From cb31450 at gmail.com  Tue Sep  1 08:08:18 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:08:18 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Japan opposition takes on economy after
	landslide
In-Reply-To: <ffbe0f7e0908312248p1c9f630clb45de7a8d0781004@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffbe0f7e0908312248p1c9f630clb45de7a8d0781004@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909010708w4b2fd546jfbef593984273f60@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Charles. I kinda thought u would clarify this thusly

On 9/1/09, CeJ <jannuzi at gmail.com> wrote:
> The thing to remember is this: the NEW RULING party is simply a set of
> factions that emerged from the OLD RULING party over 10 years ago.
> They ran as opposition on MORE FREE MARKETS, DEREGULATION,
> LIBERALIZATION and appeasement of big business interests that seek to
> co-habit with American big business interests and the US military.
> It's true that they said they were going to re-think the postal
> privatization (now that everyone realizes it's about the only thing in
> the country that appeasing American interests hasn't yet ruined), but
> it's also important to remember that, at the time the simpleton
> Koizumi of the old ruling party (LDP) was arguing for privatization
> and running on this issue, the DPJ was vaguely arguing the
> privatization didn't go far or deep enough.
>
> One would expect the usual interests of the American national security
> state empire to argue that Japan started its reforms too late or did
> too little--except the collapse of the US bubbles leaves them so
> thoroughly repudiated by their own stupid free market rhetoric (which
> was more about making Japan pay for more of the US's military spending
> while securing insider deals and monopolized markets with US-Japan
> trade anyway).
>
> The LDP truly sucked, the DPJ promises to suck even harder.
>
> CJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
>


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Tue Sep  1 08:17:20 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:17:20 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Notes on the Japanese Elections of 2009
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909010717g7b952c85o32d957770a3dd9c6@mail.gmail.com>

Yoshie Furuhashi

 Notes on the Japanese Elections of 2009


Decades of increasing poverty, inequality, and insecurity, which
created a powerful backlash against the ruling coalition of the
Liberal Democratic Party and Komeito, finally put an end to Japan's de
facto one-party state.  But the backlash only benefited the social
liberal Democratic Party of Japan, which increased its seats from 115
to 308 (the DPJ block now enjoys 322 seats, more than a two-thirds
majority).  The Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party barely
hanged onto the same numbers of seats that they had before the
elections: 9 for the CP* and 7 for the SDP.  On the face of it, it is
not a debacle for the Left like those suffered by Communists in India
and Italy in the most recent elections.  But, one of the items on the
DPJ agenda is a plan to eliminate 80 proportional representation
seats, and it just so happens that all the Communist representatives
are elected to proportional representation seats.  :-0

If you are interested, look at this video of the 21 Aug 09
pre-election press conference of JCP Chaiman Shii Kazuo (which comes
with English translation):
<http://www.jcp.or.jp/movie/news_mov/20090824/index.html>.  You'll see
that JCP criticisms of the DPJ agenda are to the point more often than
not (which you can see in more detail at
<http://www.jcp.or.jp/seisaku/2009/syuuin/index.html>), but those
criticisms don't amount to a compelling vision of a new socialist
society that the party should be presenting.

The strongest point of the JCP criticism of the DPJ is that the DPJ
will pay for its promise to expand the social safety net, including
the formerly excluded, by increasing the taxes on working-class
incomes, leveling down the existing structures of entitlements such as
pensions toward the new social minimums, decreasing public works and
public-sector jobs, and so on, the trade-off that the DPJ will make
inevitable given its refusal to tax big businesses and capitalists and
to cut military spending.

But, in the process of making this point, the JCP ends up defending
the old, such as tax exemptions for dependent spouses (usually
housewives), which have discouraged many a woman from seeking
full-time jobs since wives earning only part-time incomes (roughly up
to 1,300,000 yen) are counted as dependents for the purpose of
calculating taxes, insurance and pension contributions and benefits,
etc.  What's good for working-class _families_ in material terms can
be bad for working-class _women_ looking to enhance their
gender-bargaining power vis-a-vis men, and the structures of the
Japanese welfare state that tacitly assume male family wages, lifetime
monogamous marriages, female spousal dependency, etc. are textbook
cases of the common class-gender contradiction under capitalism.  This
contradiction intensifies as more and more Japanese women are clearly
losing interest in marriage and childbearing, powerfully demonstrating
their sharp rejection of the old gender settlement and silently
erecting a strong demographic obstacle to the old methods of restoring
economic growth.  The JCP, or any other left-wing current in Japan,
needs to offer women -- and young people in general -- a new socialist
vision that assumes women as individuals, rather than a maternalist
Keynesian vision in which women are tacitly assumed to be, or become,
or have been wives and mothers.

The same goes for the JCP's defense of the Peace Constitution.  On one
hand, any constitutional revision that the DPJ will put on the agenda
will likely to be one that pushes Japan onto the course that Germany
took in the process of the dissolution of Yugoslavia, embarking on
humanitarian imperialist adventures of its own, not just as a
subordinate member of the US-led coalition of the willing.  On the
other hand, there is nothing democratic, let alone socialist, about
defending the constitution that the occupier wrote for Japan, on which
the Japanese people have not been allowed to vote.  Socialists must
present a new democratic vision for Japan.  Why not a constitutional
assembly in Japan, to write a new constitution as a step toward 21st
century socialism?


* The proportion of the total vote for the Communists, however,
registered a slight decline, from 7.25% to 7.03%:
<http://www.jcp.or.jp/seisaku/2009/syuuin/20090831_seimei.html>.

Yoshie


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Tue Sep  1 09:10:16 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 11:10:16 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Partial list of famous musical artists who died as
	young or younger than Michael Jackson
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909010810p5a2e04dds3e948afb2b4ed9b6@mail.gmail.com>

Fr?d?ric Chopin





Chopin was born in the village of ?elazowa Wola, in the Duchy of
Warsaw, to a French-expatriate father and Polish mother and was
regarded as a child-prodigy[5][6] pianist. On 2 November 1830, at the
age of twenty, he left Warsaw for Austria, intending to go on to
Italy. The outbreak of the Polish November Uprising seven days later,
and its subsequent suppression by Russia, led to Chopin becoming one
of many expatriates of the Polish Great Emigration.[7]

In Paris, Chopin made a comfortable living as a composer and piano
teacher, while giving few public performances. Though an ardent Polish
patriot,[8][9] in France he used the French versions of his names and
eventually, to avoid having to rely on Imperial Russian documents,
became a French citizen.[10][11][12] After some ill-fated romantic
involvements with Polish women, from 1837 to 1847 he had a turbulent
relationship with the French authoress George Sand. Always in frail
health, he died in Paris in 1849, aged thirty-nine, of pulmonary
tuberculosis.[13][14]

 Fr?d?ric Chopin: Prelude Op. 28 n. 4 for Piano

Porticodoro / SmartCGArt Media Productions - Steinway Piano

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Problems listening to this file? See media help.
Chopin's compositions were written primarily for the piano as solo
instrument. Though they are technically demanding,[15] the emphasis in
his style is on nuance and expressive depth. Chopin invented musical
forms such as the instrumental ballade[16] and was responsible for
major innovations in the piano sonata, mazurka, waltz, nocturne,
?tude, impromptu and pr?lude.

Contents [hide]
1 Life
1.1 Childhood
1.2 Education
1.3 Young man
1.4 Paris
1.5 George Sand
1.6 Final years
2 Memorials and tributes
3 Music
3.1 Influence
3.2 Style
3.2.1 Rubato
3.3 Romanticism
3.4 Polish heritage
4 Works
5 Fictional treatments
6 See also
7 Notes
8 References
9 External links



[edit] Life

[edit] Childhood

Chopin birthplace at ?elazowa Wola, now a venue for piano
recitalsFr?d?ric Chopin was born in ?elazowa Wola in Sochaczew County,
some fifty kilometers west of Warsaw, in what was then part of the
Duchy of Warsaw. His father, Miko?aj Chopin, originally a Frenchman
from Lorraine, had emigrated to Poland in 1787 at the age of sixteen
and had served in Poland's National Guard during the Ko?ciuszko
Uprising. The elder Chopin subsequently worked in ?elazowa Wola as a
tutor to children of the aristocracy, which included the Skarbeks?one
of whose poorer relations, Justyna Krzy?anowska, he married.[17]

Justyna's brother would become the father of American Union General
W?odzimierz Krzy?anowski.[18][19]

Miko?aj and Justyna were married in the 16th-century basilica in
Broch?w, where Fr?d?ric Chopin would be baptised. According to family
records, the couple's second child (and only son), christened
"Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin", was born on 1 March 1810. A parish
church document found in 1892[20] gives his birth date as 22 February
1810 but he usually gave 1 March as his date of birth.[20]


In 1817?27 Chopin's family lived adjacent to the Kazimierz Palace in
this Warsaw University building, now adorned (center) with Fryderyk's
profileIn October 1810, when the infant was seven months old, the
family moved to Warsaw, where his father took a position as
French-language teacher at a school in the Saxon Palace. The Chopin
family lived on the palace grounds. In 1817, Miko?aj Chopin began
work, still teaching French, at the Warsaw Lyceum, housed in Warsaw
University's Kazimierz Palace. The family lived in a spacious
second-floor apartment in an adjacent building. The son himself would
attend the Warsaw Lyceum from 1823 to 1826.


Chopin's parents' tomb at Pow?zki Cemetery in WarsawDespite Miko?aj
Chopin's occupation, Polish spirit, culture and language pervaded the
Chopins' home, and as a result the son would never, even in Paris,
perfectly master the French language.[21] Louis Enault, a biographer,
borrowed George Sand's phrase to describe Chopin as being "more Polish
than Poland".[22]

All the family had artistic leanings. Chopin's father played the flute
and violin; the mother played the piano and gave lessons to boys in
the elite boarding house that the Chopins operated. Thus the boy early
became conversant with music in its various forms.[23]

J?zef Sikorski, a musician and Chopin's contemporary, recalls in his
Memoir about Chopin (Wspomnienie Chopina) that, as a child, Chopin
wept with emotion when his mother played the piano. By six, he was
already trying to reproduce what he heard or to make up new
melodies.[6] He received his earliest piano lessons not from his
mother but from his older sister Ludwika (in English, "Louise").[23]


Miko?aj Chopin, by Mieroszewski, 1829Chopin's first professional piano
tutor, from 1816 to 1822, was the respected, elderly Czech, Wojciech
?ywny.[24] Though the youngster's skills soon surpassed his teacher's,
Chopin later spoke highly of ?ywny. Seven-year old "little Chopin"
(Szopenek) began giving public concerts that soon prompted comparisons
with Mozart as a child and with Chopin's older contemporary,
Beethoven.[23]

That same year, seven-year old Chopin composed two Polonaises, in G
minor and B-flat major. The first was published in the engraving
workshop of Father Izydor J?zef Cybulski (composer, engraver, director
of an organists' school, and one of the few music publishers in
Poland); the second survives as a manuscript prepared by Miko?aj
Chopin. These small works were said to rival not only the popular
polonaises of leading Warsaw composers, but the famous Polonaises of
Micha? Kleofas Ogi?ski. A substantial development of melodic and
harmonic invention and of piano technique was shown in Chopin's next
known Polonaise, in A-flat major, which the young artist offered in
1821 as a name-day gift to ?ywny.[23]


Justyna Chopin, by Mieroszewski, 1829About this time, at the age of
eleven, Chopin performed in the presence of Alexander I, Tsar of
Russia, who was in Warsaw, opening the Sejm (Polish parliament).[6]

As a child, Chopin showed an intelligence that was said to absorb
everything and make use of everything for its development. He early
showed remarkable abilities in observation and sketching, a keen wit
and sense of humor, and an uncommon talent for mimicry.[23] A story
from his school years recounts a teacher being pleasantly surprised by
a superb portrait that Chopin had drawn of him in class.[25]


Chopin memorial at SzafarniaIn those years, Chopin was sometimes
invited to the Belweder Palace as playmate to the son of Russian
Poland's ruler, Grand Duke Constantine Pavlovich of Russia, and
charmed the irascible duke with his piano-playing.[23] (A few years
later, the Grand Duke would flee the Belweder, just in the nick of
time, at the very opening of the November 1830 Uprising, escaping the
Polish officer cadets who rode up through the Royal Baths Park from
their barracks in an effort to capture him.) Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz
attested to "Little Chopin's" popularity in his dramatic eclogue,
"Nasze Verkehry" ("Our Intercourse," 1818), in which the eight-year
old Chopin features as a motif in the dialogues.[23]

While in his mid-teens, during vacations spent at the village of
Szafarnia (where he was a guest of Prince Antoni Radziwi??), Chopin
was exposed to folk melodies that he would later transmute into
original compositions. His letters home from Szafarnia (the famous
"Szafarnia Courier" letters) amused his family with their spoofing of
the Warsaw newspapers and demonstrated the youngster's literary
talent.[25]

An anecdote describes how Chopin helped quiet rowdy children by first
improvising a story and then lulling them to sleep with a berceuse
(lullaby) ? after which he woke everyone with an ear-piercing
chord.[25]


[edit] Education

J?zef Elsner, by Fajans, after 1853Chopin, tutored at home until he
was thirteen, enrolled in the Warsaw Lyceum in 1823, but continued
studying piano under ?ywny's direction. In 1825, in a performance of
the work of Ignaz Moscheles, he entranced the audience with his free
improvisation, and was acclaimed the "best pianist in Warsaw."[23]

In the autumn of 1826, Chopin began a three-year course of studies
with the Polish composer J?zef Elsner at the Warsaw Conservatory,
which was affiliated with the University of Warsaw (hence Chopin is
counted among that university's alumni). Chopin's first contact with
Elsner may have been as early as 1822; it is certain that Elsner was
giving Chopin informal guidance by 1823 and, in 1826, Chopin
officially commenced the study of music theory, figured bass, and
composition with Elsner. In year-end evaluations, Elsner noted
Chopin's "remarkable talent" and "musical genius." As had ?ywny,
Elsner observed, rather than influenced or directed, the development
of Chopin's blossoming talent. Elsner's teaching style was based on
his reluctance to "constrain" Chopin with "narrow, academic, outdated"
rules, and on his determination to allow the young artist to mature
"according to the laws of his own nature."[26]


In 1827?30 Chopin lived with his family in the south annex of the
Krasi?ski Palace, before leaving Poland forever.In 1827, the family
moved to lodgings just across the street from Warsaw University, in
the Krasi?ski Palace at Krakowskie Przedmie?cie 5 (in what is now the
Warsaw Academy of Fine Arts). Chopin would live there until he left
Warsaw in 1830. (In 1837-39, artist and poet Cyprian Norwid would
study painting there; later he would pen the poem, "Chopin's Piano,"
about Russian troops' 1863 defenestration of the instrument.[27])

In 1829, Polish portraitist Ambro?y Mieroszewski executed a set of
five portraits of Chopin family members (the youngest daughter,
Emilia, had died in 1827): Chopin's parents, his elder sister Ludwika,
younger sister Izabela, and, in the first known portrait of him, the
composer himself. (The originals perished in World War II; only
black-and-white photographs remain.) In 1913, historian ?douard Ganche
would write that this painting of the precocious composer showed "a
youth threatened by tuberculosis. His skin is very white, he has a
prominent Adam's apple and sunken cheeks, even his ears show a form
characteristic of consumptives." Chopin's younger sister Emilia had
already died of tuberculosis at the age of fourteen, and their father
would succumb to the same disease in 1844.[26]

According to musicologist and Chopin biographer Zdzis?aw Jachimecki,
comparison of the juvenile Chopin with any earlier composer is
difficult because of the originality of the works that Chopin was
composing already in the first half of his life. At a comparable age,
Bach, Mozart and Beethoven had still been apprentices, while Chopin
was perceived by peers and audiences to be already a master who was
pointing the path of the coming age.[26]

Chopin himself never gave thematic titles to his instrumental works,
but identified them simply by genre and number.[28] His compositions
were, however, often inspired by emotional and sensual experiences in
his own life. One of his first such inspirations was a beautiful young
singing student at the Warsaw Conservatory and later a singer at the
Warsaw Opera, Konstancja G?adkowska. In letters to his friend Tytus
Woyciechowski, Chopin indicated which of his works, and even which of
their passages, were influenced by his erotic transports. His artist's
soul was also enriched by friendships with such leading lights of
Warsaw's artistic and intellectual world as Maurycy Mochnacki, J?zef
Bohdan Zaleski and Julian Fontana.[29]


[edit] Young man

Chopin, by Mieroszewski, 1829In September 1828, Chopin struck out for
the wider world in the company of a family friend, the zoologist
Feliks Jarocki, who planned to attend a scientific convention in
Berlin. There, Chopin enjoyed several unfamiliar operas directed by
Gaspare Spontini, went to several concerts, and saw Carl Friedrich
Zelter, Felix Mendelssohn and other celebrities. On his return trip,
he was the guest of Prince Antoni Radziwi??, governor of the Grand
Duchy of Posen ? himself an accomplished composer and aspiring
cellist. For the Prince and his piano-playing daughter Wanda, Chopin
composed his Polonaise for Cello and Piano, in C major, Op. 3.[30]

Back in Warsaw, in 1829, Chopin heard Niccol? Paganini play and met
the German pianist and composer Johann Nepomuk Hummel. In August the
same year, three weeks after completing his studies at the Warsaw
Conservatory, Chopin made a brilliant d?but in Vienna. He gave two
piano concerts and received many favorable reviews ? in addition to
some that criticized the "small tone" that he drew from the piano.
This was followed by a concert, in December 1829, at the Warsaw
Merchants' Club, where Chopin premi?red his Piano Concerto No. 2 in F
minor, Op. 21, and by his first performance, on March 17, 1830, at the
National Theater, of his Piano Concerto No. 1 in E minor, Op. 11. In
this period he also began writing his first ?tudes (1829?1832).[6]


National Theater, Warsaw, where Chopin premi?red his Piano Concerto
No. 1 in E minor, Op. 11, on 17 March 1830Chopin's successes as a
performer and composer opened the professional door for him to western
Europe, and on 2 November 1830, seen off by friends and admirers, with
a ring from Konstancja G?adkowska on his finger and carrying with him
a silver cup containing soil from his native land, Chopin set out,
writes Jachimecki, "into the wide world, with no very clearly defined
aim, forever."[30]

Later that month, in Warsaw, the November Uprising broke out, and
Chopin's friend and traveling companion, Tytus Woyciechowski, returned
to Poland to enlist. Chopin, now alone in Vienna, writes Jachimecki,
"afflicted by nostalgia, disappointed in his hopes of giving concerts
and publishing, matured and acquired spiritual depth. From a
romantic... poet... he grew into an inspired national bard who
intuited the past, present and future of his country. Only now, at
this distance, did he see all of Poland from the proper perspective,
and understand what was great and truly beautiful in her, the tragedy
and heroism of her vicissitudes."[30] When in September 1831 Chopin
learned, while traveling from Vienna to Paris, that the uprising had
been crushed, he poured "profanities and blasphemies" in his native
Polish language into the pages of a little journal that he kept secret
to the end of his life. These outcries of a tormented heart found
musical expression in his Scherzo in B minor, Op. 20, and his
"Revolutionary ?tude", in C minor, Op. 10, No. 12.[30]


[edit] Paris

Chopin's Polonaise, by Kwiatkowski, depicting a ball at Count
Czartoryski's H?tel Lambert in Paris. National Museum, Pozna?.Chopin
arrived in Paris in late September 1831, still uncertain whether he
would settle there for good.[30] With a view to easing his entry into
the Parisian musical community, he began taking lessons from the
prominent pianist Friedrich Kalkbrenner. In February 1832 Chopin gave
a concert that garnered universal admiration. The influential
musicologist and critic Fran?ois-Joseph F?tis wrote in Revue musicale:
"Here is a young man who, taking nothing as a model, has found, if not
a complete renewal of piano music, then in any case part of what has
long been sought in vain, namely, an extravagance of original ideas
that are unexampled anywhere..."[31] Only three months earlier, in
December 1831, Robert Schumann, in reviewing Chopin's Variations on
"La ci darem la mano", Op. 2 (from Mozart's opera Don Giovanni), had
written: "Hats off, gentlemen! A genius."[32]

After his Paris concert d?but in February 1832, Chopin realised that
his light-handed keyboard technique was not optimal for large concert
spaces. However, later that year he was introduced to the wealthy
Rothschild banking family, whose patronage opened doors for him to
other private salons.[6]

 Fr?d?ric Chopin: Polonaise No. 6 in A flat major, Op. 53, Heroique

Performed by Kristian Cvetkovi?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Problems listening to this file? See media help.
In Paris, Chopin found artists and other distinguished company, as
well as opportunities to exercise his talents and achieve celebrity,
and before long he was earning a handsome income teaching piano to
affluent students from all over Europe. [33] Chopin formed friendships
with Hector Berlioz, Franz Liszt, Vincenzo Bellini, Ferdinand Hiller,
Felix Mendelssohn, Heinrich Heine, Eug?ne Delacroix, Prince Adam Jerzy
Czartoryski, Alfred de Vigny, and Charles-Valentin Alkan.[33]

However, Chopin seldom performed publicly in Paris. In later years he
would generally give only a single annual concert at the Salle Pleyel,
a venue that could seat an audience of three hundred. He played more
frequently at salons ? social gatherings of the aristocracy and
artistic and literary elite of the period ? but preferred to play, in
his own Parisian apartment, for small circles of friends. His
precarious health prevented his touring extensively as a traveling
virtuoso, and beyond playing once in Rouen, he seldom ventured out of
the capital.[33] His high income from teaching and composing freed him
from the strains of concert-giving, to which he had an innate
repugnance.[6] Arthur Hedley has observed that "As a pianist Chopin
was unique in acquiring a reputation of the highest order on the basis
of a minimum of public appearances?few more than thirty in the course
of his lifetime."[34]


Maria Wodzi?ska. Self-portrait.In 1835, Chopin went to Carlsbad,
where, for the last time in his life, he met with his parents. En
route through Saxony on his way back to Paris, he met old friends from
Warsaw, the Wodzi?skis. He had met their daughter Maria, now sixteen,
in Poland five years earlier, and fell in love with the charming,
artistically talented, intelligent young woman.[35] The following
year, in September 1836, upon returning to Dresden after having
vacationed with the Wodzi?skis at Marienbad, Chopin proposed marriage
to Maria. She accepted, and her mother Countess Wodzi?ska approved in
principle, but Maria's tender age and Chopin's tenuous health (in the
winter of 1835?1836 he had been so ill that word had circulated in
Warsaw that he had died) forced an indefinite postponement of the
wedding. The engagement remained a secret to the world and never led
to the altar. Chopin finally placed the letters from Maria and her
mother in a large envelope, on which he wrote the Polish words "Moja
bieda" ("My sorrow").[33]


Delfina PotockaChopin's feelings for Maria left their traces in his
Waltz in A-flat major, La Valse de l'Adieu ("The Farewell Waltz") Op.
69, No. 1, written on the morning of his September departure from
Dresden. On his return to Paris, he composed the ?tude in F minor, the
second in the Op. 25 cycle, which he referred to as "a portrait of
Maria's soul." Along with this, he sent Maria seven songs that he had
set to the words of Polish Romantic poets Stefan Witwicki, J?zef
Zaleski and Adam Mickiewicz. [36]

After Chopin's matrimonial plans ended, Polish countess Delfina
Potocka appeared episodically in Chopin's life as muse and romantic
interest. For her he composed his Waltz in D flat major, Op. 64, No. 1
? the famous "Minute Waltz."[33]

During his years in Paris, Chopin participated in a small number of
public concerts. The list of the programs' participants provides an
idea of the richness of Parisian artistic life during this period.
Examples include a concert on 23 March 1833, in which Chopin, Liszt
and Hiller performed J. S. Bach's concerto for three harpsichords;
and, on 3 March 1838, a concert in which Chopin, his pupil Adolphe
Gutman, Alkan, and Alkan's teacher Pierre Joseph Zimmerman performed
Alkan's arrangement, for eight hands, of Beethoven's 7th symphony.

Chopin was also involved in the composition of Liszt's Hexam?ron;
Chopin's was the sixth (and last) variation on Bellini's theme.


[edit] George Sand

George Sand, by Auguste CharpentierIn 1836, at a party hosted by
Countess Marie d'Agoult, mistress of friend and fellow composer Franz
Liszt, Chopin met French author and feminist Amandine Aurore Lucille
Dupin, the Baroness Dudevant, better known by her pseudonym, George
Sand. Sand's earlier romantic involvements had included Jules Sandeau,
Prosper M?rim?e, Alfred de Musset, Louis-Chrystosome Michel, Charles
Didier, Pierre-Fran?ois Bocage and F?licien Mallefille.[37]

Chopin initially felt an aversion for Sand.[33] He declared to
Ferdinand Hiller: "What a repulsive woman Sand is! But is she really a
woman? I am inclined to doubt it."[38] Sand, however, in a candid
thirty-two page letter to Count Wojciech Grzyma?a, a friend to both
her and Chopin, admitted strong feelings for the composer. In her
letter she debated whether to abandon a current affair in order to
begin a relationship with Chopin, and attempted to gauge the currency
of his previous relationship with Maria Wodzi?ska, which she did not
intend to interfere with should it still exist.[39] By the summer of
1838, Chopin's and Sand's involvement was an open secret.[33]

A notable episode in their time together was a turbulent and miserable
winter on Majorca (8 November 1838 to 13 February 1839), where they,
together with Sand's two children, had gone in the hope of improving
Chopin's deteriorating health. However, after discovering the couple
were not wed, the deeply religious people of Majorca became
inhospitable,[citation needed] making accommodations difficult to
find; this compelled the foursome to take lodgings in a scenic yet
stark and cold former Carthusian monastery in Valldemossa.


Chopin, by Delacroix, 1838. Part of joint portrait with George
Sand.Chopin also had problems having his Pleyel piano sent to him. It
arrived from Paris on 20 December but was held up by customs. (Chopin
wrote on 28 December: "My piano has been stuck at customs for 8
days... They demand such a huge sum of money to release it that I
can't believe it.") In the meantime Chopin had a rickety rented piano
on which he practiced and may have composed some pieces.

On 3 December, he complained about his bad health and the incompetence
of the doctors in Majorca: "I have been sick as a dog during these
past two weeks. Three doctors have visited me. The first said I was
going to die; the second said I was breathing my last; and the third
said I was already dead."

On January 4, 1839, George Sand agreed to pay 300 francs (half the
demanded amount) to have the Pleyel piano released from customs. It
was finally delivered on 5 January. From then on Chopin was able to
use the long-awaited instrument for almost five weeks, time enough to
complete some works: some Preludes, Op. 28; a revision of the Ballade
No. 2, Op. 38; two Polonaises, Op. 40; the Scherzo No. 3, Op. 39; the
Mazurka (Op. 41); and he probably revisited his Sonata No. 2, Op. 35.
The winter in Majorca is still considered one of the most productive
periods in Chopin's life.

During that winter, the bad weather had such a serious effect on
Chopin's health and chronic lung disease that, in order to save his
life, the entire party were compelled to leave the island. The beloved
French piano became an obstacle to a hasty escape. Nevertheless,
George Sand managed to sell it to a French couple (the Canuts), whose
heirs are the custodians of Chopin's legacy on Majorca and of the
Chopin cell-room museum in Valldemossa.


Stylized rendition of Delacroix's joint portrait of Chopin and Sand.
She sews as he plays.The party of four went first to Barcelona, then
to Marseille, where they stayed for a few months to recover. In May
1839, they headed to Sand's estate at Nohant for the summer. In autumn
they returned to Paris, where initially they lived apart; Chopin soon
left his apartment at 5 rue Tronchet to move into Sand's house at 16
rue Pigalle. The four lived together at this address from October 1839
to November 1842, while spending most summers until 1846 at Nohant.
[40] In 1842, they moved to 80 rue Taitbout in the Square d'Orl?ans,
living in adjacent buildings. [41]

It was around this time that we have evidence of Chopin's playing an
instrument other than the piano. At the funeral of the tenor Adolphe
Nourrit, who had jumped to his death in Naples but whose body was
returned to Paris for burial, Chopin played an organ transcription of
Franz Schubert's lied Die Gestirne.[42]


Sand?the other half of Delacroix's joint portrait.During the summers
at Nohant, particularly in the years 1839 through 1843, Chopin found
quiet but productive days during which he composed many works. They
included his great Polonaise in A flat major, Op. 53, the "Heroic",
one of his most famous pieces. It is to Sand that we owe the most
compelling description of Chopin's creative processes, of the rise of
his inspirations and of their painstaking working-out, sometimes amid
real torments, amid weeping and complaints, with hundreds of changes
in the initial concept?only to return to the first idea.[41] She
describes an evening with their friend Delacroix in attendance:

Chopin is at the piano, quite oblivious of the fact that anyone is
listening. He embarks on a sort of casual improvisation, then stops.
'Go on, go on,' exclaims Delacroix, 'That's not the end!' 'It's not
even a beginning. Nothing will come ... nothing but reflections,
shadows, shapes that won't stay fixed. I'm trying to find the right
colour, but I can't even get the form ...' 'You won't find the one
without the other,' says Delacroix, 'and both will come together.'
'What if I find nothing but moonlight?' 'Then you will have found the
reflection of a reflection.' The idea seems to please the divine
artist. He begins again, without seeming to, so uncertain is the
shape. Gradually quiet colours begin to show, corresponding to the
suave modulations sounding in our ears. Suddenly the note of blue
sings out, and the night is all around us, azure and transparent.
Light clouds take on fantastic shapes and fill the sky. They gather
about the moon which casts upon them great opalescent discs, and wakes
the sleeping colours. We dream of a summer night, and sit there
waiting for the song of the nightingale ...[43]

As the composer's illness progressed, Sand gradually became less of a
lover and more of a nurse to Chopin, whom she called her "third
child." But the nursing began to pall on her. In the years to come she
would keep up her friendship with Chopin, but she often gave vent to
affectionate impatience, at least in letters to third parties, in
which she referred to Chopin as a "child," a "little angel," a
"sufferer" and a "beloved little corpse."[41]

 Berceuse, Op. 57, by Fr?d?ric Chopin

Veronica van der Knaap, public concert, Christchurch, New Zealand, 4 May 2002.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Problems listening to this file? See media help.
In 1845, even as a further deterioration occurred in Chopin's health,
a serious problem emerged in his relations with Sand. Those relations
were further soured in 1846 by problems involving her daughter Solange
and the young sculptor Jean Baptiste Auguste Cl?singer. In 1847, Sand
published her novel Lucrezia Floriani, whose main characters ? a rich
actress and a prince in weak health ? could be interpreted as Sand and
Chopin; the story was uncomplimentary to Chopin, who could not have
missed the allusions as he helped Sand correct the printer's galleys.
In 1847, he did not visit Nohant. Mutual friends attempted to
reconcile them, but the composer was unyielding.[41]


Pauline ViardotOne of these friends was the mezzo-soprano Pauline
Viardot. Sand had based her 1843 novel Consuelo on Viardot, and the
three had spent many hours at Nohant. As well as being an outstanding
opera singer, Viardot was also an excellent pianist, who had initially
wanted the piano to be her career and had taken lessons with Liszt and
Anton Reicha. Her friendship with Chopin was based on mutual artistic
esteem and similarity of temperament.[44] She and Chopin had often
played together; he had advised her on piano technique and had even
assisted her in writing a series of songs based on the melodies of his
mazurkas. He in turn had gained from Viardot some first-hand knowledge
of Spanish music.[44]

The year 1847 brought to an end, without any dramatics or formalities,
the relations between Sand and Chopin that had lasted ten years, since
1837.[41]

Count Wojciech Grzyma?a, who had followed Chopin's romance with George
Sand from the first day to the last, would later opine: "If he had not
had the misfortune of meeting G.S. [George Sand], who poisoned his
whole being, he would have lived to be Cherubini's age." Chopin died
at thirty-nine; his friend Cherubini had died at Paris in 1842 at age
eighty-one.[45] The two composers repose four meters apart at P?re
Lachaise Cemetery.


[edit] Final years
Chopin's public popularity as a virtuoso waned, as did the number of
his pupils. In February 1848, he gave his last Paris concert. In
April, with the Revolution of 1848 underway in Paris,[46] he left for
London, where he performed at several concerts and at numerous
receptions in great houses.[41]

Toward the end of the summer he went to Scotland, staying at the
castle (Johnstone,[47] in Renfrewshire, near Glasgow) of his former
pupil and great admirer Jane Wilhelmina Stirling and her elder sister,
the widowed Mrs. Katherine Erskine. Miss Stirling proposed marriage to
him; but Chopin, sensing that he was not long for this world, set
greater store by his freedom than by the prospect of living on the
generosity of a wife.[41]

In late October 1848 in Edinburgh, at the home of a Polish physician,
Dr. Adam ?yszczy?ski,[48] Chopin wrote out his last will and
testament?"a kind of disposition to be made of my stuff in the future,
if I should drop dead somewhere," he wrote his friend Wojciech
Grzyma?a. In his thoughts he was now constantly with his mother and
sisters, and conjured up for himself scenes of his native land by
playing his adaptations of its folk music on cool Scottish evenings at
Miss Stirling's castle.[41]


Ludwika J?drzejewicz, n?e Chopin, by Mieroszewski, 1829Chopin made his
last public appearance on a concert platform at London's Guildhall on
16 November 1848, when, in a final patriotic gesture, he played for
the benefit of Polish refugees.[6] His appearance on this occasion
proved to be a well-intentioned mistake, as most of the participants
were more interested in the dancing and refreshments than in Chopin's
piano artistry, which cost him much effort and physical
discomfort.[49]

At the end of November, Chopin returned to Paris.[41] He passed the
winter in unremitting illness, but in spite of it he continued seeing
friends and visited the ailing Adam Mickiewicz, soothing the Polish
poet's nerves with his playing. He no longer had the strength to give
lessons, but he was still keen to compose. He lacked money for the
most essential expenses and for his physicians. He had to sell off his
more valuable furnishings and belongings.[41]

Feeling ever more poorly, Chopin desired to have one of his family
with him. In June 1849 his sister Ludwika J?drzejewicz, who had given
him his first piano lessons, agreed to come to Paris. He had lately
taken up residence in a very beautiful, sunny apartment at Place
Vend?me 12.[41] It was there, a few minutes before two o'clock on the
morning of Wednesday, 17 October 1849, that Chopin died.[50]

Later, many persons who had not been present at Chopin's death would
claim to have been there. "Being present at Chopin's death," writes
Tad Szulc, "seemed to grant one historical and social cachet."[51]
Those actually around his bed appear to have included his sister
Ludwika, Princess Marcelina Czartoryska, George Sand's daughter
Solange and her husband Auguste Cl?singer, and Chopin's friend and
former pupil Adolf Gutmann, his friend Thomas Albrecht, and his
confidant, Polish Catholic priest Father Aleksander Je?owicki.[52]


Cast of Chopin's left handLater that morning, Auguste Cl?singer made
Chopin's death mask and casts of his hands. Before the funeral,
pursuant to Chopin's dying wish (which stemmed from a fear of being
buried alive), his heart was removed and preserved in alcohol, perhaps
brandy. His sister later took it in an urn to Warsaw, where it was
sealed within a pillar of the Holy Cross Church on Krakowskie
Przedmie?cie, beneath an inscription from Matthew VI:21: "For where
your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Chopin's heart has
remained there?except for a period during World War II, when it was
removed for safekeeping?within the church that was rebuilt after its
virtual destruction during the 1944 Warsaw Uprising. The church stands
only a short distance from Chopin's last Polish residence, the
Krasi?ski Palace at Krakowskie Przedmie?cie 5.

The funeral, to be held at the Church of the Madeleine in Paris, was
delayed for almost two weeks, until 30 October. Chopin had requested
that Mozart's Requiem be sung. The Requiem had major parts for female
voices, but the Church of the Madeleine had never permitted female
singers in its choir. The Church finally relented, but on condition
that the female singers remain behind a black velvet curtain. The
soloists in the Requiem included the bass Luigi Lablache ? who had
sung the same work at Beethoven's funeral and had also sung at
Bellini's funeral ? and Chopin's and George Sand's friend, the
mezzo-soprano Pauline Viardot.[53] The funeral was attended by nearly
three thousand people, but George Sand was not among them. Also played
were Chopin's Pr?ludes No. 4 in E minor and No. 6 in B minor.

Chopin was buried, in accordance with his wishes, at P?re Lachaise
Cemetery. At the graveside, the Funeral March from his Sonata No. 2 in
B flat minor, Op. 35 was played, in Napol?on Henri Reber's
instrumentation.[54]

Chopin's grave, with its monument carved by Cl?singer, attracts
numerous visitors and is consistently decorated with flowers, even in
winter.

In 2008, a controversy arose over whether Chopin died of tuberculosis
or cystic fibrosis, an incurable genetic disease whose complete
clinical spectrum was not recognised until the 1930s, almost a century
after his death. The Polish government declined to allow scientists to
remove Chopin's heart from its repository for DNA testing.[55]


[edit] Memorials and tributes

Chopin statue, Warsaw's Royal Baths ParkIn 1909, to celebrate Chopin's
centenary, the Russian composer Sergei Lyapunov wrote a "symphonic
poem in memory of Chopin", titled Zhelazova Vola, Op. 37 (Russian:
?e?a?o?a ?o?a), a reference to Chopin's birthplace.[56]

In 1926, a bronze statue of Chopin designed by sculptor Wac?aw
Szymanowski in 1907, was erected in the upper part of Warsaw's Royal
Baths (?azienki) Park, adjacent to Ujazd?w Avenue (Aleje Ujazdowskie).
The statue was originally to have been erected in 1910, on the
centenary of Chopin's birth, but its execution was delayed by
controversy about the design, then by the outbreak of World War I.

On 31 May 1940, during the German occupation of Poland in World War
II, the statue was destroyed by the Nazis. It was reconstructed after
the war, in 1958. Since 1959, free piano recitals of Chopin's
compositions have been performed at the statue's base on summer Sunday
afternoons. The stylized willow over Chopin's seated figure echoes a
pianist's hand and fingers. Until 2007, the statue was the world's
tallest monument erected to Chopin.

A 1:1-scale replica of Szymanowski's Art Nouveau statue is found in
Warsaw's sister city of Hamamatsu, Japan. There are also preliminary
plans to erect another replica along Chicago's lakefront in addition
to a different sculpture commemorating the artist in Chopin Park for
the 200th anniversary of Chopin's birth.

There are numerous other monuments to Chopin around the world. The
most recent, and by a small margin taller than the Warsaw statue, is a
modernistic bronze sculpture by Lu Pin in Shanghai, China, that was
unveiled on 3 March 2007.

The world's oldest monographic music competition, the International
Frederick Chopin Piano Competition, founded in 1927, is held every
five years in Warsaw.

Periodically the Grand prix du disque de F. Chopin is awarded for
notable Chopin recordings, both remastered and newly recorded work.

Named for the composer are the largest Polish music conservatory, the
Fryderyk Chopin Music Academy; Warsaw Frederic Chopin Airport; and
asteroid 3784 Chopin.


[edit] Music

Chopin's autograph, stylised as a minim Valse in D-flat major, Minute
Waltz, Op. 64, No. 1

played by Peter Gerwinski

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Problems listening to this file? See media help.
Chopin, according to Arthur Hedley, "had the rare gift of a very
personal melody, expressive of heart-felt emotion, and his music is
penetrated by a poetic feeling that has an almost universal appeal....
Present-day evaluation places him among the immortals of music by
reason of his insight into the secret places of the heart and because
of his awareness of the magical new sonorities to be drawn from the
piano."[57]

It is very difficult to briefly characterise Chopin's ?uvre. Robert
Schumann, speaking of Chopin's Sonata in B-flat minor, wrote that "he
alone begins and ends a work like this: with dissonances, through
dissonances, and in dissonances," and in Chopin's music he discerned
"cannon concealed amid blossoms." Franz Liszt, in the opening of his
biography about Chopin (Life of Chopin), termed him a "gentle,
harmonious genius." Thus disparate have been the views on Chopin's
music. The first systematic, if imperfect, study of Chopin's style
came in F. P. Laurencin's 1861 Die Harmonik der Neuzeit. Laurencin
concluded that "Chopin is one of the most brilliant exceptional
natures that have ever stridden onto the stage of history and life, he
is one who can never be exhausted nor stand before a void. Chopin is
the musical progone[58] of all progones until now."[59]


Chopin's grave, with monument by Cl?singer, at Paris' P?re Lachaise
CemeteryChopin's music for the piano combined a unique rhythmic sense
(particularly his use of rubato), frequent use of chromaticism, and
counterpoint. This mixture produces a particularly fragile sound in
the melody and the harmony, which are nonetheless underpinned by solid
and interesting harmonic techniques. He took the new salon genre of
the nocturne, invented by Irish composer John Field, to a deeper level
of sophistication. Three of Chopin's twenty-one Nocturnes were only
published after his death in 1849, contrary to his wishes.[60] He also
endowed popular dance forms, such as the Polish mazurek and the
Viennese waltz, with a greater range of melody and expression. Chopin
was the first to write ballades[16] and scherzi as individual pieces.
He also took the example of Bach's preludes and fugues, transforming
the genre in his own Pr?ludes.

Further information: Chopin nocturnes, Preludes (Chopin), and Etudes (Chopin)
Chopin reinvented the ?tude,[61] expanding on the idea and making it
into a gorgeous, eloquent and emotional showpiece. He also used his
?tudes to teach his own revolutionary style,[6] for instance playing
with the weak fingers (3, 4, and 5) in fast figures (Op. 10, No. 2)
and playing black keys with the thumb (Op. 10, No. 5).


[edit] Influence
Several of Chopin's pieces have become very well known?for instance
the Revolutionary ?tude (Op. 10, No. 12), the Minute Waltz (Op. 64,
No. 1), and the third movement of his Funeral March Sonata No. 2 (Op.
35), which is often used as an iconic representation of grief. Chopin
himself never named an instrumental work beyond genre and number,
leaving all potential extra-musical associations to the listener; the
names by which we know many of the pieces were invented by others.[62]
The Revolutionary ?tude was not written with the failed Polish
uprising against Russia in mind; it merely appeared at that time. The
Funeral March was written before the rest of the sonata within which
it is contained, but the exact occasion is not known; it appears not
to have been inspired by any specific personal bereavement.[63] Other
melodies have been used as the basis of popular songs, such as the
slow section of the Fantaisie-Impromptu (Op. posth. 66) and the first
section of the ?tude Op. 10 No. 3. These pieces often rely on an
intense and personalised chromaticism, as well as a melodic curve that
resembles the operas of Chopin's day ? the operas of Gioachino
Rossini, Gaetano Donizetti, and especially Vincenzo Bellini.[64]
Chopin used the piano to re-create the gracefulness of the singing
voice, and talked and wrote constantly about singers.

 Fantaisie-Impromptu, Op. 66

Fantasie Impromptu, played by Dario Fernandez Torre

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Problems listening to this file? See media help.
Chopin's style and gifts became increasingly influential. Robert
Schumann was a huge admirer of Chopin's music, and he used melodies
from Chopin and even named a piece from his suite Carnaval after
Chopin. This admiration was not generally reciprocated, although
Chopin did dedicate his Ballade No. 2 in F major to Schumann.

Franz Liszt was another admirer and personal friend of the composer,
and he transcribed for piano six of Chopin's Polish songs. However,
Liszt denied that he wrote Fun?railles (subtitled "October 1849", the
seventh movement of his piano suite Harmonies Po?tiques et Religieuses
of 1853) in memory of Chopin. Though the middle section seems to be
modeled on the famous octave trio section of Chopin's Polonaise in A
flat major, Op. 53, Liszt said the piece had been inspired by the
deaths of three of his Hungarian compatriots in the same month.


Pillar in Warsaw's Holy Cross Church, containing Chopin's heart (at
bouquet near bottom)Johannes Brahms and the younger Russian composers,
too, found inspiration in Chopin's examples.[59] Chopin's technical
innovations became influential. His Pr?ludes (Op. 28) and ?tudes (Opp.
10 and 25) rapidly became standard works, and inspired both Liszt's
Transcendental ?tudes and Schumann's Symphonic Studies. Alexander
Scriabin was also strongly influenced by Chopin; for example, his 24
Preludes, Op. 11, are inspired by Chopin's Op. 28.

Jeremy Siepmann, in his biography of the composer, lists pianists
whose recordings of Chopin are generally acknowledged to be among the
greatest Chopin performances ever preserved: Vladimir de Pachmann,
Raoul Pugno, Ignacy Jan Paderewski, Moriz Rosenthal, Sergei
Rachmaninoff, Alfred Cortot, Ignaz Friedman, Raoul Koczalski, Arthur
Rubinstein, Mieczys?aw Horszowski, Claudio Arrau, Vlado Perlemuter,
Vladimir Horowitz, Dinu Lipatti, Vladimir Ashkenazy, Martha Argerich,
Maurizio Pollini, Murray Perahia, Krystian Zimerman, Evgeny Kissin.

Arthur Rubinstein said the following about Chopin's music and its universality:

Chopin was a genius of universal appeal. His music conquers the most
diverse audiences. When the first notes of Chopin sound through the
concert hall there is a happy sigh of recognition. All over the world
men and women know his music. They love it. They are moved by it. Yet
it is not "Romantic music" in the Byronic sense. It does not tell
stories or paint pictures. It is expressive and personal, but still a
pure art. Even in this abstract atomic age, where emotion is not
fashionable, Chopin endures. His music is the universal language of
human communication. When I play Chopin I know I speak directly to the
hearts of people!


[edit] Style
 ?tude Op. 10, No. 12, Revolutionary

Martha Goldstein playing on an Erard (1851) - 2985KB

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Problems listening to this file? See media help.
Although Chopin lived in the 1800s, he was educated in the tradition
of Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart and Clementi; he used Clementi's piano
method with his own students. He was also influenced by Hummel's
development of virtuoso, yet Mozartian, piano technique. Chopin cited
Bach and Mozart as the two most important composers in shaping his
musical outlook.[citation needed]

The series of seven Polonaises published in his lifetime (another nine
were published posthumously), beginning with the Op. 26 pair, set a
new standard for music in the form, and were rooted in Chopin's desire
to write something to celebrate Polish culture after the country had
fallen into Russian control.[65] The Polonaise in A major, Op. 40, No.
1, the "Military," and the Polonaise in A-flat major, Op. 53, the
"Heroic," are among Chopin's best-loved and most-often-played works.


[edit] Rubato
Chopin's music is well known for benefiting from rubato (which was how
he himself performed his music[66]), as opposed to a strictly regular
playing. Yet there is usually call for caution when the music is
performed with wobbly, over-exaggerated, inappropriate "rubato" (e.g.
attempting to justify insecure playing, with reference to expressive
rubato).

His playing was always noble and beautiful; his tones sang, whether in
full forte or softest piano. He took infinite pains to teach his
pupils this legato, cantabile style of playing. His most severe
criticism was "He?or she?does not know how to join two notes
together." He also demanded the strictest adherence to rhythm. He
hated all lingering and dragging, misplaced rubatos, as well as
exaggerated ritardandos ... and it is precisely in this respect that
people make such terrible errors in playing his works.

?Friederike M?ller, "From the Diary of a Viennese Chopin Pupil"[67]
 ?tude Op. 25, No. 2 in F minor

Martha Goldstein, piano

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Problems listening to this file? See media help.
However, while some can provide restrictive quotes about Chopin such
as the above, often to the effect that "the accompanying hand always
played in strict tempo", these quotes need to be considered in better
context[68] in terms both of the time when they were made and of the
situations that may have prompted the original writer to set down the
thoughts. Constantin von Sternberg (1852-1924) has written:

It is amusing to note that even some serious persons express the idea
that in tempo rubato "the right hand may use a certain freedom while
the left hand must keep strict time." (See Niecks' Life of Chopin, II,
p. 101.) A nice sort of music would result from such playing!
Something like the singing of a good vocalist accompanied by a poor
blockhead who hammers away in strict time without yielding to the
singer who, in sheer despair, must renounce all artistic expression.
It is reported by some ladies that Chopin himself gave them this
explanation, but ? they might not have understood him [...]

?Constantin von Sternberg (1852-1924), Tempo rubato, and other essays[69]
There are also views of contemporary writers such as Hector Berlioz.[68][70]

This suggests that Chopin is not to be found at commonly encountered
one-sided extremes. The unbalanced views are:

that Chopin requires metronomic rhythm in the left hand;
that insecure performances of Chopin can be justified with reference to rubato.
that performances with particular inflections, that result from
technical limits/insecurities rather than a performer's intentions,
can be justified with reference to rubato.
Some performers' (and piano-schools') "too-strongly-held one-sided
views on Chopin's way of playing rubato" may account for some
unsatisfactory interpretations of his music.


[edit] Romanticism
Chopin regarded most of his contemporaries with some indifference,
although he had many acquaintances associated with romanticism in
music, literature, and the arts (many of them via his liaison with
George Sand). Chopin's music is, however, considered by many to
epitomise the Romantic style.[71] The relative classical purity and
discretion in his music, with little extravagant exhibitionism, partly
reflects his reverence for Bach and Mozart. Chopin also never indulged
in explicit "scene-painting" in his music, or used programmatic
titles, castigating publishers who renamed his pieces in this way.


[edit] Polish heritage
 Chopin Concerto #2 in F minor

Nico Snel conducts the Seattle Philharmonic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Problems listening to this file? See media help.
Zdzis?aw Jachimecki notes that "Chopin at every step demonstrated his
Polish spirit ? in the hundreds of letters that he wrote in Polish, in
his attitude to Paris's [Polish] ?migr?s, in his negative view of all
that bore the official stamp of the powers that occupied Poland."
Likewise Chopin improvised music to accompany Polish texts[72] but
never musically illustrated a single French or German text, even
though he numbered among his friends several great French and German
poets.[59]

According to Arthur Hedley, Chopin "found within himself and in the
tragic story of Poland the chief sources of his inspiration. The theme
of Poland's glories and sufferings was constantly before him, and he
transmuted the primitive rhythms and melodies of his youth into
enduring art forms."[73]

In asserting his own Polishness, Chopin, according to Jachimecki,
exerted "a tremendous influence [toward] the nationalization of the
work of numerous later composers, who have often personally ? like
[the Czech Bed?ich] Smetana and [the Norwegian Edvard] Grieg ?
confirmed this opinion..."[59]


[edit] Works

Chopin statue at Singapore Botanic GardensMain article: List of
compositions by Fr?d?ric Chopin
Over 230 of Chopin's works survive; some manuscripts and pieces from
his early childhood have been lost. He created approximately 80
opuses, all of which involve the piano. Only a few of them ranged
beyond solo piano music ? as chamber music or concertos for piano and
orchestra.

Chopin composed:

58 mazurkas
27 ?tudes (twelve in the Op. 10 cycle, twelve in the Op. 25 cycle, and
three in a collection without an opus number)
26 preludes
21 nocturnes
20 waltzes
17 polonaises (one with orchestral accompaniment, and one for cello
with accompanying piano)
5 rondos
4 ballades
4 impromptus
4 scherzos
4 sets of variations
3 piano sonatas, Opp. 4, 35, and 58
3 ?cossaises
2 concertos for piano and orchestra, Opp. 11 and 21
He also composed a barcarolle, a fantasia for piano, a berceuse, a
bolero, a tarantella, a contredanse, a fugue, a cantabile, and a
lento. For solo piano Chopin also wrote an Andante spianato (for the
Grande Polonaise in E-flat major, Op. 22); a Funeral March; a Souvenir
de Paganini; a Feuille d'album; and an Allegro de concert (possibly
the remnant of an incomplete 3rd concerto).

Chopin's other works include a trio for violin, cello and piano; a
sonata for cello and piano, Op. 65 (Chopin's last composition
published in his lifetime); a fantasia on themes from Polish songs
with accompanying orchestra; jointly with Auguste Franchomme, a Grand
Duo in E major on themes from Giacomo Meyerbeer's opera Robert le
diable for cello and piano; a krakowiak for piano and orchestra; and
19 Polish songs for solo voice with accompanying piano.[59]


[edit] Fictional treatments
Possibly the first venture into fictional treatments of Chopin's life
was a fanciful operatic version of some of its events. This opera,
entitled Chopin, was written by Giacomo Orefice and produced in Milan
in 1901. Orefice incorporated Chopin's music, arranged as arias; the
operatic arrangements have been described as "coarse".[74] Various
arias have been recorded by well-known singers, but the opera has long
been out of the repertoire. Orefice also applied an operatic treatment
to one of George Sand's novels, Consuelo.

Chopin's life and his relations with George Sand have been
fictionalized in film. The 1945 biopic A Song to Remember earned
Cornel Wilde an Academy Award nomination as Best Actor for his
portrayal of the composer. Other film treatments have included
Impromptu (1991), starring Hugh Grant as Chopin; La note bleue (1991);
and Chopin: Desire for Love (2002). The 1975 Ken Russell film
Lisztomania outlandishly portrayed Chopin and Sand's relationship as
dominant and submissive with Sand fulfilling the role of dominatrix
over Chopin's submissive.

Chopin is also the main character in the role-playing video game
Eternal Sonata (2007).[75] The game is set in a dream world created by
a fictional Chopin on his deathbed. Its story line refers to Chopin's
life and music, and many of his works are heard on the soundtrack.


[edit] See also
Maria Kalergis
Salon Fr?d?ric Chopin in Paris
Toru? gingerbread (young Chopin's enthusiasm for the Polish confection).

[edit] Notes
^ Some sources give 22 February; please see Life for details.
^ (English) Michael Kennedy, ed (2004). The Concise Oxford dictionary
of music. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-860884-5.  p. 141
^ (French) Rey Alain (1993). Le petit Robert 2 : ( dictionnaire
universel des noms propres, alphab?tique et analogique ). INIST-CNRS,
Cote INIST : L 22712: Le Robert, Paris, FRANCE. ISBN 2-85036-210-7.
^ Arthur Hedley et al., "Chopin, Fr?d?ric (Fran?ois)," Encyclopaedia
Britannica, p. 263.
^ Gerald Abraham, "Chopin, Fr?d?ric," Encyclopedia Americana, p. 627.
^ a b c d e f g h Hedley, Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 263.
^ "Chopin - biography". www.chopin.pl.
http://www.chopin.pl/biografia/index_en.html. Retrieved 30 August
2009.
^ David Ewen, p. 164.
^ Tad Szulc, Chopin in Paris, pp. 12, 404.
^ Tad Szulc, Chopin in Paris, p. 69: "Chopin of course had not been
deported and was not a political refugee, but the French granted him
permission to stay in Paris indefinitely 'to be able to perfect his
art'. Four years later, Fr?d?ric became a French citizen and a French
passport was issued to him on 1 August 1835."
^ French passport: http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//chopin7.htm
^ Encyclopaedia Britannica,
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9082338/Frederic-Chopin
^ Smolenska-Zielinska, Barbara. "Chopin ? Biography". Fryderyk Chopin.
http://www.chopin.pl/biografia/index_en.html. Retrieved 2006-09-10.
^ A more recent theory about Chopin's death is reported in a 23 June
2008 Times of India article: Polish cystic fibrosis specialist
Wojciech Cichy says that the symptoms Chopin suffered throughout his
life were typical of cystic fibrosis, a genetic illness which clogs
the lungs with excess thick, sticky mucus. "From childhood he was
weak, prone to chest infections, wheezing, coughing." As an adult
weighing 40 kg at a height of five feet, seven inches, Chopin was
chronically underweight?another symptom of cystic fibrosis. It has
been proposed that Chopin's heart be retrieved from its alcohol-filled
crystal urn, which reposes inside a pillar at Warsaw's Holy Cross
Church, and be tested for the CFTR gene that is a marker for cystic
fibrosis.[1]
^ Tad Szulc, Chopin in Paris, pp. 197?98.
^ a b Scholes, Percy (1938), The Oxford Companion to Music, "Ballade".
^ Zdzis?aw Jachimecki, "Chopin, Fryderyk Franciszek," Polski s?ownik
biograficzny, vol. III, 1937, p. 420.
^ Wladimir B. Krzyzanowski
^ Jaros?aw Krawczyk, "Wielkie odkrycia ludzko?ci. Nr 17,"
Rzeczpospolita, June 12, 2008.
^ a b (English) "Biography". www.chopin.pl.
http://www.chopin.pl/biografia/index_en.html. Retrieved 2009-04-30.
^ Benita Eisler, Chopin's Funeral, Abacus, 2004, p. 29: "Language was
another matter, rooted in anxiety passed from father to son. A
foreigner concerned with shrouding his origins and proving his
Polishness, Nicolas was as cautious as a spy dropped behind enemy
lines; he never seems to have mentioned his French family to his
Polish children. French was the lingua franca of the nobility and the
subject Nicolas taught to others' sons?but not to his own. (Did he
fear that the accents of a former vineyard laborer would betray him at
home?) Consequently Fryderyk's grasp of French grammar and spelling
would always remain shaky. Surprising for one blessed with an
extraordinary 'ear' and famed from earliest childhood as an
extraordinary mimic, his pronunciation, too, was poor. More telling
was his own unease in his adopted tongue: half-French, living in
Paris, the paradise of expatriates, Chopin would always feel twice
exiled?from his country and from his language. Imprisoned by foreign
words, the expressive power of his music unbound him."
^ Music Through the Ages - A Narrative for Student and Layman by
Marion Bauer, available at Google Books
^ a b c d e f g h Jachimecki, p. 420.
^ Ambro?y Mieroszewski's portrait of Wojciech ?ywny, 1829.
^ a b c Described in the Polish Wikipedia article on "Fryderyk Chopin."
^ a b c Jachimecki, p. 421.
^ Jan Zygmunt Jakubowski, ed., Literatura polska od ?redniowiecza do
pozytywizmu (Polish Literature from the Middle Ages to Positivism),
pp. 514?15.
^ Jachimecki, p. 421. Hedley, Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 264: "He
valued [sensuous beauty] throughout life as much as he abhorred
descriptive titles or any hint of an underlying 'program.'"
Programmatic titles were given to some of his works, against his
wishes, by others, including opportunistic music publishers.
^ Jachimecki, pp. 421?22.
^ a b c d e Jachimecki, p. 422.
^ Jachimecki, pp. 422?23.
^ Sheppard, Linda. "Fr?d?ric Chopin's R?sum?". Musical overview
(1600?2000): from the History ? la carte series. Canada: Longbow
Publishing Ltd, 2006.
^ a b c d e f g Jachimecki, p. 423.
^ Hedley, Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 264.
^ She "made sketches of Chopin's head as he played the piano and
talked, then sat him down in an armchair to paint his portrait in
watercolors. It is one of the best portraits of Chopin extant?after
that by Delacroix?with the composer looking relaxed, pensive, and at
peace." Tad Szulc, Chopin in Paris, p. 137.
^ Jachimecki, p 423.
^ Tad Szulc, Chopin in Paris, pp. 160, 165, 194?95.
^ Tad Szulc, Chopin in Paris, p. 146.
^ Andr? Maurois, L?ila: the Life of George Sand, trans. by Gerard
Hopkins, Penguin, 1980 (c 1953), pp. 317-20.
^ Andr? Maurois, L?ila, pp. 333, 337-8.
^ a b c d e f g h i j k Jachimecki, p. 424.
^ Krzysztof Rottermund, "Chopin and Hesse: New Facts About Their
Artistic Acquaintance," translation in The American Organist, March
2008.
^ George Sand, Impressions et souvenirs, chapter V, p. 86, quoted in
Andr? Maurois, L?ila, pp. 338-9.
^ a b The Music Salon of Pauline Viardot, Rachel M. Harris
^ Tad Szulc, Chopin in Paris, p. 403.
^ During which, to Chopin's dismay, some of George Sand's radical
political friends briefly came to power: Tad Szulc, Chopin in Paris,
pp. 366?73.
^ Findarticles.com
^ Chopin was very pleased to spend several days with the doctor, as he
was always looking for someone with whom he could speak
Polish?particularly now, as he knew no English. Tad Szulc, Chopin in
Paris, p. 382 and passim.
^ Tad Szulc, Chopin in Paris, p. 383.
^ Tad Szulc, Chopin in Paris, p. 400.
^ Tad Szulc, Chopin in Paris, p. 399.
^ Tad Szulc, Chopin in Paris, p. 400.
^ Frederick Niecks, The Life of Chopin, vol. II, London, Novello,
Ewers & Co., 1888, p. 325.
^ Fryderyk Chopin 1810?1849: A Chronological Biography
^ http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-1443_2364582,00.html
Home is where the heart'll stay
^ Crocks Newsletter
^ Hedley, Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 264.
^ A "progone" is the opposite of an "epigone"?the latter being "an
undistinguished imitator or follower of an important writer, painter,
[composer] etc." The word "progone" (also written "progon") comes from
the Greek progonos, meaning "born before."
^ a b c d e Jachimecki, p. 425.
^ Letter of 12 December 1853 from Camille Pleyel to Chopin's sister,
Louise Jedrzejewicz, cited in Chopin ? Nocturnes, with note by Ewald
Zimmermann, winter 1979/1980, published by G. Henle Verlag (ISM N
M-2018-0185-8).
^ Tad Szulc, Chopin in Paris, pp. 112?13.
^ Jachimecki, p. 421. Hedley, Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 264.
^ Kornel Micha?owski, Grove
^ Hedley writes: "From the great Italian singers of the age he learned
the art of 'singing' on the piano, and his nocturnes reveal the
perfection of his cantabile style and delicate charm of
ornamentation." Hedley, Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 264.
^ Tad Szulc, Chopin in Paris, p. 115.
^ Eigeldinger, Jean-Jacques (1986). Chopin: Pianist and Teacher as
Seen by His Pupils. Cambridge University Press. pp. 52. ISBN
0-521-36709-3.
^ M?ller-Streicher, Friederike (1994). "Aus dem Tagebuch einer Wiener
Chopin-Sch?lerin [1839?1841, 1844?1845]". Wiener Chopin-Bl?tter
(International Chopin Society).
http://www.nifc.pl/chopin/bibliography/detail/id/11807. Retrieved
2007-10-09.
^ a b "Tempo Rubato". by Ignacy Jan Paderewski; Polish Music Journal,
Vol. 4; No. 1; Summer 2001. ISSN 1521 - 6039.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/PMJ/issue/4.1.01/paderewskirubato.html.
^ Constantin von Sternberg (1852-1924) (c. 1920). "Tempo rubato, and
other essays". http://www.archive.org/details/temporubatoother00sterrich.
^ John F. Strauss. The puzzle of Chopin's Tempo Rubato. Clavier 22,
no. 5 (May-June 1983).
^ See e.g. Charles Rosen, The Romantic Generation, chapters 5-7,
Harvard University Press 1995. ISBN 9780674779334
^ Jachimecki, pp. 425?26.
^ Hedley, Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 264.
^ Answers.com
^ Eternal Sonata Official Website - http://eternalsonata.namcobandaigames.com/

[edit] References
Chopin and Other Musical Essays (1889) by Henry T. Finck
Micha?owski, Kornel, and Jim Samson, Chopin, Fryderyk Franciszek,
Grove Music Online, edited by L. Macy (accessed October 31, 2006)
(subscription access)
Samson, Jim (1996). Chopin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN
0-19-816495-5.
Siepmann, Jeremy (1995). Chopin: The Reluctant Romantic. London:
Victor Gollancz. ISBN 0-575-05692-4.
Adam Zamoyski, Chopin: a Biography, New York, Doubleday, 1980, ISBN
0-385-13597-1.
Tad Szulc, Chopin in Paris: the Life and Times of the Romantic
Composer, New York, Scribner, 1998, ISBN 0-684-82458-2.
Zdzis?aw Jachimecki, "Chopin, Fryderyk Franciszek," Polski s?ownik
biograficzny, vol. III, Krak?w, Polska Akademia Umiej?tno?ci, 1937,
pp. 420?26.
Arthur Hedley et al., "Chopin, Fr?d?ric (Fran?ois)," Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 15th ed., 2005, vol. 3, pp. 263?64.
Gerald Abraham, "Chopin Fr?d?ric," Encyclopedia Americana, 1986 ed.,
vol. 6, pp. 627?28.
Selected Correspondence of Fryderyk Chopin, collected and annotated by
B.E. Sydow, translated and edited by Arthur Hedley, London, 1962.
Chopin's Letters, collected by Henryk Opie?ski, translated by E.L.
Voynich, New York, 1973.
George Marek R. and Maria Gordon-Smith, Chopin: A biography, New York,
Harper & Row, 1978.
Andr? Maurois, Leila: the Life of George Sand, translated by Gerard
Hopkins, Penguin, 1980 (c 1953).
David Ewen, Ewen's Musical Masterworks: The Encyclopedia of Musical
Masterpieces, 2nd ed., New York, ARCO Publishing Company, 1954.
Benita Eisler, Chopin's Funeral, Abacus, 2004.
Krystyna Kobyla?ska, Chopin in His Own Land: Documents and Souvenirs,
Krak?w, P.W.M., 1955.
The Book of the First International Musicological Congress Devoted
[to] the Works of Frederick Chopin, Warsaw, 16-22 February 1960,
edited by Zofia Lissa, Warsaw, PWN, 1963.
[The Book of the Second International Musicological Congress, Warsaw,
10-17 October 1999:] Chopin and His Work in the Context of Culture,
studies edited by Irena Poniatowska, vols. 1-2, Warsaw, 2003.
(Dutch) Bastet, Fr?d?ric L. (1997). Helse liefde: Biografisch essay
over Marie d'Agoult, Fr?d?ric Chopin, Franz Liszt, George Sand.
Amsterdam: Querido. ISBN 90-214-5157-3.
Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger, Chopin: Pianist and Teacher, as Seen by His
Pupils, Cambridge University Press, 1989, ISBN 0521367093.
Jan Zygmunt Jakubowski, ed., Literatura polska od ?redniowiecza to
pozytywizmu (Polish Literature from the Middle Ages to Positivism),
Warsaw, Pa?stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1979, ISBN 83-01-00201-8.
(German) Wuest, Hans Werner (2001). Fr?d?ric Chopin, Briefe und
Zeitzeugnisse. Cologne: Classic-Concerts-Verl.. ISBN 3-8311-0066-7.

[edit] External links
Find more about Fr?d?ric Chopin on Wikipedia's sister projects:
 Definitions from Wiktionary

 Textbooks from Wikibooks
 Quotations from Wikiquote
 Source texts from Wikisource
 Images and media from Commons
 News stories from Wikinews


 Learning resources from WikiversityPolish Wikisource has original
text related to this article:
Fr?d?ric ChopinWikisource has the text of the 1911 Encyclop?dia
Britannica article Chopin, Frederic Fran?ois.Klasikal.com - Website
dedicated to classical music. Includes video performances and sheet
music of every composition of Frederic Chopin.
The Chopin Project - A guide to Chopin's solo keyboard music, with
individual entries, on-demand audio, essays, quotes, references,
biographies, and abundant links.
The Chopin Society - The website of the Chopin Society in London
provides information about their monthly concerts, membership of the
Society, and offers insights into the life of the composer.
Chopin Music - Website and forum devoted to the life and works of
Chopin: biographies, study guides, recordings, sheet music.
Chopin: the poet of the piano - A favourite Chopin place since 1999
with biography, images, complete music and score, discussion forum,
work list and analysis, quizzes and contests, noted interpreters/great
pianists...
Internet Chopin Information Centre, Chopin portal including calendar,
catalogues, other information about Chopin, Chopin on the Web, and
pianists' biographical notes.
Music4tune.com - Chopin Academic reviews of the 250 Chopin's pieces
assorted with musical excerpts.
Biographies
Online biography of Chopin
Fr?d?ric Chopin biography
Brief Chopin essay at Classical Music Pages
The Fryderyk Chopin Society in Warsaw. Contains a biography, an
outline of Chopin's works and musical style and pictures of original
manuscripts.
Biographies (Project Gutenberg e-texts):
Life of Chopin, book by his friend Franz Liszt
Frederick Chopin as a Man and Musician, by Frederick Niecks
Chopin: The Man and his Music, by James Huneker
Fr?d?ric Chopin discography at MusicBrainz
Music scores
Free scores by Fr?d?ric Chopin in the International Music Score Library Project
Chopin scores from Mutopia Project
Free scores by Fr?d?ric Chopin in the Werner Icking Music Archive (WIMA)
Chopin Early Editions, a collection of over 400 first and early
printed editions of musical compositions by Fr?d?ric Chopin published
before 1881.
Chopin's First Editions Online features an interface that allows three
navigable scores to be open simultaneously in frames to facilitate
comparison.
Free scores by Fr?d?ric Chopin in the Choral Public Domain Library (ChoralWiki)
Recordings
Performances by Daniel Wnukowski: 'Heroic' polonaise, 2 nocturnes, 1
scherzo, 1 prelude
Performances by Michael Sayers: Preludes Op. 28 Nos. 1 and 20
Performances by Donald Betts: 3 ballades, 3 ?tudes, 2 nocturnes, 1 mazurka
Performances by Paul Cantrell from In the Hands
Performances by Alberto Cobo: Sonata #3, Ballade #1 &
Fantasie-Impromptu, Sonata #2, Scherzo #2, Prelude #16
Various performers from PianoParadise (some links are broken)
MIDI files from Kunst der Fuge
Preludes No. 4 and No. 6 arranged for voices, guitar, and bass by the
John Link Project
Performances of works by Fr?d?ric Chopin in MP3 and MIDI formats at
Logos Virtual Library
Free Chopin Downloads (MP3 and WMA)
the original Chopin Chopin as played by Angela Lear from autograph
manuscripts. "Hear what Chopin really intended" BBC Music Magazine;
"...Her Chopin recitals were altogether exceptional for perfect
interpretation and maximum faithfulness to Chopin's intentions " Le
Matin.
Chopin selected works (MP3)
Miscellaneous

Narodowy Instytut Fryderyka Chopina, Warsaw, Poland
Memorial Page at FindaGrave
University of Michigan Chopin Project
Chopin Works Review
International Fryderyk Chopin Piano Competition
Chopin2010 a/k/a "The Chopin Currency" - a daily compendium of
Chopiniana: news, reviews, videos, blogs, and more leading up to the
Chopin Bicentennial in 2010
Valldemossa, Majorca small town whose major asset is the remains of
The Royal Chartreuse of Jesus Nazareth where Chopin lived for a short
period with George Sand (the memories of this period are recorded in
her book "Winter in Majorca") in 1838-39.
The International Foundation Can Mossenya - Friends of Jorge Luis
Borges Historic estate, a significant part of The Royal Chartreuse of
Jesus of Nazareth.
The safekeeping of a large collection of original Chopin manuscripts,
including Concerto in F-minor among a total of 49 compositions and
other priceless Polish art treasures in Canada during World War II, is
documented by new research in 2004?2005 which was published in Chopin
in the World.


From rasherrs at eircom.net  Wed Sep  2 03:09:44 2009
From: rasherrs at eircom.net (Paddy Hackett)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 10:09:44 +0100
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Irish Bank Nationalisation
Message-ID: <14C4207E2C06450FB60A082BEDE98BE0@paddyhacket>

For the working class the debate over whether to nationalize Irish banks or support NAMA is a false debate. It is a debate that has been whipped up by the bourgeois media and a substantial component of the bourgeois political establishment together with sections of the radical left. Neither NAMA nor nationalisation can serve the class interests of the working class. Either policy is essentially bourgeois in character. Consequently the debate is really a debate within the bourgeoisie as to what option best suits its class interests. Much of the Irish Left support nationalization. Some with the qualification of nationalization under workers' control. But such qualifications make little difference to the essential nature of the policy of nationalization as a bourgeois policy. Under capitalism the workers can never control the banks. It is a contradiction to suggest that banks can be controlled by the working class. By definition workers can never nationalise the banks under workers' control. They can only annihilate them by destroying capitalism without which banks cannot exist. 

The planned march for the month of September against NAMA is an attempt to organize the working class around the wrong issues --an issue from which the working class have nothing ultimately to gain. It is similar to organising a march against the Fianna Fail party and for the Fine Gael party. The left that promotes this march are playing the working class right into the hands of capitalism by rallying the workers around an issue that is about the class interests of the bourgeoisie and thereby against the class interests of workers. There is a strategy afoot by People before Profits and the Socialist Party to misdirect the working class into a struggle against itself. The prospective NAMA march is just this. Mass marches should have been held months ago against the income levy --admittedly there was the odd isolated protest in the absence of the general active support from the trade union leadership as a whole. The ICTU and other elements within the labour movement successfully obstructed attempts to organise a mass strike and demonstration. This was a decisive piece of treachery. It has seriously weakened the working class struggle. There need to be rallies and other forms of mass activity against the cut back in the living standards of the working class. A gigantic rally is needed to express popular opposition to the forthcoming slash and burn budget. Protests, rallies and strikes need to be linked into each other to create a continuum of struggle culminating in mass opposition to the forthcoming budget. Slogans expressing the class interests of the working class are needed.

If old age pensioners can "successfully" organize against the abolition of the free medical cards for OAPs swiftly then the labour organizations can surely organize at least as swiftly against the income levy and many other class issues. So far the Irish state and its bourgeoisie have had an easy run. There has been minimal resistance to the crassly anti-working class policies of Fianna Fail and the Greens. If anything the bourgeois left have been at most fertilising the conditions for alternate capitalist parties gaining power -Fine Gael and Labour et al.

Paddy Hackett

My blog's address:
http://paddy-hackett.blogspot.com

From cb31450 at gmail.com  Thu Sep  3 08:19:37 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 10:19:37 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Sahlins on Leslie White
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909030719p4fd19d5ay50d4b731c21e9850@mail.gmail.com>

September 21, 2008
Leslie A. White
In the pre-?60s at the University of Michigan, rebellion consisted of
listening gleefully to the anthropologist Leslie White going mano a
mano with God. White was one of those maverick intellectuals and
politicians, like Thorstein Veblen, Charles Beard and Robert La
Follette, who came out of the rural American heartland to off the
pieties-and powers-that-be. Some of these intellectuals were village
atheists from the beginning. Others, like White, only shook off the
idiocies of rural life when they went to the city and the university.

We never knew White was a member of the Socialist Labor Party in the
?30s and early ?40s, contributing articles to The Weekly People under
the name John Steel. Nor could you have guessed from his
so-Americanized version of Marxism: a theory of cultural evolution
based singularly on technological progress. Progress in the Neolithic,
he claimed, came from the increase in the amount of energy harnessed
per capita because of plant and animal domestication. He was not
amused when I objected that energy ?per capita? was the same as in the
Old Stone Age, since the primary mechanical source remained the human
body.

On the other hand, I have never repudiated White?s concept of culture
as a thoroughly symbolic phenomenon. I never tired of repeating his
dictum that no ape can appreciate the difference between holy water
and distilled water ? because there is none, chemically speaking.
That, for me, resolved the contradiction in his own teaching and that
of the many human scientists who separate culture from practical
activity, as if the symbolic dimension of economic behavior were an
afterthought of the material. The ?economic basis? of society is
culturally constructed. Even our supposedly ?rational choices? are
based on another, meaningful logic that, for example, makes steak a
more prestigious food than hamburger, or women?s clothes different in
significant ways from men?s. It turns out that materialism is a form
of idealism, because it?s wrong, too.

Marshall Sahlins is an emeritus professor of anthropology at the
University of Chicago and the author most recently of ?The Western
Illusion of Human Nature.?


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Thu Sep  3 09:53:43 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:53:43 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Badiou
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909030853j43236f7er57c7093927c1bfc3@mail.gmail.com>

Alain Badiou


Alain Badiou French philosophy
Contemporary philosophy

Full name Alain Badiou
Born 17 January 1937 (1937-01-17) (age 72)
Rabat, Morocco
School/tradition Continental philosophy
Main interests Set Theory, Mathematics, Metapolitics, Ontology
Notable ideas Event, truths
Influenced by[show]
Plato, Marx, Cantor, Albert Lautman, Mao Zedong, Lacan, Althusser,
Paul Cohen, Sartre, Deleuze, Hegel, St?phane Mallarm?, Samuel Beckett,
Fernando Pessoa, Sylvain Lazarus
Influenced[show]
Slavoj ?i?ek, Peter Hallward, Simon Critchley, Ray Brassier, Sylvain Lazarus
Alain Badiou (born 17 January 1937 in Rabat, Morocco) is a prominent
French philosopher, formerly chair of philosophy at the ?cole Normale
Sup?rieure (ENS). Along with Giorgio Agamben and Slavoj Zizek, Badiou
is a prominent figure in an anti-postmodern strand of continental
philosophy. Particularly through a creative appropriation of set
theory from his early interest in mathematics, Badiou seeks to recover
the concepts of being, truth and the subject in a way that is neither
postmodern nor simply a repetition of modernity.

Contents [hide]
1 Biography
2 Key concepts
2.1 Four discourses
2.2 Inaesthetic
3 Introduction to Being and Event
3.1 Mathematics as ontology
3.2 The event and the subject
4 Works
4.1 Philosophy
4.2 Critical essays
4.3 Literature and drama
4.4 Political essays
4.5 Pamphlets and Serial Publications
4.6 English translations
4.6.1 Books
4.6.2 DVD
5 Lectures
6 Further reading
6.1 Secondary Literature on Badiou's Work in English (Books)
6.1.1 Secondary Literature on Badiou's Work in English (Essays and articles)
6.2 Secondary Literature on Badiou's Work in French (Books)
7 Notes
8 External links



[edit] Biography
Badiou was trained formally as a philosopher as a student at the ?cole
Normale Sup?rieure (ENS) from 1956 to 1961, a period during which he
took courses at the Sorbonne. He had a lively and constant interest in
mathematics. He was politically active very early on, and was one of
the founding members of the Unified Socialist Party (PSU). The PSU was
particularly active in the struggle for the decolonization of Algeria.
He wrote his first novel, Almagestes, in 1964. In 1967 he joined a
study group organized by Louis Althusser and grew increasingly
influenced by Jacques Lacan.

The student uprisings of May 1968 reinforced Badiou's commitment to
the far Left, and he participated in increasingly radical communist
and Maoist groups, such as the UCFML. In 1969 he joined the faculty of
University of Paris VIII (Vincennes-Saint Denis), which was a bastion
of counter-cultural thought. There he engaged in fierce intellectual
debates with fellow professors Gilles Deleuze and Jean-Fran?ois
Lyotard, whose philosophical works he considered unhealthy deviations
from the Althusserian program of a scientific Marxism.

In the 1980s, as both Althusserian Marxism and Lacanian psychoanalysis
went into decline (with Lacan dead and Althusser in an asylum), Badiou
published more technical and abstract philosophical works, such as
Th?orie du sujet (1982), and his magnum opus, Being and Event (1988).
Nonetheless, Badiou has never renounced Althusser or Lacan, and
sympathetic references to Marxism and psychoanalysis are not uncommon
in his more recent works.

He took up his current position at the ENS in 1999. He is also
associated with a number of other institutions, such as the Coll?ge
International de Philosophie. He is now a member of "L'Organisation
Politique" which he founded with some comrades from the Maoist UCFML
in 1985. Badiou has also enjoyed success as a dramatist with plays
such as Ahmed le Subtil.

In the last decade, an increasing number of Badiou's works have been
translated into English, such as Ethics, Deleuze, Manifesto for
Philosophy, Metapolitics, and Being and Event. Short pieces by Badiou
have likewise appeared in American and English periodicals, such as
Lacanian Ink, New Left Review, Radical Philosophy, Cosmos and History
[1] and Parrhesia. Unusually for a contemporary European philosopher
his work is increasingly being taken up by militants in movements of
the poor in countries like India, the Democratic Republic of Congo and
South Africa where he is often read together with Frantz Fanon.

Lately Badiou got into a fierce controversy within the confines of
Parisian intellectual life. It started in 2005 with the publication of
his "Circonstances 3: Port?es du mot 'juif'" - The Uses of the Word
"Jew" [2]. This book generated a strong response with calls of Badiou
being labelled Anti-Semitic. The wrangling became a cause c?l?bre with
articles going back and forth in the French newspaper Le Monde and in
the cultural journal "Les temps modernes." Another philosopher
Jean-Claude Milner has accused Badiou of Anti-Semitism.[1]


[edit] Key concepts
Badiou makes repeated use of several concepts throughout his
philosophy. One of the aims of his thought is to show that his
categories of truth are useful for any type of philosophical critique.
Therefore, he uses them to interrogate art and history as well as
ontology and scientific discovery. Johannes Thumfart argues that
Badiou's philosophy can be regarded as a contemporary reinterpretation
of Platonism.[2]


[edit] Four discourses
According to Badiou, philosophy takes place under four conditions
(Art, Love, Politics, and Science), which he maintains are truth
procedures, in the sense that they can, under the right conditions,
produce truths. Badiou consistently maintains throughout his work that
philosophy must avoid the temptation to attach its own truth to that
of any of the discourses, a process he terms a philosophical
"disaster". Badiou often attempts to find 'points of suture', or
places of exceptional connection between the truths produced by the
various discourses. It should be noted that Badiou's concept of truth
procedure does not imply a denial of external reality. Badiou,
following Lacan, uses "the real" to designate the space of existing
but unsymbolizable reality that can only be thought retroactively
through the truth procedures. Thus, while a truth procedure is
required to access the real, the real also serves as an external limit
on the possibility of its production of truth.


[edit] Inaesthetic
In Handbook of Inaesthetics Badiou coins the phrase "inaesthetic" to
refer to a concept of artistic creation that denies "the
reflection/object relation". Reacting against the idea of mimesis, or
poetic reflection of "nature", Badiou claims that art is "immanent"
and "singular". It is immanent in the sense that its truth is given in
its immediacy in a given work of art, and singular in that its truth
is found in art and art alone. His view of the link between philosophy
and art is tied into the motif of pedagogy, which he claims functions
so as to "arrange the forms of knowledge in a way that some truth may
come to pierce a hole in them". He develops these ideas with examples
from the prose of Samuel Beckett and the poetry of St?phane Mallarm?
and Fernando Pessoa (who he argues has developed a body of work that
philosophy is currently incapable of incorporating), among others.


[edit] Introduction to Being and Event

Drawing from 8 March 2006 "Art's Imperative" lectureThe major
propositions of Badiou's philosophy all find their basis in Being and
Event, in which he continues his attempt (which he began in Th?orie du
sujet) to reconcile a notion of the subject with ontology, and in
particular post-structuralist and constructivist ontologies.[3] A
frequent criticism of post structuralist work is that it prohibits,
through its fixation on semiotics and language, any notion of a
subject. Badiou's work is, by his own admission,[4] an attempt to
break out of contemporary philosophy's fixation upon language, which
he sees almost as a straitjacket. This effort leads him, in Being and
Event, to combine rigorous mathematical formulae with his readings of
poets such as Mallarm? and H?lderlin and religious thinkers such as
Pascal. His philosophy draws upon both 'analytical' and 'continental'
traditions. In Badiou's own opinion, this combination places him
awkwardly relative to his contemporaries, meaning that his work had
been only slowly taken up.[5] Being and Event offers an example of
this slow uptake, in fact: it was translated into English only in
2005, a full seventeen years after its French publication.

As is implied in the title of the book, two elements mark the thesis
of Being and Event: the place of ontology, or 'the science of being
qua being' (being in itself), and the place of the event ? which is
seen as a rupture in ontology ? through which the subject finds his or
her realization and reconciliation with truth. This situation of being
and the rupture which characterizes the event are thought in terms of
set theory, and specifically Zermelo?Fraenkel set theory (with the
axiom of choice), to which Badiou accords a fundamental role in a
manner quite distinct from the majority of either mathematicians or
philosophers.


[edit] Mathematics as ontology
For Badiou the problem which the Greek tradition of philosophy has
faced and never satisfactorily dealt with is the problem that while
beings themselves are plural, and thought in terms of multiplicity,
being itself is thought to be singular; that is, it is thought in
terms of the one. He proposes as the solution to this impasse the
following declaration: that the one is not. This is why Badiou accords
set theory (the axioms of which he refers to as the Ideas of the
multiple) such stature, and refers to mathematics as the very place of
ontology: Only set theory allows one to conceive a 'pure doctrine of
the multiple'. Set theory does not operate in terms of definite
individual elements in groupings but only functions insofar as what
belongs to a set is of the same relation as that set (that is, another
set too). What separates sets out therefore is not an existential
positive proposition, but other multiples whose properties validate
its presentation; which is to say their structural relation. The
structure of being thus secures the regime of the count-as-one. So if
one is to think of a set ? for instance, the set of people, or
humanity ? as counting as one the elements which belong to that set,
it can then secure the multiple (the multiplicities of humans) as one
consistent concept (humanity), but only in terms of what does not
belong to that set. What is, in following, crucial for Badiou is that
the structural form of the count-as-one, which makes multiplicities
thinkable, implies that the proper name of being does not belong to an
element as such (an original 'one'), but rather the void set (written
?), the set to which nothing (not even the void set itself) belongs.
It may help to understand the concept 'count-as-one' if it is
associated with the concept of 'terming': a multiple is not one, but
it is referred to with 'multiple': one word. To count a set as one is
to mention that set. How the being of terms such as 'multiple' does
not contradict the non-being of the one can be understood by
considering the multiple nature of terminology: for there to be a term
without there also being a system of terminology, within which the
difference between terms gives context and meaning to any one term,
does not coincide with what is understood by 'terminology', which is
precisely difference (thus multiplicity) conditioning meaning. Since
the idea of conceiving of a term without meaning does not compute, the
count-as-one is a structural effect or a situational operation and not
an event of truth. Multiples which are 'composed' or 'consistent' are
count-effects; inconsistent multiplicity is the presentation of
presentation.

Badiou's use of set theory in this manner is not just illustrative or
heuristic. Badiou uses the axioms of Zermelo?Fraenkel set theory to
identify the relationship of being to history, Nature, the State, and
God. Most significantly this use means that (as with set theory) there
is a strict prohibition on self-belonging; a set cannot contain or
belong to itself. Russell's paradox famously ruled that possibility
out of formal logic. (This paradox can be thought through in terms of
a 'list of lists that do not contain themselves': if such a list does
not write itself on the list the property is incomplete, as there will
be one missing; if it does, it is no longer a list that does not
contain itself.) So too does the axiom of foundation ? or to give an
alternative name the axiom of regularity ? enact such a prohibition
(cf. p. 190 in Being and Event). (This axiom states that all sets
contain an element for which only the void [empty] set names what is
common to both the set and its element.) Badiou's philosophy draws two
major implications from this prohibition. Firstly, it secures the
inexistence of the 'one': there cannot be a grand overarching set, and
thus it is fallacious to conceive of a grand cosmos, a whole Nature,
or a Being of God. Badiou is therefore ? against Cantor, from whom he
draws heavily ? staunchly atheist. However, secondly, this prohibition
prompts him to introduce the event. Because, according to Badiou, the
axiom of foundation 'founds' all sets in the void, it ties all being
to the historico-social situation of the multiplicities of de-centred
sets ? thereby effacing the positivity of subjective action, or an
entirely 'new' occurrence. And whilst this is acceptable
ontologically, it is unacceptable, Badiou holds, philosophically. Set
theory mathematics has consequently 'pragmatically abandoned' an area
which philosophy cannot. And so, Badiou argues, there is therefore
only one possibility remaining: that ontology can say nothing about
the event.


[edit] The event and the subject

Drawing from 18 November 2006 "Truth procedure in politics" lectureThe
principle of the event is where Badiou diverges from the majority of
late twentieth century philosophy and social thought, and in
particular the likes of Foucault, Butler, Lacan and Deleuze, among
others. In short, it represents that which is outside of ontology.
Badiou's problem here is, unsurprisingly, the question of how to 'make
use' of that which cannot be discerned. But it is a problem he views
as vital, because if one constructs the world only from that which can
be discerned and therefore given a name, it results in either the
destitution of subjectivity and the removal of the subject from
ontology (the criticism continually leveled at Foucault's discursive
universe), or the Panglossian solution of Leibniz: that God is
language in its supposed completion.

Badiou again turns here to mathematics and set theory ? Badiou's
language of ontology ? to study the possibility of an indiscernible
element existing extrinsically to the situation of ontology. He
employs the strategy of the mathematician Paul J. Cohen, using what
are called the conditions of sets. These conditions are thought of in
terms of domination, a domination being that which defines a set. (If
one takes, in binary language, the set with the condition 'items
marked only with ones', any item marked with zero negates the property
of the set. The condition which has only ones is thus dominated by any
condition which has zeros in it [cf. p. 367-71 in Being and Event].)
Badiou reasons using these conditions that every discernible (nameable
or constructible) set is dominated by the conditions which don't
possess the property that makes it discernible as a set. (The property
'one' is always dominated by 'not one'.) These sets are, in line with
constructible ontology, relative to one's being-in-the-world and one's
being in language (where sets and concepts, such as the concept
'humanity', get their names). However, he continues, the dominations
themselves are, whilst being relative concepts, not necessarily
intrinsic to language and constructible thought; rather one can
axiomatically define a domination ? in the terms of mathematical
ontology ? as a set of conditions such that any condition outside the
domination is dominated by at least one term inside the domination.
One does not necessarily need to refer to constructible language to
conceive of a 'set of dominations', which he refers to as the
indiscernible set, or the generic set. It is therefore, he continues,
possible to think beyond the strictures of the relativistic
constructible universe of language, by a process Cohen calls forcing.
And he concludes in following that while ontology can mark out a space
for an inhabitant of the constructible situation to decide upon the
indiscernible, it falls to the subject ? about which the ontological
situation cannot comment ? to nominate this indiscernible, this
generic point; and thus nominate, and give name to, the undecidable
event. Badiou thereby marks out a philosophy by which to refute the
apparent relativism or apoliticism in post-structuralist thought.

Badiou's ultimate ethical maxim is therefore one of: 'decide upon the
undecidable'. It is to name the indiscernible, the generic set, and
thus name the event that re-casts ontology in a new light. He
identifies four domains in which a subject (who, it is important to
note, becomes a subject through this process) can potentially witness
an event: love, science, politics and art. By enacting fidelity to the
event within these four domains one performs a 'generic procedure',
which in its undecideability is necessarily experimental, and one
potentially recasts the situation in which being takes place. Through
this maintenance of fidelity, truth has the potentiality to emerge.

In line with his concept of the event, Badiou maintains, politics is
not about politicians, but activism based on the present situation and
the 'evental' (his translators' neologism) rupture. So too does love
have this characteristic of becoming anew. Even in science the
guesswork that marks the event is prominent. He vigorously rejects the
tag of 'decisionist' (the idea that once something is decided it
'becomes true'), but rather argues that the recasting of a truth comes
prior to its veracity or verifiability. As he says of Galileo (p.
401):

When Galileo announced the principle of inertia, he was still
separated from the truth of the new physics by all the chance
encounters that are named in subjects such as Descartes or Newton. How
could he, with the names he fabricated and displaced (because they
were at hand ? ?movement?, ?equal proportion?, etc.), have supposed
the veracity of his principle for the situation to-come that was the
establishment of modern science; that is, the supplementation of his
situation with the indiscernible and unfinishable part that one has to
name ?rational physics??
Badiou, whilst keen to stress the non-equivalence between politics and
philosophy, thus finds his political approach ? one of activism,
militancy, and scepticism of parliamentary-democratic process ? backed
up by his philosophy based around singular, situated truths, and
potential revolutions.


[edit] Works

[edit] Philosophy
Le concept de mod?le (1969 , 2007)
Th?orie du sujet (1982)
Peut-on penser la politique? (1985)
L'?tre et l'?v?nement (1988)
Manifeste pour la philosophie (1989)
Le nombre et les nombres (1990)
D'un d?sastre obscur (1991)
Conditions (1992)
L'?thique (1993, 2005)
Deleuze (1997)
Saint Paul. La fondation de l'universalisme (1997, 2002)
Abr?g? de m?tapolitique (1998)
Court trait? d'ontologie transitoire (1998)
Petit manuel d'inesth?tique (1998)
Le Si?cle (2005)
Logiques des mondes. L'?tre et l'?v?nement, 2. (2006)
Petit panth?on portatif (2008)
Second manifeste pour la philosophie (2009)
L'Antiphilosophie de Wittgenstein (2009)

[edit] Critical essays
Rhapsodie pour le th??tre (1990)
Beckett, l'increvable d?sir (1995)

[edit] Literature and drama
Almagestes (1964)
Portulans (1967)
L'?charpe rouge (1979)
Ahmed le subtil (1994)
Ahmed Philosophe, followed by Ahmed se f?che (1995)
Les Citrouilles, a comedy (1996)
Calme bloc ici-bas (1997)

[edit] Political essays
Th?orie de la contradiction (1975)
De l'id?ologie, with F. Balm?s (1976)
Le Noyau rationnel de la dialectique h?gelienne, with L. Mossot and J.
Bellassen (1977)
Circonstances 1: Kosovo, 11 Septembre, Chirac/Le Pen (2003)
Circonstances 2: Irak, foulard, Allemagne/France (2004)
Circonstances 3: Port?es du mot ? juif ? (2005)
Circonstances 4: De quoi Sarkozy est-il le nom ? (2007)
Circonstances 5: L?hypoth?se communiste (2009)

[edit] Pamphlets and Serial Publications
Contribution au probl?me de la construction d'un parti
marxiste-l?niniste de type nouveau, with Jancovici, Menetrey, and
Terray (Maspero 1970)
Jean Paul Sartre (?ditions Potemkine 1980)
Le Perroquet. Quinzomadaire d'opinion (1981-1990)
La Distance Politique (1990-?)

[edit] English translations

[edit] Books
Manifesto for Philosophy, transl. by Norman Madarasz; (Albany: SUNY
Press, 1999)
Deleuze: The Clamor of Being, transl. by Louise Burchill; (Minnesota
University Press, 1999)
Ethics; An Essay on the Understanding of Evil, transl. by Peter
Hallward; (New York: Verso, 2000)
On Beckett, transl. by A. Toscano, ed. by Nina Power; (London:
Clinamen Press, 2003)
Infinite Thought: Truth and the Return to Philosophy, transl. and ed.
by Oliver Feltham & Justin Clemens; (London: Continuum, 2003)
Metapolitics, transl. by Jason Barker; (New York: Verso, 2005)
Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism; transl. by Ray Brassier;
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003)
Handbook of Inaesthetics, transl. by A. Toscano; (Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 2004)
Theoretical Writings, transl. by Ray Brassier; (New York: Continuum, 2004)[6]
Briefings on Existence: A Short Treatise on Transitory Ontology,
transl. by Norman Madarasz; (Albany: SUNY Press, 2005)
Being and Event, transl. by O. Feltham; (New York: Continuum, 2005)
Polemics, transl. by Steve Corcoran; (New York: Verso, 2007)
The Century, transl. by A. Toscano; (New York: Polity Press, 2007)
The Concept of Model, transl. by Zachery Luke Fraser & Tzuchien Tho;
(Melbourne: re.press, 2007). Open Access[3]
Number and Numbers (New York: Polity Press, 2008): ISBN 0745638791
(paperback); ISBN 0745638783 (hardcover)
The Meaning of Sarkozy (New York: Verso, 2008): ISBN 184467309X
Conditions, transl. by Steve Corcoran; (New York: Continuum, 2009):
ISBN 0826498272
Logics of Worlds: Being and Event, Volume 2, transl. by A. Toscano;
(New York: Continuum, 2009): ISBN 0826494706
Pocket Pantheon: Figures of Postwar Philosophy, (New York: Verso,
2009): ISBN 978-1844673575
Theory of the Subject, trans. by Bruno Bosteels; (New York: Continuum,
2009): ISBN 0826496733

[edit] DVD
Democracy and Disappointment: On the Politics of Resistance: Alain
Badiou and Simon Critchley in Conversation, (Event Date: Thursday,
November 15, 2007); Location: Slought Foundation, Conversations in
Theory Series | Organized by Aaron Levy | Studio: Microcinema in
collaboration with Slought Foundation | DVD Release Date: August 26,
2008

[edit] Lectures
HardTalk with Alain Badiou on BBC March, 2009
Politics, Democracy and Philosophy: An Obscure Knot, University of
Washington, February 23, 2006.
Homage to Jacques Derrida, UC Irvine, March 1, 2006 (RealPlayer).
Destruction, Negation, Subtraction, EGS, 2007.
Two Lectures, New York City, November 6-7, 2008.
Panorama de la Filosof?a Francesa Contempor?nea Biblioteca Nacional de
Buenos Aires, 2004
Creative Thinking.Alquds University,Jerusalem,Palestine,January 17,2009.

[edit] Further reading

[edit] Secondary Literature on Badiou's Work in English (Books)
Jason Barker, Alain Badiou: A Critical Introduction, London, Pluto Press, 2002.
Peter Hallward, Badiou: A Subject to Truth, Minneapolis, University of
Minnesota Press, 2003.
Peter Hallward (ed.), Think Again: Badiou and the Future of
Philosophy", London, Continuum, 2004.
Paul Ashton (Editor), A. J. Bartlett (Editor), Justin Clemens
(Editor): The Praxis of Alain Badiou; (Melbourne: re.press, 2006).
Adam Miller, Badiou, Marion, and St. Paul: Immanent Grace, London,
Continuum, 2008.
Bruno Bosteels, Badiou and Politics, Durham, Duke University Press,
forthcoming.
Oliver Feltham, Alain Badiou: Live Theory, London, Continuum, 2008.
Sam Gillespie, The Mathematics of Novelty: Badiou's Minimalist
Metaphysics, (Melbourne, Australia: re.press, 2008) (details on
re.press website) (Open Access)
Adrian Johnston, Badiou, Zizek, and Political Transformations: The
Cadence of Change, Evanston, Northwestern University Press, 2009,
forthcoming.
Gabriel Riera (Editor), Alain Badiou: Philosophy and its Conditions,
Albany: New York, SUNY Press, 2005.

[edit] Secondary Literature on Badiou's Work in English (Essays and articles)
Cantor, Lacan, Mao, Becket, meme combat: The philosophy of Alain
Badiou essay by Jean-Jacques Lecercle

[edit] Secondary Literature on Badiou's Work in French (Books)
Charles Ramond (?d), Penser le multiple, Paris, ?ditions L'Harmattan, 2002
Fabien Tarby, La Philosophie d'Alain Badiou, Paris, ?ditions L'Harmattan, 2005
Fabien Tarby, Mat?rialismes d'aujourd'hui : de Deleuze ? Badiou ,
Paris, ?ditions L'Harmattan, 2005
Bruno Besana et Oliver Feltham (?d), ?crits autour de la pens?e
d'Alain Badiou, Paris, ?ditions L'Harmattan, 2007.

[edit] Notes
^ On that subject, see articles against Badiou by:
Roger-Pol Droit ("Le Monde des livres", 25 November 2005) and Fr?d?ric
Nef ("Le Monde des livres", 23 December 2005), and in defense of
Badiou by: Daniel Bensaid ("Le Monde des Livres", 26 January 2006);
against Badiou by:
Claude Lanzmann, Jean-Claude Milner and Eric Marty ("Les Temps
modernes", Nov.-Dec. 2005/Jan. 2006), and Meir Waintrater "L?Arche"
February 2006: "Alain Badiou et les Juifs : Une violence
insoutenable", and the answers by Alain Badiou and C?cile Winter
followed by rejoinders by Claude Lanzmann and Eric Marty ("Les Temps
modernes", March-June 2006). See also Badiou's response to Eric Marty
^ Johannes Thumfart: Learning from Las Vegas: Badiou's Platonism
Today, in: The Symptom 9.
^ See here Feltham and Clamens's introduction in Badiou's book
Infinite Thought, Continuum (2004)
^ See Badiou's book Infinite Thought, Continuum (2004)
^ See here Badiou's comments in the introduction to the English
version of Being and Event, Continuum (2005)
^ Includes:
?Mathematics and Philosophy: The Grand Style and the Little Style?,
(unpublished)
?Philosophy and Mathematics: Infinity and the End of Romanticism?,
(from Conditions, Paris, Seuil, 1992).
?The Question of Being Today?, (from Briefings on Existence, )
?Platonism and Mathematical Ontology?, (from Briefings on Existence)
?The Being of Number?, (from Briefings on Existence)
?One, Multiple, Multiplicities?, (from multitudes, 1, 2000)
?Spinoza?s Closed Ontology?, (from Briefings on Existence)
?The Event as Trans-Being?, (revised and expanded version of an essay
of the same title from Briefings on Existence)
?On Subtraction?, (from Conditions, Paris, Seuil, 1992)
?Truth: Forcing and the Unnamable?, (from Conditions, Paris,Seuil, 1992)
?Kant?s Subtractive Ontology?, (from Briefings on Existence)
?Eight Theses on the Universal?, (from Jelica Sumic (ed.) Universal,
Singulier, Subjet, Paris, Kim?, 2000)
?Politics as a Truth Procedure?, (from Metapolitics)
?Being and Appearance?, (from Briefings on Existence)
?Notes Toward Thinking Appearance?, (unpublished)
?The Transcendental?, (from a draft manuscript [now published] of
Logiques des mondes, Paris, Seuil)
?Hegel and the Whole?, (from a draft manuscript [now published] of
Logiques des mondes, Paris, Seuil)
?Language, Thought, Poetry?, (unpublished)

[edit] External links
 Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Alain Badiou
Alain Badiou at Lacan Dot Com
Organisation politique
Cosmos and History
Alain Badiou: Biography Research Guide includes dozens of links to
articles by and about Badiou, essays, interviews, and so on
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Badiou"
Categories: Continental philosophers | 20th-century French
philosophers | Maoism | Philosophers of mathematics | Alumni of the
?cole Normale Sup?rieure | ?cole Normale Sup?rieure faculty | French
Marxists | African philosophers | Communists | Moroccan writers |
People from Rabat | 1937 births | Living people


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep  4 07:09:59 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:09:59 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama speech to students sparks new controversy
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909040609h4b371703i26782d526d7d0611@mail.gmail.com>

Obama speech to students sparks new controversy

By LIBBY QUAID and LINDA STEWART BALL, Associated Press Writers Libby
Quaid And Linda Stewart Ball, Associated Press Writers 2 hrs 4 mins
ago
DALLAS ? When kids all across the country return to school Tuesday,
some will see a welcoming message from President Barack Obama and some
won't.

Obama's planned address to students has touched off yet another
confrontation with Republican critics, who have battered the White
House over health care and now accuse the president of foisting a
political agenda on children.

The president will speak directly to students Tuesday about the need
to work hard and stay in school. His address will be shown live on the
White House Web site and on C-SPAN at noon EDT, a time when classrooms
across the country will be able to tune in.

Schools don't have to show it. But districts across the country have
been inundated with phone calls from parents and are struggling to
address the controversy that broke out after Education Secretary Arne
Duncan sent a letter to principals urging schools to tune in.

Districts in states including Texas, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri,
Virginia and Wisconsin have decided not to show the speech to
students. Others are still thinking it over or are letting parents
have their kids opt out.

Some conservatives, driven by radio pundits and bloggers, are urging
schools and parents to boycott the address. They say Obama is using
the opportunity to promote a political agenda and is overstepping the
boundaries of federal involvement in schools.

"As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education ? it gives the
appearance of creating a cult of personality," said Oklahoma
Republican state Sen. Steve Russell. "This is something you'd expect
to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Arizona state schools superintendent Tom Horne, a Republican, said
lesson plans for teachers created by Obama's Education Department
"call for a worshipful rather than critical approach."

The White House plans to release the speech online Monday so parents
can read it. The president will deliver the speech at Wakefield High
School in Arlington, Va.

"I think it's really unfortunate that politics has been brought into
this," White House deputy policy director Heather Higginbottom said in
an interview with The Associated Press.

"It's simply a plea to students to really take their learning
seriously. Find out what they're good at. Set goals. And take the
school year seriously."

She noted that President George H.W. Bush made a similar address to
schools in 1991. Like Obama, Bush drew criticism, with Democrats
accusing the Republican president of making the event into a campaign
commercial.

Critics are particularly upset about lesson plans the administration
created to accompany the speech. The lesson plans, available online,
originally recommended having students "write letters to themselves
about what they can do to help the president."

The White House revised the plans Wednesday to say students could
"write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their
short-term and long-term education goals."

"That was inartfully worded, and we corrected it," Higginbottom said.

In the Dallas suburb of Plano, Texas, the 54,000-student school
district is not showing the 15- to 20-minute address but will make the
video available later.

PTA council president Cara Mendelsohn said Obama is "cutting out the
parent" by speaking to kids during school hours.

"Why can't a parent be watching this with their kid in the evening?"
Mendelsohn said. "Because that's what makes a powerful statement, when
a parent is sitting there saying, 'This is what I dream for you. This
is what I want you to achieve.'"

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, said in an interview with the AP
that he's "certainly not going to advise anybody not to send their
kids to school that day."

"Hearing the president speak is always a memorable moment," he said.

But he also said he understood where the criticism was coming from.

"Nobody seems to know what he's going to be talking about," Perry
said. "Why didn't he spend more time talking to the local districts
and superintendents, at least give them a heads-up about it?"

Several other Texas districts have decided not to show the speech,
although the district in Houston is leaving the decision up to
individual school principals. In suburban Houston, the
Cypress-Fairbanks district planned to show the address and has had its
social studies teachers assemble a curriculum and activities for
students.

In Wisconsin, the Green Bay school district decided not to show the
speech live and to let teachers decide individually whether to show it
later.

Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer said in a statement he was "absolutely
appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President
Obama's socialist ideology." Despite his rhetoric, two of the larger
Florida districts, Miami-Dade and Hillsborough, plan to have classes
watch the speech. Students whose parents object will not have to
watch.

The Minnesota Association of School Administrators is recommending
against disrupting the first day of school to show the speech, but
Minnesota's biggest teachers' union is urging schools to show it.

Quincy, Ill., schools decided Thursday not to show the speech.
Superintendent Lonny Lemon said phone calls "hit like a load of
bricks" on Wednesday.

One Idaho school superintendent, Murray Dalgleish of Council, urged
people not to rush to judgment.

"Is the president dictating to these kids? I don't think so,"
Dalgleish said. "He's trying to get out the same message we're trying
to get out, which is, `You are in charge of your education.'"

___

Libby Quaid reported from Washington. Associated Press writers April
Castro, Monica Rhor, Zinie Chen Sampson, Christine Armario, Jessie
Bonner, Scott Bauer, Tim Talley, Martiga Lohn, Tammy Webber and Alan
Zagier contributed to this report.


From rdumain at autodidactproject.org  Fri Sep  4 09:06:26 2009
From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain)
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:06:26 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama speech to students sparks new controversy
In-Reply-To: <5c2e4d230909040609h4b371703i26782d526d7d0611@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <5c2e4d230909040609h4b371703i26782d526d7d0611@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1MjaOu-0003cK-9E@elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Uh-oh, the crackers are restless . . .

At 09:09 AM 9/4/2009, c b wrote:
>Obama speech to students sparks new controversy
>
>By LIBBY QUAID and LINDA STEWART BALL, Associated Press Writers Libby
>Quaid And Linda Stewart Ball, Associated Press Writers 2 hrs 4 mins
>ago
>DALLAS ? When kids all across the country return to school Tuesday,
>some will see a welcoming message from President Barack Obama and some
>won't.............



From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep  4 14:11:03 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 16:11:03 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Where jazz meets hip hop
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909041311w4f9f66f5k3f13d5581c5cc689@mail.gmail.com>

Where jazz meets hip hop
Detroit-born Karriem Riggins grooves at the corner
By W. Kim Heron




http://metrotimes.com/music/story.asp?id=14332

SEE ALSO
More Jazz Stories
Jazz fest highlights (9/2/2009)
Some high notes among fest offerings

Life lesson (9/2/2009)
A tribute to Eric Dolphy ? years in the making

The last king of swing (9/2/2009)
Gerald Wilson paints his hometown in sound

More from W. Kim Heron
Jazz fest highlights (9/2/2009)
Some high notes among fest offerings

Life lesson (9/2/2009)
A tribute to Eric Dolphy ? years in the making

The last king of swing (9/2/2009)
Gerald Wilson paints his hometown in sound


By W. Kim Heron


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep  4 14:37:54 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 16:37:54 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Materialism is a form of idealism
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909041337u41f39103nd88c17f9a6173080@mail.gmail.com>

Materialism is a form of idealism
Chris Doss

I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is, but I meant
metaphysical materialism, not historical materialism, which is a whole
other kettle of piscines.

Metaphysical materialism is logically incoherent because "matter" is
an idea. Historical materialism, which is merely that human beliefs
and cultures are determined by technological development and so forth,
is not logically incoherent.

^^^^^^^^^^

CB,
"Metaphysical materialism is logically incoherent because "matter" is
an idea. "

That's not persuasive to me. You'll have to elaborate. Ideas are
material. They are electric impulses in the brain. I just saw a 60
minutes show wherein the latest brain physiology allows paralyzed
people to control artificial limbs with hitech stuff. In other words,
they have decoded the brain waves or ideas, like "left" or "right",
"up" ,"down" such that they can use them to do exactly what they mean
(!). No more mind/body problem in philo 101. Anyway, ideas are matter.
So, the idea "matter" _is_ matter. It can't be _reduced_ to matter,
it's matter and more. A la Aristotle, all ideas are matter , but not
all matter is ideas. Sort of like humans are animals and more. Anyway
turns out that some matter has a dimension that can be termed
"message". Does that help ?


I term my "point" on this issue as dialectical materialism, as you may
know. You may even be reading _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_ in
the original Russian some time. I admit I get my "point" from Engels
and Lenin on that.

Lenin defines "materialism" there as belief in the existence of
objective reality. This is "realism" in "bourgeois" philo, I think. He
and Engels develop their argument as a critique of Kantianism
especially. Kantianism is shamefaced materialism or dualism.

As to Historical materialism , I would define it somewhat differently
than you do:


that fundamental_changes__ or revolutions in human beliefs systems and
cultures are caused when serious contradictions arise between those
belief systems and their accompanying relations of production. The
latter include both social relations and means of production.
Necessity is the mother of invention. I agree this is logically
conherent..

These revolutions are rare, by the way. Most of the time the idea
systems are very determinative of people's conduct. Most of the time
of history, a form of idealism is true. This is the truth of Sahlins
puckish humor in the aritcle, I think. Ideas dictate the activities in
the economic system , conventionally. Tradition/culture/symbol systems
rules in convention. Necessity is the mother of invention.

How's that for thinking outside the box, tvarish ? Or better


a theory of how major paradoxes , cause whole new thought boxes



I disagree that materialism ( as defined by Lenin) or realism is
logically incoherent.

Maybe I'll critique Sahlins tomorrow





--- On Thu, 9/3/09, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:



> We never knew White was a member of the Socialist Labor
> Party in the
> ?30s and early ?40s, contributing articles to The
> Weekly People under
> the name John Steel. Nor could you have guessed from his
> so-Americanized version of Marxism: a theory of cultural
> evolution
> based singularly on technological progress. Progress in the
> Neolithic,
> he claimed, came from the increase in the amount of energy
> harnessed
> per capita because of plant and animal domestication. He
> was not
> amused when I objected that energy ?per capita? was the
> same as in the
> Old Stone Age, since the primary mechanical source remained
> the human
> body.


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep  4 15:13:53 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:13:53 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Materialism is a form of idealism
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909041413s33015a78r77b876f6bd1bc91e@mail.gmail.com>

Materialism is a form of idealism
Chris Doss
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is not evidence that ideas are not matter. Indeed, as always and
inherently, it is the opposite. Because evidence is an idea. :)
Really, people didn't only learn yesterday that the body determines
the mind! All idealists know that. Plato was perfectly aware that when
you drink alcohol or get a spear through your head, you think
differently. But that didn't bother them, because the body and alcohol
and spears are ideas. (Plato was actually an idealist in a different
sense than that that I discuss below, but bear with me.)

^^^^^
CB: Another way to say some of this is that human mind or ideas are an
emergent phenomenon of matter.

I'd say the Marxist-Leninist philosophical fundamental or definitional
statements are for metaphysics or ontology from Engels " There is
nothing but matter and its mode of existence is motion", and
epistemology from Lenin " Materialism is the belief in the existence
of objective reality. "

Marxist philosophy categorizes Plato as an objective idealist. Hegel
too. Lenin's book is a critique of subjective idealism, Berkeley,
Hume, and as Lenin argues, really, Kant, who is a " shamefaced
materialist" in Engels phrase. Another term for it is agnostic. Kant
is an agnostic i.e. doesn't know, thinks there are un_knowable_
things-in-themselves. (A lot of good belieiving there are
things-in-themseleves or objective reality, if we can't know it !).
There are deists and agnostics. Hegel's philosophy is actually written
as a form of Christianity and belief in God or deism. Plato is a bit
far back  and different to categorize as a modern deist, I suspect.
On the other hand, in  another writing, Lenin ( in Russian !) refers
to Hegel as arch-brilliant and borderline materialist ! Hegel's
Christianity seems suspiciously a cover to deal with reactionary
Prussian censors or something

Anyway, for Engels there is a significant identity of idealism and
deism, and materialism and atheism  So another definition of
materialism is atheism.

All these definitions do not imply that ideas or human mind have no
determinitive impact in human affairs , cultures, structures,
economies ( see article by Sahlins that initiated this thread). I'd
say, with the Bible that "In the beginning " of human society "was the
Word". Not the beginning of the universe or earth, but the beginning
of the human species was language, the Word, culture, tradition,
custom, symbols , systems of ideas, kin systems.

^^^^^

The brain is an object of experience. Electrical impulses in the brain
are an object of experience. Artificial limbs are objects of
experience. No one has ever seen a brain, an electrical impulse, or an
artificial limb that is not an object of experience, nor can they, and
there is no conceivable evidence that anything corresponds to them
outside of experience, because any evidence you gain will, again, be
an object of experience.

^^^^
CB: Agree. This is empiricism. Materialism is not synonymous with
empiricism, but it doesn''t contradict it. Empiricism equated with
materialism becomes positivist error. "Experiences" are had by
individuals. This is a necessary step in the scientific or materialist
epistemology, individual experience, but it is materialism only when
individual experience is combined with social experience in
particular, communications from others to the individual of their
experiences. This is the aspect of social labor that is communication
and combination of the experiences of maney.

^^^^^


"Experience" is something that happens to a consciousness, that is, an
idea. So, what you have done is correlate objects of experience, that
is, ideas, saying, this thing I experience correlates to that thing I
experience in such and such a way. To use an old example, you do not
refute Berkeley by kicking a rock and saying, "I refute Berkeley
thus!" Because you didn't kick a rock, you kicked an idea of a rock,
or rather, rocks were ideas all along.

^^^^
CB: Materialism concerns a relationship between consciousness and
objective reality, or that which you are referring to as experience.
Materialism holds that both consciousness and objective reality are
matter ( "There is nothing but matter...) and that there is matter
outside of the matter of consciousness ( belief in the existence of
objective reality).  There is matter outside the matter of
consciousness. Consciousness experiences something other than itself.
There is matter other  than the matter which is ideas.

^^^^

The entire pattern of correlation could be explained, if you wanted to
do so, in a purely solipsistic manner. There is no difference to the
dreamer between dream and reality. And Occam's razor says, to the
dreamer, "your dream is real," because that is indeed the simplest
explanation.

^^^^^
CB: I agree that dreams are the purest form of individual
consciousness or consciousness only experiencing itself, or the self
experiencing only itself, or solopsism.  Dreaming in naturally
occuring and necessary solopsism.

^^^^^

These arguments are all really, really old. Thousands of years old.

^^^^^
CB: What's old is new again. 2000 years of Western philosophy.

^^^^^

My opinion is that materialism and idealism are both wrong, being
metaphysical positions, and metaphysics, as this Kant guy showed, is
impossible. However, idealism is at least consistent, whereas
materialism is balls-up nonsense from the inside-out.
^^^^^^^
CB: You got it backwards. Materialism, dialectical materialism or the
materialism as I've defined it on this thread is consistent. Look over
the above arguments again and I'm sure you'll agree (smile)

^^^^^^^

Again, I am talking about metaphysical materialism here, not e.g.
historical materialism. The truth or falsity of historical materialism
does not hinge on the metaphysical nature of the universe, but on the
relation between events, er, objects of experience.

^^^^^
CB: I don't use "metaphysical". Hegel critiqued metaphysics. There's
also the term ontology.  But anyway,  there is nothing but matter
(materialist ontology or "metaphysics" )and its mode of existence is
motion ( dialectics, everything moves or changes, nothing stays the
same forever, there is no God or Rock of Ages or eternally constant;
dialectics defines atheism , too)

materialist dialectics  ( See _Ludwig Feuerbach_ by Engels)


From farmelantj at juno.com  Sat Sep  5 13:14:39 2009
From: farmelantj at juno.com (Jim Farmelant)
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 15:14:39 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Welcome to the library. Say goodbye to the books.
	(The Boston Globe)
Message-ID: <20090905.151440.4468.2.farmelantj@juno.com>




Welcome to the library. Say goodbye to the books.
Cushing Academy embraces a digital future
By David Abel, Globe Staff  |  September 4, 2009

ASHBURNHAM - There are rolling hills and ivy-covered brick buildings.
There are small classrooms, high-tech labs, and well-manicured fields.
There?s even a clock tower with a massive bell that rings for special
events.

Cushing Academy has all the hallmarks of a New England prep school, with
one exception.

This year, after having amassed a collection of more than 20,000 books,
officials at the pristine campus about 90 minutes west of Boston have
decided the 144-year-old school no longer needs a traditional library.

The academy?s administrators have decided to discard all their books and
have given away half of what stocked their sprawling stacks - the
classics, novels, poetry, biographies, tomes on every subject from the
humanities to the sciences. The future, they believe, is digital.
?When I look at books, I see an outdated technology, like scrolls before
books,?? said James Tracy, headmaster of Cushing and chief promoter of
the bookless campus. ?This isn?t ?Fahrenheit 451? [the 1953 Ray Bradbury
novel in which books are banned]. We?re not discouraging students from
reading. We see this as a natural way to shape emerging trends and
optimize technology.??

Instead of a library, the academy is spending nearly $500,000 to create a
?learning center,?? though that is only one of the names in contention
for the new space. In place of the stacks, they are spending $42,000 on
three large flat-screen TVs that will project data from the Internet and
$20,000 on special laptop-friendly study carrels. Where the reference
desk was, they are building a $50,000 coffee shop that will include a
$12,000 cappuccino machine.

And to replace those old pulpy devices that have transmitted information
since Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 1400s, they
have spent $10,000 to buy 18 electronic readers made by Amazon.com and
Sony. Administrators plan to distribute the readers, which they?re
stocking with digital material, to students looking to spend more time
with literature.

Those who don?t have access to the electronic readers will be expected to
do their research and peruse many assigned texts on their computers.
?Instead of a traditional library with 20,000 books, we?re building a
virtual library where students will have access to millions of books,??
said Tracy, whose office shelves remain lined with books. ?We see this as
a model for the 21st-century school.??

Not everyone on campus is sold on Tracy?s vision.

They worry about an environment where students can no longer browse rows
of voluptuous books, replete with glossy photographs, intricate maps, and
pages dog-eared by generations of students. They worry students will be
less likely to focus on long works when their devices are constantly
interrupting them with e-mail and instant messages. They also worry about
a world where sweat-stained literature is deemed as perishable as all the
glib posts on Facebook or Twitter.

Liz Vezina, a librarian at Cushing for 17 years, said she never imagined
working as the director of a library without any books.
?It makes me sad,?? said Vezina, who hosts a book club on campus dubbed
the Off-line Readers and has made a career of introducing students to
books. ?I?m going to miss them. I love books. I?ve grown up with them,
and there?s something lost when they?re virtual. There?s a sensual side
to them - the smell, the feel, the physicality of a book is something
really special.??

Alexander Coyle, chairman of the history department, is a self-described
?gadget freak?? who enjoys reading on Amazon?s Kindle, but he has always
seen libraries and their hallowed content as ?secular cathedrals.??
?I wouldn?t want to ever get rid of any of my books at home,?? he said.
?I like the feel of them too much. A lot us are wondering how this
changes the dignity of the library, and why we can?t move to increase
digital resources while keeping the books.??

Tracy and other administrators said the books took up too much space and
that there was nowhere else on campus to stock them. So they decided to
give their collection - aside from a few hundred children?s books and
valuable antiquarian works - to local schools and libraries.
?We see the gain as greater than the loss,?? said Gisele Zangari,
chairwoman of the math department, who like other teachers has plans for
all her students to do their class reading on electronic books by next
year. ?This is the start of a new era.??

Cushing is one of the first schools in the country to abandon its books.
?I?m not aware of any other library that has done this,?? said Keith
Michael Fiels, executive director of the American Library Association, a
Chicago-based organization that represents the nation?s libraries.
He said the move raises at least two concerns: Many of the books on
electronic readers and the Internet aren?t free and it may become more
difficult for students to happen on books with the serendipity made
possible by physical browsing. There?s also the question of the
durability of electronic readers.

?Unless every student has a Kindle and an unlimited budget, I don?t see
how that need is going to be met,?? Fiels said. ?Books are not a waste of
space, and they won?t be until a digital book can tolerate as much sand,
survive a coffee spill, and have unlimited power. When that happens,
there will be next to no difference between that and a book.??
William Powers, author of a forthcoming book based on a paper he
published at Harvard called ?Hamlet?s Blackberry: Why Paper is Eternal,??
called the changes at Cushing ?radical?? and ?a tremendous loss for
students.??

?There are modes of learning and thinking that at the moment are only
available from actual books,?? he said. ?There is a kind of deep-dive,
meditative reading that?s almost impossible to do on a screen. Without
books, students are more likely to do the grazing or quick reading that
screens enable, rather than be by themselves with the author?s ideas.??
Yet students at Cushing say they look forward to the new equipment, and
the brave new world they?re ushering in.

Tia Alliy, a 16-year-old junior, said she visits the library nearly every
day, but only once looked for a book in the stacks. She?s not alone.
School officials said when they checked library records one day last
spring only 48 books had been checked out, and 30 of those were
children?s books.

?When you hear the word ?library,? you think of books,?? Alliy said. ?But
very few students actually read them. And the more we use e-books, the
fewer books we have to carry around.??

Jemmel Billingslea, an 18-year-old senior, thought about the prospect of
a school without books. It didn?t bother him.
?It?s a little strange,?? he said. ?But this is the future.??
David Abel can be reached at dabel at globe.com.  


? Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
____________________________________________________________
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTFoYdIsfYxYZ92cG5LfNLM2tOirvLCrtMzcIXoOaORyWJrSTwCs0o/


From dogangoecmen at aol.com  Sat Sep  5 14:33:58 2009
From: dogangoecmen at aol.com (=?utf-8?Q?DG=C3=B6=C3=A7men?=)
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:33:58 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Welcome to the library. Say goodbye to the
 books. (The Boston Globe)
In-Reply-To: <20090905.151440.4468.2.farmelantj@juno.com>
References: <20090905.151440.4468.2.farmelantj@juno.com>
Message-ID: <8CBFC7F54C213CB-BDC-E1CD@webmail-m019.sysops.aol.com>


 



This year, after having amassed a collection of more than 20,000 books,
officials at the pristine campus about 90 minutes west of Boston have
decided the 144-year-old school no longer needs a traditional library.




 Jim,
is that a decision taken because of real conviciton that tradional libraries are no longer necessary or is it rather taken because of financial pressure?
I gues it is the second one.

D.G??men
http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/

 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com>
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org; marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Sat, Sep 5, 2009 10:14 pm
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Welcome to the library. Say goodbye to the books. (The Boston Globe)













Welcome to the library. Say goodbye to the books.
Cushing Academy embraces a digital future
By David Abel, Globe Staff  |  September 4, 2009

ASHBURNHAM - There are rolling hills and ivy-covered brick buildings.
There are small classrooms, high-tech labs, and well-manicured fields.
There?s even a clock tower with a massive bell that rings for special
events.

Cushing Academy has all the hallmarks of a New England prep school, with
one exception.

This year, after having amassed a collection of more than 20,000 books,
officials at the pristine campus about 90 minutes west of Boston have
decided the 144-year-old school no longer needs a traditional library.

The academy?s administrators have decided to discard all their books and
have given away half of what
 stocked their sprawling stacks - the
classics, novels, poetry, biographies, tomes on every subject from the
humanities to the sciences. The future, they believe, is digital.
?When I look at books, I see an outdated technology, like scrolls before
books,?? said James Tracy, headmaster of Cushing and chief promoter of
the bookless campus. ?This isn?t ?Fahrenheit 451? [the 1953 Ray Bradbury
novel in which books are banned]. We?re not discouraging students from
reading. We see this as a natural way to shape emerging trends and
optimize technology.??

Instead of a library, the academy is spending nearly $500,000 to create a
?learning center,?? though that is only one of the names in contention
for the new space. In place of the stacks, they are spending $42,000 on
three large flat-screen TVs that will project data from the Internet and
$20,000 on special laptop-friendly study carrels. Where the reference
desk was, they are building a $50,000 coffee shop that will include a
$12,000 cappuccino machine.

And to replace those old pulpy devices that have transmitted information
since Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 1400s, they
have spent $10,000 to buy 18 electronic readers made by Amazon.com and
Sony. Administrators plan to distribute the readers, which they?re
stocking with digital material, to students looking to spend more time
with literature.

Those who don?t have access to the electronic readers will be expected t
o
do their research and peruse many assigned texts on their computers.
?Instead of a traditional library with 20,000 books, we?re building a
virtual library where students will have access to millions of books,??
said Tracy, whose office shelves remain lined with books. ?We see this as
a model for the 21st-century school.??

Not everyone on campus is sold on Tracy?s vision.

They worry about an environment where students can no longer browse rows
of voluptuous books, replete with glossy photographs, intricate maps, and
pages dog-eared by generations of students. They worry students will be
less likely to focus on long works when their devices are constantly
interrupting them with e-mail and instant messages. They also worry about
a world where sweat-stained literature is deemed as perishable as all the
glib posts on Facebook or Twitter.

Liz Vezina, a librarian at Cushing for 17 years, said she never imagined
working as the director of a library without any books.
?It makes me sad,?? said Vezina, who hosts a book club on campus dubbed
the Off-line Readers and has made a career of introducing students to
books. ?I?m going to miss them. I love books. I?ve grown up with them,
and there?s something lost when they?re virtual. There?s a sensual side
to them - the smell, the feel, the physicality of a book is something
really special.??

Alexander Coyle, chairman of the history department, is a self-d
escribed
?gadget freak?? who enjoys reading on Amazon?s Kindle, but he has always
seen libraries and their hallowed content as ?secular cathedrals.??
?I wouldn?t want to ever get rid of any of my books at home,?? he said.
?I like the feel of them too much. A lot us are wondering how this
changes the dignity of the library, and why we can?t move to increase
digital resources while keeping the books.??

Tracy and other administrators said the books took up too much space and
that there was nowhere else on campus to stock them. So they decided to
give their collection - aside from a few hundred children?s books and
valuable antiquarian works - to local schools and libraries.
?We see the gain as greater than the loss,?? said Gisele Zangari,
chairwoman of the math department, who like other teachers has plans for
all her students to do their class reading on electronic books by next
year. ?This is the start of a new era.??

Cushing is one of the first schools in the country to abandon its books.
?I?m not aware of any other library that has done this,?? said Keith
Michael Fiels, executive director of the American Library Association, a
Chicago-based organization that represents the nation?s libraries.
He said the move raises at least two concerns: Many of the books on
electronic readers and the Internet aren?t free and it may become 
more
difficult for students to happen on books with the serendipity made
possible by physical browsing. There?s also the question of the
durability of electronic readers.

?Unless every student has a Kindle and an unlimited budget, I don?t see
how that need is going to be met,?? Fiels said. ?Books are not a waste of
space, and they won?t be until a digital book can tolerate as much sand,
survive a coffee spill, and have unlimited power. When that happens,
there will be next to no difference between that and a book.??
William Powers, author of a forthcoming book based on a paper he
published at Harvard called ?Hamlet?s Blackberry: Why Paper is Eternal,??
called the changes at Cushing ?radical?? and ?a tremendous loss for
students.??

?There are modes of learning and thinking that at the moment are only
available from actual books,?? he said. ?There is a kind of deep-dive,
meditative reading that?s almost impossible to do on a screen. Without
books, students are more likely to do the grazing or quick reading that
screens enable, rather than be by themselves with the author?s ideas.??
Yet students at Cushing say they look forward to the new equipment, and
the brave new world they?re ushering in.

Tia Alliy, a 16-year-old junior, said she visits the library nearly every
day, but only once looked for a book in the stacks. She?s not20alone.
School officials said when they checked library records one day last
spring only 48 books had been checked out, and 30 of those were
children?s books.

?When you hear the word ?library,? you think of books,?? Alliy said. ?But
very few students actually read them. And the more we use e-books, the
fewer books we have to carry around.??

Jemmel Billingslea, an 18-year-old senior, thought about the prospect of
a school without books. It didn?t bother him.
?It?s a little strange,?? he said. ?But this is the future.??
David Abel can be reached at dabel at globe.com.  


? Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
____________________________________________________________
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTFoYdIsfYxYZ92cG5LfNLM2tOirvLCrtMzcIXoOaORyWJrSTwCs0o/

_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis



 


From farmelantj at juno.com  Sat Sep  5 16:22:45 2009
From: farmelantj at juno.com (Jim Farmelant)
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 18:22:45 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Welcome to the library. Say goodbye to the
	books. (The Boston Globe)
Message-ID: <20090905.182245.4756.1.farmelantj@juno.com>

 
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:33:58 -0400 "=?utf-8?Q?DG=C3=B6=C3=A7men?="
<dogangoecmen at aol.com> writes:
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> This year, after having amassed a collection of more than 20,000 
> books,
> officials at the pristine campus about 90 minutes west of Boston 
> have
> decided the 144-year-old school no longer needs a traditional 
> library.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Jim,
> is that a decision taken because of real conviciton that tradional 
> libraries are no longer necessary or is it rather taken because of 
> financial pressure?
> I gues it is the second one.

I think so too.  The school in question is a private prep school
for the well-heeled, but this sort of thing can reverberate downwards
to effect financially strapped public school districts.  One can
easily imagine public school officials saying that they too will
dispense with books, saying that if a prep school like Cushing
Academy can do this, so can they.  The effect of such decisions
on children from working class and lower-middle class families
is likely to be far more negative than the impact that the
decision at Cushing Academy is likely to have on its own
students.


Jim Farmelant

> 
> D.G??men
> http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/
> 
>  
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
Click for a wide selection of quality scales. 
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTFnwkWtMJgHYee8ysMD5vjFBRTzOSJMnO6rIc24wpqTh2H50mmvcM/


From farmelantj at juno.com  Sat Sep  5 17:05:34 2009
From: farmelantj at juno.com (Jim Farmelant)
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 19:05:34 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Boston Globe on radical films
Message-ID: <20090905.190536.4756.5.farmelantj@juno.com>


http://tinyurl.com/mlasou

Rad, bad, & dangerous to know

Films rarely take up radical causes. Thre result can be a mix of Karl and
Groucho Marx.

By Ty Burr, Mark Feeney, and Wesley Morris, Globe Staff  |  September 6,
2009

The revolution is once more being screened. Opening Friday is Uli Edel?s
critically praised ?The Baader Meinhof Complex,?? which dramatizes
Germany?s violent Red Army faction of the late 1960s and ?70s.
Since the cinema is at once the most personal of art forms and a vast
commercial enterprise, films about the radical left are rare and varied,
from mawkish Hollywood tales to unstinting Maoist deconstructions.
American filmmakers have tended to mine the era for human drama, even
when dramatic engagement is beside the point. Europeans favor theory,
however abstruse and humorless.

The great radical movie - one that invites us in and connects the dots -
may have yet to be made, but it?s not for lack of trying. (Maybe the
rarely seen ?Milestones,?? from 1975, screening at the Harvard Film
Archive on Sept. 26, will be it.) Meanwhile, we rate some of the
contenders; four fists is as radical as we have seen.


LA CHINOISE and WEEKEND (1967) 
  4 Fists

With these two landmark works of agit-art, Jean-Luc Godard announced that
narrative was a bourgeois contrivance and the cinema a weapon of
revolution. ?Chinoise?? features actors playing students discussing
radical theory; it?s a great time capsule and more critical than you?d
think. The masterful ?Weekend?? simply envisions the end of the Western
world, snarled in an infinite traffic jam.


BANANAS (1971)
  1 Fist

?A revolution is not a dinner party,?? Mao Zedong famously wrote. He
didn?t say anything about a laff riot, though. In ?Bananas,?? Woody Allen
heads off to Latin America in romantic pursuit of Louise Lasser. Becoming
involved in a local guerrilla movement, he ends up revolutionary leader
of the country. Allen, with his beard and combat fatigues, could be Fidel
Castro - assuming Fidel joined the Friars Club. Who needs Annie Hall when
you?ve got Gus Hall?


DOG DAY AFTERNOON (1975) 
  1 Fist

Not a radical movie? That?s the point. When Al Pacino?s bank robber gets
the crowds on his side by shouting ?Attica! Attica!?? he?s proving both
how everything was political by the mid-1970s and how genuine radicalism
had become co-opted by radical chic. In its backhanded way, that one
scene marks the death of the ?60s.


NETWORK (1976)
     3 1/2 Fists

Oh, the Ecumenical Liberation Army. So committed to assassinating news
prophet Howard Beale (Peter Finch). So committed to negotiating a
lucrative deal for its prime-time television show: ?The Mao Tse-Tung
Hour??! These Black Power-ish radicals might be cutthroat negotiators,
but showbiz can cheapen any cause. As the group?s no-nonsense leader,
played by the great Laureen Hobbs, laments, ?The Communist Party?s not
going to see a nickel of this . . . until we go into syndication!?? Word.


REDS (1981)
    3 Fists

Easily the most problematic movie about radicals. On the one hand, there
is the sweeping real-life love story of journalist John Reed (Warren
Beatty) and his future wife, Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton), as the Russian
Revolution swirls around them. The film?s so big-budget tame that Beatty,
who also directed, screened it at the White House for an approving Ronald
Reagan. On the other hand, ?Reds?? has actual, honest-to-God (oh, all
right, honest-to-the-dialectic) radicals in it, like George Seldes and
Scott Nearing. It?s hard to get more radical than that.


PATTY HEARST (1988)
        4 Fists

Director Paul Schrader gives us America?s Most Famous Kidnapped Heiress
a.k.a Tania the urban guerrilla. The superb Natasha Richardson rides
Hearst?s trajectory from a pampered Berkeley 19-year-old to a bereted
bank-robbing member of the leftist Symbionese Liberation Army, the
radicals who kidnapped her. It?s part black comedy about race, class, and
privilege, part psychological thriller. Did she really have no idea what
she was doing? Schrader unequivocally did.

RUNNING ON EMPTY (1988) 
   2 Fists

Sidney Lumet?s drama, based on Naomi Foner?s Oscar-nominated screenplay,
neatly captures the late-?80s take on ?60s radicals: flawed boomers led
astray by their own ideals. Judd Hirsch and Christine Lahti are very good
as ex-campus guerrillas living underground in suburbia; River Phoenix, in
one of his best mainstream roles, plays their very confused son.


PANTHER (1995) 
   1 Fist

Hot off ?New Jack City?? and his mostly-black western, ?Posse,?? Mario
Van Peebles, working with dad Melvin, brought us an epic that managed to
make the Black Panther Party seem like a bunch of grad students on
poetry-slam night at the campus coffeehouse. It was righteous. But it was
also stagy, like watching a movement?s greatest moments turned into a
flashy movie of the week.


I SHOT ANDY WARHOL (1996)
     3 Fists

Mary Harron?s sneaky, cheeky portrait of Valerie Solanas (Lili Taylor),
the Factory hanger-on who, one evening in 1968, pumped a bullet into her
mentor-tormentor Andy Warhol. The movie evenhandedly views Solanas as
tough, funny, insightful, and bonkers - her anger toward men fueling both
homicidal rage and a guerrilla feminism that continues to echo today.


BAMBOOZLED (2000) 
    3 Fists

In Spike Lee?s indignant satire, the radicals in question - a nitwit
hip-hop outfit called the Mau Maus - kidnap the star of an appallingly
popular minstrel entertainment hour and threaten to execute him during a
live webcast. They owe a small debt to the Ecumenical Liberation Army of
?Network,?? but Lee?s rendition is sad as well as harshly funny: They
have no idea what they?re doing.


CECIL B. DEMENTED (2000) 
    3 Fists

More irreverent lark than full-blown masterpiece, this John Waters farce
gives us some deliciously bad rap and R&B numbers and a radical filmmaker
whose guerrilla outfit (the Sprocket Holes) kidnaps a Hollywood star
(Melanie Griffith) and, among other unprintable acts, forces her to star
in their new budgetless feature. Needless to say, she comes down with an
awesome case of Stockholm syndrome. You, meanwhile, might come down with
a Patty Hearst flashback. Hell, Hearst might, too. She?s in the film!


CHICAGO 10 (2007)
    3 1/2 Fists

Turning the transcripts of the landmark 1968 court case into an animated
documentary reenactment may be a tad theatrical - but Abbie Hoffman would
approve. Hank Azaria provides the voice of the Yippie prankster and Roy
Scheider plays Judge Julius Hoffman, cluelessly turning the 10 activist
defendants into counterculture martyrs. What happens to Bobby Seale
(Jeffrey Wright) is still shocking to behold.


CHE (2008) 
   4 Fists

Nobody saw Steven Soderbergh?s four-hour epic. It wasn?t a biography of
Che Guevara, per se, but a meticulously staged thesis about why
revolutions don?t always work. Part of the reason, Soderbergh argues, is
that Guevara thought of military strategies as being somewhat
interchangeable. He had a one-size-fits-all attitude about revolution.
And as his estate would discover in the decades since his death: That
works better with T-shirts. 

? Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
____________________________________________________________
Compete with the big boys.  Click here to find products to benefit your business.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTI97yAvyit4BOwb3F9E7nYC6ptvp3R2LVCo1Hdo4atiBzvwmllg8Q/

From marxistfront at yahoo.co.in  Sun Sep  6 12:34:23 2009
From: marxistfront at yahoo.co.in (marxistfront at yahoo.co.in)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 00:04:23 +0530
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] *ANTI-POSCO STRUGGLE* - *APPEAL FOR SUPPORT*
Message-ID: <mailman.29.1252262078.10217.marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu>


ANTI-POSCO STRUGGLE* - *APPEAL FOR SUPPORT*

*Friends,*

For more than four years the Posco Pratirodh Sangram Samity (PPSS) has been
bravely resisting attempts to displace over 30,000 people in Jagatsinghpur
District of Orissa by POSCO, a South Korean company, which wants to set up a
steel company and a port on their lands.

The US12 billion dollar project, being aggressively promoted by both Orissa
and Indian governments, threatens the livelihood of thousands of
agriculturists, workers, fisherfolks, rural artisans  and small businesses
in the area besides devastating the local environment and ecology.

In the course of their peaceful and democratic non-violent struggle to
prevent their lands from being forcibly acquired by POSCO, the members of
PPSS have been brutally attacked by paid goons of the company and subjected
to grueling economic blockades by the local administration. Several of their
leaders, including Shri Abhay Sahu, veteran CPI leader in the area, have
been put behind bars and false charges foisted on over 150 activists, both
men and women.

*Need For Doctors and Medicines: *

As a result of all this there is now a grave medical emergency developing in
the Erasama and Kujanga blocks of Jagatsinghpur district, the sites of the
proposed land acquisition for the POSCO Steel Plant. There are dozens of
activists who have fractured limbs due to violence by the company's hired
musclemen, some of which include injuries from bomb attacks. They need
orthopedic help and in some cases possibly even surgical intervention.

Some women in the area are in late stages of pregnancy but unable to leave
the area to get the medical care they need because of the fear of harassment
and even arrest by the local police. Many other women have developed a range
of gynecological problems that need urgent medical attention.

There is severe malnutrition among children owing to the lack of income over
the past few years as many local people have not been able to pursue their
normal livelihoods because of the turmoil in the area. The general
population of the affected villages also need help in combating malaria
which is endemic to the area. There are also patients suffering from
paralysis who need medical care. All these patients cannot go out and
receive treatment because of the threat of arrests. Therefore, we appeal to
you to help in mobilizing a support for a medical camp which can be
organized by the anti-POSCO movement. Please contact; Satya Shivaram
(0)9818514952, Prashant Kumar Paikray (0)9437571547 or K.P. Sasi
(0)9945282056.

*Protest on September 10: *

A huge gathering of the people affected by POSCO will take place on
September 10,, Balitutha, the entrance point of the proposed POSCO area.
Many leaders of different anti-displacement struggles will address the
gathering. The anti-POSCO movement appeals to all people's movements against
displacement, movements against SEZ, mass organization leaders and
like-minded activists to participate and express solidarity.

*Need for Contributions:*

There is an urgent need for contributions for the protest on September 10,
medical care, legal defense and other expenses of the movement. We appeal to
you to communicate to your friends and mobilize maximum support and inform
Shri Prashant Kumar Paikray, the spokesperson of the movement (0)9437571547
at the earliest.

*Send Letters of Protest:*

The PPSS  appeals to people all over India and around the world to show
solidarity with the struggle  by sending letters of protest to the Chief
Minister of Orissa, Shri Naveen Patnaik, Naveen Nivas, Aerodrome Road P.O.,
Bhubaneswar, Orissa, Pin-751001, Email : cmo at ori.nic.in, Fax - 0674 2400100
and the Prime Minister, Shri Manmohan Singh, Room No.148B, South Block, New
Delhi-110001, Fax-011 23016857, 23015603. If copies of protest letters are
sent to antiposcosolidarity at gmail.com it can help the process further.

*Prashant Paikray, POSCO Pratirodh Sangram Samithy (PPSS)*

*K.P.Sasi, Visual Search, **Bangalore*

*Satya Sivaraman: **New Delhi***

*Magline Peter, Theeradesa Mahilavedi, Kerala*

*Dhirendra Panda, Common Concern, Orissa*

*Jagdish, New Socialist Alternative, **Bangalore***

*Rajaji Mathew, MLA, Chairperson, Kerala Legislative Assemby on Enviironment
*

*Anivar, Moving Republic, **Bangalore***

*(For Anti Posco Struggle Solidarity)*

*antiposcosolidary at gmail.com*



From cb31450 at gmail.com  Mon Sep  7 15:33:02 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:33:02 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Tough times likely fuel bank heists
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909071433i6cc352f1s262c7cf4abcd3d57@mail.gmail.com>

Posted: Sept. 7, 2009
Tough times likely fuel bank heists
Robberies down this year, but suburbs hit with rash of them
BY CHRISTINA HALL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

It's been a bad couple of weeks for banks in metro Detroit, authorities say.

And the recent series of holdups, largely at suburban banks, showed no
signs of slowing last week with yet another robbery Thursday at a
Comerica Bank in Roseville.

Aug. 18 was a particularly bad day: three holdups at three banks --
Huntington Bank in Clinton Township and two Charter One Banks, one in
Roseville, the other in Taylor.

Ray Roland, 34, who is accused of holding up the Huntington Bank, also
faces charges in a spree that included a TCF Bank in Eastpointe on
Aug. 17 and a National City Bank in Shelby Township on Aug. 19.

The most shocking robbery came Aug. 10, in which authorities say Ihab
Maslamani held a gun that may have been used in a murder to a
customer's head during a holdup at the Flagstar Bank in Harrison
Township.

It could be family situations, but I think in this area, a lot could
be the economy," FBI Special Agent Sandra Berchtold said of what might
motivate robbers.

Authorities say the good news is that the number of bank, credit union
and savings and loan association robberies logged by the FBI during
the first six months of this year is down compared with the same
period last year. Nationally, there have been 2,776 robberies reported
through the end of June compared with 3,010 for the same period last
year. In Michigan, there have been 79 robberies in the first half of
this year compared with 130 during the first six months of 2008.
The number of bank robberies logged by the FBI in Wayne, Oakland and
Macomb counties also has been trending down. Authorities say the drop
could be in part because of the arrest of serial robbing suspects like
Alvin Murray, 52, who was known as the Heavy D Bandit and suspected of
robbing or trying to rob almost a dozen metro Detroit banks in a
two-month span last year.
"I think some of those sprees definitely did some damage," Berchtold said.
Yet authorities say they most fear a heist like the one in which
Maslamani is accused of holding a gun to a customer's head during a
bank robbery that occurred a day after police said he carjacked and
killed Matt Landry of Chesterfield Township.
A hostage situation during a bank holdup "would be the ultimate terror
that we would very much like to avoid if at all possible," said Jason
Korstange, director of corporate communications for TCF Bank. "It's
just a bad deal all over."



Contact CHRISTINA HALL: 586-826-7265 or chall at freepress.com


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Mon Sep  7 15:36:43 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:36:43 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] While recovery waits, extend jobless benefits
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909071436n35635302ica698710e893690d@mail.gmail.com>

Posted: Sept. 7, 2009
EDITORIAL Detroit Free Press
While recovery waits, extend jobless benefits


It's hard to really celebrate Labor Day when 15% of your labor force
is out of work, looking and growing increasingly anxious. That is the
situation in which Michigan finds itself on this holiday, not only
persistently leading the states in unemployment but also with
thousands of residents at or near the exhaustion of their jobless
benefits.

With national unemployment at 9.7% and real estate still in the
doldrums, it's not like all these Michigan folks can just sell their
stakes here and head for greener pastures. More likely many will be
forced to turn to public assistance unless Congress acts this month to
again extend their jobless benefits, the preferred alternative, at
least for states where unemployment is 9% or higher.

If nothing is done, up to 100,000 unemployed people in Michigan will
be drawing their last benefit checks before this year is done.
Nationally, the number could hit 1.5 million.

"Michigan remains ground zero for the nation's economic recession, and
that makes help for unemployed workers a critical need," Gov. Jennifer
Granholm said last month. "While we may see some glimmers of hope for
the economy, we know that our unemployed workers will continue to need
unemployment benefits for themselves and their families until the
economy fully recovers."

Critics say that extending jobless pay just removes incentives to find
work. That assumes there is work to be found, which for many people in
Michigan today is just not the case. There are pockets of unemployment
in excess of 25%.

According to the governor's office, Michigan provides up to 79 weeks
of unemployment insurance benefits -- 26 weeks of state benefits, 33
weeks of federally funded Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC),
and 20 weeks of federally funded extended benefits. Those receiving
benefits also draw $25 a week in federal additional compensation
(FAC). The EUC and FAC programs expire in December; pending
legislation would extend them through 2010.

Several members of the White House economic team said last month that
President Barack Obama was ready to "do what's necessary" to extend
benefits.

"I think that is something that the administration and Congress are
going to look very carefully at as we get closer to the end of this
year," Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on ABC's "This Week."

A lot of families in Michigan and elsewhere will be looking carefully,
too -- for jobs and a little extra help


From farmelantj at juno.com  Tue Sep  8 11:08:27 2009
From: farmelantj at juno.com (farmelantj at juno.com)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 17:08:27 GMT
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Rosa Lichtenstein vs. Andrew Kliman on dialectics
Message-ID: <20090908.130827.27880.0@webmail16.vgs.untd.com>



http://marxisthumanistinitiative.org/2009/05/05/brief-comments-on-the-relationship-between-marxism-and-the-hegelian-dialectic/

____________________________________________________________
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTFoYd8dOsnewwT0QfdeIISpTkQxJtOUEwXTKGTcquKkdXmegqfK4g/


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Tue Sep  8 14:20:16 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 16:20:16 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Thirty Death Threats per day
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909081320l73707e80x2e6280aa0e641200@mail.gmail.com>

The right-wing hate speech polluting the debate over health care is
generating more and more threats against President Obama, some truly
frightening.

CNN anchor Rick Sanchez reports that when President Obama visited
Phoenix, Ariz. on August 17, local minister Steven Anderson of the
Faithful World Baptist Church, who strongly expresses hatred for Obama
in many of his sermons, told his congregation that he wished him dead.
In a disturbing twist, it was discovered that Chris Broughton, the man
who brought an AR 15 assault rifle to the Phoenix rally where Obama
spoke, had attended Anderson's sermon. In a later interview, Broughton
said he concurred with his pastor's wish to see Obama "die and go to
hell." As many as twelve men were seen walking around the Phoenix
Convention Center with guns on that day.

President Obama faces 30 death threats a day, a 400 percent increase
from former President Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, a veteran
investigative journalist and conservative who recently authored a book
about the Secret Service.

Kessler notes that funding cutbacks have already left the first
African-American president in U.S. history particularly vulnerable.
The book, which alleges that the cash-strapped Secret Service is
endangering the president by cutting corners, has sent shockwaves
through Washington. "There's no question his life is in danger."
"Tomorrow, Obama could be assassinated ... simply because the Secret
Service was not doing what it used to do, " said Kessler.

"We have half the number of agents we need, but requests for more
agents have fallen on deaf ears at headquarters," a Secret Service
agent told Kessler.

"There's a tremendous feeling within the Secret Service that they are
risking an assassination," Kessler told Canadian TV.
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/protect_obama/?rc=alternet1

As CNN's Rick Sanchez said on the air, "This looks serious. This
almost looks like this is coming to the point where we are even beyond
maybe where this nation was on November 22 of 1963, when JFK was
assassinated, when there was also an environment of hate in this
country."

As racist attacks increase and protestors continue to bring guns to
presidential events, it is strikingly clear that President Obama is
vulnerable to harm. Are the Secret Service and FBI doing enough to
protect him? Will they confront and investigate those who threaten our
president so that they can be prosecuted and jailed?

We cannot allow funding problems to weaken the organizations charged
with protecting the life of our nation's president. In 2003, the
Secret Service and FBI became part of the Department of Homeland
Security and now must compete with 20 other agencies for oversight
from their chief, Janet Napolitano. She must use her authority to
ensure that the Secret Service and FBI put more agents on the ground
to protect President Obama and confront and investigate those who
threaten him. It is time for Americans of every stripe to insist that
the Secret Service and FBI operate at the highest levels of
effectiveness.

Sign your name to this petition so that Janet Napolitano, Secretary of
Homeland Security hears the message loud and clear. And please pass
this message on to your friends and colleagues. It is a difficult time
in America, and we have to stand up and make sure our president is
safe.

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/protect_obama/?rc=alternet1


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Tue Sep  8 15:37:40 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 17:37:40 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Rosa L
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909081437w71585f72l6077290318dc73b2@mail.gmail.com>

Here part of my old exchange with Rosa. The same issue of the
contradiction in "John is a man" came up in Kliman's exchange with her


Rosa gets CB
Charles Brown charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us
Thu Aug 23 09:48:11 MDT 2007


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I may be lliterate, but at least she admits I'm logical.

CB

^^^^^^^



Logical Illiterates Strike Again

A year or so ago I had the great misfortune to correspond with an
irascible fellow who could not resist making ill-informed comments
about my Essays, all the while refusing to read them.

I refused to continue to correspond with him on that basis, and, it
seems, he has been sulking ever since. Last year I had occasion to
slap some materialist sense into him (here), but I fear that this
incorrigible Idealist is beyond even my help. Despite several attempts
to inoculate him from his own folly, Mr B has once again demonstrated
that he is immune to the influence of modern logic, preferring his own
brand of sub-Hegelian make-believe. Commenting on an argument of mine,
he had this to say:

"CB: The sentence 'John is a man' means John is both the same and
different from Joe, Jack, Rosa, Charles...  It is precisely the 'is'
of predication that is a unity and struggle of opposites. