoint of the individual capitalist, seeing only the consequences of a more profound historical limit to capital accumulation as a mere problem of markets. And yes, this view of capitalism did indeed foster reformist conclusions. > >> LM >>is concerned about the bourgeoisie (not the working class) >>having lost its traditional commitment to rationalism and science. > >Some truth in this. It is adopting a more pluralistic, post-modernist outlook. > > >>And it is the bourgeoisie that LM maintains has lost its traditional >>taste for risk taking. > >That depends on the reward and how much the state will underwrite the risk. >At the moment the bourgeoisie is investing massively in information >technology well ahead of proven dividends. IT is much exaggerated in its impact upon production. Substantial risks are rarely undertaken by individual capitalists, and increasingly the state to is organising itself around a principle of safety-first. That is a destructive influence in society that frustrates social development. >>LM sees these factors as behind the rise >>of green politics. And in bashing greens LM has shown no qualms >>about working closely with big business oriented organizations. Well, of course one has qualms, and LM is not pro-business (though it is pro-growth). My reading of Marx's criticism of capitalism is that it is a barrier to growth and development. By contrast the green critiques are a species of romantic 'anti-capitalism' that seek to go backwards from the present, not forwards. In polemicising against those trends it appears to those who already associate growth with capitalism that LM is pro-capitalist - but that's just their prejudice. Incidentally, I would say that the green outlook is far more closely related to a pro-capitalist outlook, as one can see by the wholesale adoption of ecological ideology by corporations and governments. As a limit to production, capitalism in decline finds its clearest expression in an ideology of restraint and lowered expectations. Jim F gave the following egs: "They have published in their magazine articles by writers from the Wall Street Journal and writers from right-wing organizations in the US like the Cato Foundation and the Wiseuse movement (which champions the rights of landowners, timber interests and mine owners in the US against environmentalists)." Well, some of that is true, but in the first instance, LM is a news magazine and contains many articles that are not written by its own staff. We have carried articles by gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, interviews with Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams and Bernadette McAliskey, as well as with right wingers like disgraced Tory MP Neil Hamilton. Of the above it is only true that we did carry an article by Ron Arnold of the Wise Use movement - and a very good article it was too. Arnold, a keen Marx scholar who read capital in the original German wrote an article criticising the Unabomber and the deep green environmentalism that he espoused. After we were criticised for carrying the article, we had to have him again. I was introduced to Arnold by Doug Henwood, who has had him on his radio show. The argument about the Cato foundation is actually at two removes. Two LM writers were featured in a three part television documentary that also featured a scientist who had been supported by the Cato foundation. But then it was also true that the programme featured contributions from Friends of the Earth and innumerable other environmentalist organisations. As to the Wall Street Journal, I think that the movement is the other way around. Two writers who had contributed to LM later were published in the WSJ. I wish I was published in the WSJ, is all I can say. It is always preferable to speak to a larger audience. > >Jim H is often a challenging adversary even when wrong, but he may not wish >to comment on the style aspect of the niche I see LM as now occupying. This >style appears attractive to the young critical intelligentsia who do not >just want to go with the crowd but want to go with a *different* crowd. It >draws on the aspect of marxism that says "doubt everything". It responds to >an identity need to say, I am a member of the critical intelligentsia, >rather than, I am a member of the concerned intelligentsia. The former may >at times make for easier business initiatives as it is not incompatible >with intelligent capitalism. Yes, I think I would accept that. I prefer criticism to commitment. Commitment is all too often uncritical, but criticism is more likely to lead to good actions than vice versa. > >There are certainly petty bourgeois, luddite aspects to the green movement, >and LM may play a useful role in a wider pluralist civil society in >criticising this apparently from the left. Theoretically they are correct >to say that monopoly capitalism may at times be more progressive relative >to simple capitalism or to petty bourgeois production. > >But > >a) ultimately their theoretical position seems to me to be based on a >radical application of bourgeois democratic rights: not qualitatively >different, just more of the same, taken to its logical (or illogical) >conclusion. Some of what you say is right. I certainly do support bourgeois democratic rights, because these are what is being undermined today. In that I see my stance as derived from Lenin's support for democratic rights in the age of imperialism. At the point that capitalism becomes regressive, it tends to undermine democratic rights, rather than extending them. Therefore one ought to defend these. But that is only the given form of the problem in the here and now. > >b) the issue of the environment including genetic modification is one of >the clearest issues on which, in the words of Marx's address to the First >International, there is a need for "social production controlled by social >foresight." Ultimately LM will have to concede this, but if they have found >a way a satisfactory way of keeping their organisation going, they may not >have to do so very loudly. I don't think so. Having been debating environmentalists on this issue for some time now I think I can say with my hand on my heart that there is no sense whatsoever in which their conservatism approximates to 'social foresight' as Marx meant it. Marx's point is that conscious control over industry (ie a planned economy) should replace the unconscious operation of market forces. That is an elevation of the role of reason. But invariably the green critique involves the suppression of reason before superstitious beliefs and irrationality. If the greens were to succeed in extinguishing scientific advance (which is only likely to be partly the case) then there would be no production of which to take control. > >But this thread may already have drifted far from Mattick's > >Living Marxism and New Essays 1934-1943. Maybe only Jim H knows. Indeed there is a world of difference. But what is in common is that Mattick was concerned to liberate society's productive forces from the restraints that were put upon them in his day: falling profitability and slump. I am concerned to do the same for the restraints on human progress in my day: a culture of lowered expectations and restraint. -- Jim heartfield --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From dhenwood at panix.com Sun Jul 25 13:28:53 1999 From: dhenwood at panix.com (Doug Henwood) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:58 2006 Subject: M-TH: Living Marxism and New Essays In-Reply-To: <3zmL8HAFvzm3MwQV@heartfield.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.2.32.19990724100143.0157611c@pop.gn.apc.org> <3.0.2.32.19990724171810.01574b60@pop.gn.apc.org> <19990724.154912.4334.0.farmelantj@juno.com> <3.0.2.32.19990725100215.00d5bd28@pop.gn.apc.org> <3zmL8HAFvzm3MwQV@heartfield.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Jim heartfield wrote: >Of the above it is only true that we did carry an article by Ron Arnold >of the Wise Use movement - and a very good article it was too. Arnold, a >keen Marx scholar who read capital in the original German wrote an >article criticising the Unabomber and the deep green environmentalism >that he espoused. After we were criticised for carrying the article, we >had to have him again. I was introduced to Arnold by Doug Henwood, who >has had him on his radio show. That I have, several times. Certain persons, like lnp3@panix.com, think it's evil for me to have done this. Call me an aesthete, but I thought it was an interesting match. Sometimes being an editor or producer calls for decisions different from those of a professional revolutionary. The thing you have to remember about Ron Arnold, though, is that he's a paid publicist for nature-destroying capital. His innovation was to convince the timber industry that they needed foundations, think tanks, and pseudo-grassroots organizations to press their case for the freedom to cut - it had no credibility speaking for itself. So we had the Sagebrush Rebellion, Wise Use, and the rest. Whenever Ron writes and speaks, he uses the classic techniques of PR - like focus on an extreme example (the Unabomber) to discredit an intellectual and political movement (environmentalism). Most enviros really aren't the Unabomber, though I will concede there are plenty of misanthropes and Malthusians in the green movement. But because there are, and because there are irrationalists and mystics too, doesn't mean that we aren't doing serious damage to life on earth, and taking very large risks for the future. Doug --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Jul 26 10:55:51 1999 From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:58 2006 Subject: M-TH: Living Marxism and New Essays Message-ID: >>> Jim heartfield 07/25/99 12:31PM >>> I can't agree with Chris, here. There is an underconsumptionist strand in reformist Marxism, but the revolutionary strand always criticised it pretty mercilessly: Firstly in Marx's critique of Sisimondi (Theories of Surplus Value); then in Lenin's critique of the Narodniks (Development of Capitalism in Russia); and finally in Mattick's critique of Luxemburg (Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory). So for eg, Chris' point that >marxist theory of value predicts that the total social value in a >society is finite and therefore as capitalism locks more of it up as >privately owned capital there are bound to be periodic antagonistic >contradictions in the form of crises Was answered years ago by Lenin in his debate with the Narodniks. They argued that Capitalism would never get off the ground in Russia because there was no internal market for capitalist goods. Lenin pointed out that the incomes of capitalists were not hoarded but spent purchasing capital goods, so that capital creates its own internal market. Superficial reading would suggest that Lenin was merely an optimistic pro-capitalist, like Tugan-Baranovsky. But Lenin's purpose was to show that the barrier to capital accumulation was not on the market, but rather in the relative displacement of variable capital by constant, leading to a falling rate of profit. ((((((((((((((((((((((( Charles: I don't agree. As I discovered the last time we argued this, Lenin's full statement referred to above by affirms Marx's fundamental statement regarding the role of the "restricted consumption of the masses" in periodic crises. The below is quoted from the last debate on Thaxis on this issue. >>> "Charles Brown" 09/30/98 James H. 'On the problem of interest to us, that the home market, the main conclusion from Marx's theory of realisation is the following: capitalist production, and consequently, the home market, grow not so much on account of articles of consumption as on account of means of prouction. In other words, the increasse inmeans of produciton outstrips the increase in articles of consumption.' Lenin, Development of Capitalism in Russia, p 54 _____________ Charles : But in the same passage Lenin went on to say: "For capitalism, therefore, the growth of the home market is to a certain extent "independent" of the growth of personal consumption, and takes place mostly on account of productive consumption. BUT IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE TO UNDERSTAND THIS "INDEPENDENCE" AS MEANING THAT PRODUCTIVE CONSUMPTION IS ENTIRELY DIVORCED FROM PERSONAL CONSUMPTION: THE FORMER CAN AND MUST INCREASE FASTER THAN THE LATTER (AND THERE ITS "INDEPENDENCE" ENDS), BUT IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT, IN THE LAST ANALYSIS, PRDUCTIVE CONSUMPTION IS ALWAYS BOUND UP WITH PERSONAL CONSUMPTION. MARX SAYS IN THIS CONNECTION: "...WE HAVE SEEN (BOOK II, PART III) THAT CONTINUOUS CIRCULATION TAKES PLACE BETWEEN CONSTANT CAPITAL AND CONSTANT CAPITAL..."(MARX HAS IN MIND CONSTANT CAPITAL IN MEANS OF PRODUCTION , WHICH IS REALISED BY EXCHANGE AMONG CAPITALISTS IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT). "IT IS AT FIRST INDEPENDENT OF INDIVIDUAL CONSUMPTION BECAUSE IT NEVER ENTERS THE LATTER. BUT THIS CONSUMPTION DEFINITELY LIMITS IT NEVERTHELESS, SINCE CONSTANT CAPITAL IS NEVER PRODUCED FOR ITS OWN SAKE BUT SOLELY BECAUSE MORE OF IT IS NEEDED IN SPHERES OF PRODUCTION WHOSE PRODUCTS GO INTO INDIVIDUAL CONSUMPTION " (DAS KAPITAL, III, 1, 289, RUSS. TRANS., P242; OR MOSCOW 1959 P.299-300) emphasis added by Charles. So, when we read the whole passage we see that Lenin and Marx agree with us not James H. in this thread. Also, on the cause of crises, later on in this section on Marx's theory of realisation, Lenin quotes Marx: "The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as opposed to the drive of captialist production to develop the productive forces as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their outer limit " (Capital vol. III, Moscow, 1959, pp. 472-73) ; quoted in The Development of Capitalism in Russia. Charles Brown Detroit --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Jul 27 08:40:28 1999 From: CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:58 2006 Subject: M-TH: Immigration reso Message-ID: The following resolution was adopted by the Alameda County Central Labor Council on June 21, 1999. It could serve as a model for other unions and councils in raising the issue of immigration at the AFL-CIO convention in Los Angeles in October. Resolution: Defending the Rights of Immigrant Workers and the Right to Organize WHEREAS: Our country and its labor movement were built in large part by immigrants, including those from Africa kidnapped and forced into slavery. Our laws have also historically reflected public attitudes about race, with bans and discriminatory limits on legal immigration from Asia, Africa, and Latin America which have only recently been rectified. People have come here seeking economic survival, often driven from their countries of origin by hunger, political repression and the lack of economic opportunity. AND WHEREAS: There are over 100 million people in the world today who have left their countries of origin. Only social and economic justice on a global scale will create a world where immigration is not a means of survival for the world's poor. AND WHEREAS: Thousands of immigrant workers, both with and without documents, have mounted large and effective campaigns to organize unions in California in the last decade. These efforts have created new unions and strengthened and revived many others, benefitting all labor, immigrant and native-born alike. AND WHEREAS: The ability of workers to organize has been increasingly threatened by current immigration law and its enforcement, which has been used to retaliate against workers who organize and protest against sweatshop conditions. AND WHEREAS: The California Labor Federation resolved in 1994 that employer sanctions should be repealed, passing the same resolution in each convention since then, because sanctions cause discrimination against anyone who looks or sounds foreign, because they provide a weapon employers have used repeatedly to fire and threaten immigrant workers who organize unions, and because they make immigrant workers vulnerable and cheapen their labor, violating their rights as workers and human beings. AND WHEREAS: Labor stands for the equality of all workers. Immigration legislation and its enforcement which divides workers undermines that strength. All workers, regardless of immigration status, have the right to form unions; file complaints against illegal and unfair treatment without fear of reprisal; receive unemployment insurance, disability insurance, workers' compensation benefits; and enjoy the same remedies under labor law as all other workers. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Alameda County Central Labor Council supports the call made by the California Labor Federation and many affiliated unions for the repeal of employer sanctions. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Alameda County Central Labor Council opposes all cooperation between the Immigration and Naturalization Service and other government and public institutions, such as SSA, the Department of Labor, unemployment and welfare offices, and motor vehicle departments, among others, in which information provided by immigrants is misused for immigration enforcement purposes. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Alameda County Central Labor Council calls for ending completely the practice of sending letters to employers with lists of workers whose names don't match the SSA database ("no-match letters), which are then then used as a pretext to terminate them, alleging their immigration status is in question. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Alameda County Central Labor Council calls for a new amnesty program, allowing undocumented immigrants to regularize their status, and an inexpensive and expedited citizenship process to allow immigrants to become citizens as quickly and easily as possible. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Alameda County Central Labor Council proposes that the budget for immigration enforcement be cut drastically, and the money used instead to increase enforcement of workers' rights and fair labor standards. AND BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED: The Alameda County Central Labor Council submits this resolution to the national convention of the AFL-CIO for adoption, and requests the California Labor Federation to forward its position to the national convention for adoption as well. Adopted by the Central Labor Council of Alameda County, AFL-CIO at the Delegates Meeting on Monday, June 21, 1999. Judy Goff, Executive Secretary-Treasurer. --------------------------------------------------------------- david bacon - labornet email david bacon internet: dbacon@igc.apc.org 1631 channing way phone: 510.549.0291 berkeley, ca 94703 --------------------------------------------------------------- --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From cburford at gn.apc.org Wed Jul 28 00:58:30 1999 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:58 2006 Subject: M-TH: accumulation, and finite purchasing power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19990728075830.013d47b4@pop.gn.apc.org> Charles quoted: >"The ultimate reason for all >real crises always remains the >poverty and restricted consumption >of the masses as opposed to the >drive of captialist production to develop >the productive forces as though only >the absolute consuming power of >society constituted their outer limit " >(Capital vol. III, Moscow, 1959, pp. >472-73) ; quoted in The Development >of Capitalism in Russia. I thought I had remembered the argument correctly. Could anyone give the page reference for the 1974 Lawrence and Wishart edition of Captial Vol 3, or the chapter and section number? But >>>> Jim heartfield 07/25/99 12:31PM >>> > Lenin's purpose was to show >that the barrier to capital accumulation was not on the market, but >rather in the relative displacement of variable capital by constant, >leading to a falling rate of profit. The protagonists may not want to revisit an argument which for them ran its course, but it seems to me that Jim's formulation here is not correct and perpetuates one sidedness about a dynamic process. The argument must have been undialectical for it to be still unresolved. Without specific references from Lenin, I am surprised that he should counterpose the contradiction in this way. Of course with the inescapable tendency for capitalism to accumulate there is an increase in the proportion of constant capital. (But in certain circumstances for a time a capitalist might see the opportunity to accumulate more surplus value by exploiting a larger mass of labour, variable capital, that has been neglected by competitors.) But the total mass of social value, provides a glass ceiling above which production cannot rise. Perhaps a plastic ceiling because under certain conditions there may be some elasticity, probably at the expense of a more violent rebound. The barrier to capital accumulation is this, not "the market", so Jim H is suggesting a false antithesis in Lenin's argument. Ultimately the division of social value is a zero sum game and the tendency for capital always to accumulate will run into periodic collision with the limited purchasing power of the sellers of labour power. Marx and Lenin's dialectical description of the economic process exactly fits a limit cycle. If we do not dialectically see the unity between these two aspects as well as the struggle, this leaves an endless unresolved argument, however technical, between the relative importance of different aspects of the same process. Chris Burford London --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From JWALKER at fs1.li.man.ac.uk Thu Jul 29 04:05:01 1999 From: JWALKER at fs1.li.man.ac.uk (J.WALKER, ILL) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:58 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re: Living Marxism and over-accumulation Message-ID: <10AB6914E58@fs1.li.man.ac.uk> Comrades, Sorry I'm a bit confused by all this over-accumulation and under- consumption debate (as my earlier unresolved Gold question revealed I haven't got far through Book I of Capital, never mind Book III !). So it would be useful to know what exactly the old RCP/now LM were actually arguing? Does anyone have any references or is it just other's interpretation of the logic (dangerous word perhaps?) of their position? When the RCT split in 1974/5 was it related to economic differences with Yaffe & co. (a stong opponent of under- and over- consuption arguments describing them as effectively Neo-Malthusian) or were the differences just about the role of the Party etc.? Is the RCP/LM being singled out here for any particular reason? Are they unusual in taking such as position? I know it was against the general position of Cliff in the I.S. and the many in the C.P., but Ido not know any specifically RCP/LM economic writings and most of the debate was carried on within the C.S.E. which I don't think they had any members in. But I am happy to be corrected. Regards, John Walker --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu --- From poseidon at tinet.ie Fri Jul 30 01:16:18 1999 From: poseidon at tinet.ie (George Pennefather) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:58 2006 Subject: M-TH: The IRA and Peace Message-ID: <000f01beda5b$6efff5a0$13fe869f@tinet.ie> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3227 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/attachments/19990730/1af9b693/attachment.txt From jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk Fri Jul 30 02:24:30 1999 From: jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk (Jim heartfield) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:49:58 2006 Subject: M-TH: Re: Living Marxism and over-accumulation In-Reply-To: <10AB6914E58@fs1.li.man.ac.uk> References: <10AB6914E58@fs1.li.man.ac.uk> Message-ID: In message <10AB6914E58@fs1.li.man.ac.uk>, J.WALKER, ILL writes >Comrades, > >Sorry I'm a bit confused by all this over-accumulation and under- >consumption debate (as my earlier unresolved Gold question revealed I >haven't got far through Book I of Capital, never mind Book III !). >So it would be useful to know what exactly the old RCP/now LM were >actually arguing? >Does anyone have any references or is it just other's interpretation >of the logic (dangerous word perhaps?) of their position? >When the RCT split in 1974/5 was it related to economic differences >with Yaffe & co. (a stong opponent of under- and over- consuption >arguments describing them as effectively Neo-Malthusian) or were the >differences just about the role of the Party etc.? >Is the RCP/LM being singled out here for any particular reason? Are >they unusual in taking such as position? No, not that unusual. John is right to point out that the strict interpretation of Marx's crisis theory is not unique to the old RCP, indeed most serious Marx scholars would agree with it. He is also right to say that the common ground between the RCP and the group it split from, the RCG, was the orthodox reading of Marx, as Yaffe insisted upon. The RCP's own writings on Crisis theory can be found on the LM website (I wrote a few of them myself, see 'Marx and the Marxologists'). Around 1992 Living Marxism writer Tony Kennedy edited and introduced the Pluto Press edition of Henryk Grossmann's Law of Accumulation.. . In 1996 the journal Confrontation featured an article by Phil Mullan 'Confidence in the Slump'. My Need and Desire in the Post Material Economy integrates some elements of Capital-logic theory with a critique of cultural theory. As we read it the orthodox capital-logic theory of Marx argues that Capitalism combines creative and destructive aspects, that the development of the forces of production was restrained by the narrow basis of the relations of production. In the period from the end of the Second World war to the end of the Cold war the ruling class ideology was apologetic, emphasising the creative side but covering up the destructive side. But in more recent times the character of economic ideology has changed. Today, mostly due to the contribution of Green thinking to bourgeois ideology, the emphasis is almost exclusively upon the destructive side of capital. Clinton and Blair call for capital restraints, all aspects of growth from genetic engineering to roads are unduly problematised. Not straight-forward harmonist apologetics are the characteristic of today's bourgeois ideology, but something like a petit-bourgeois romantic anti-modernism. In that context the emphasis of Marxist theory has to change. In the seventies and eighties it was right to emphasise the destructive side of capital because that was what was being obscured. Today it is right to emphasise the case for progress, emphasising the positive side of production, because this is what is being denied. And the effect of this anti-progressive theme is to put all social change off the agenda. In the previous edition of LM, 121, we carried a series of articles on the economy that exemplify this approach. There is Phil Mullan on Depressed Capitalists, Jamie Malone on 'Business Ethics', me on the Culture industries, and Doug Henwood on left catastrophism. http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM121/LM121_Index.html John asks what the point at issue was between Yaffe and the RCG on the one side and the old RCP on the other. The specific point they flared up over was that the cdes who went on to form the RCP thought that Yaffe was tail-ending the ANC, refusing to air differences in public. We interpreted Yaffe's tendency as a transformation of principled solidarity work into liberal guilt- tripping. The strict theoretical difference was that Yaffe proposed a theory (based on a short article of Lenin's) that the organised British working class was objectively reactionary because it had been bought off by imperialism. Consequently revolution could only come from the black and unemployed, and the third world. We thought this was false. In truth the organised working class was not a useful support for capitalism but the victims of the capitalist offensive in the eighties. Far from it being the case that the aristocracy of labour was more important to capitalism, the labour bureaucracy was being dismantled as a barrier to accumulation. -- Jim heartfield --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu ---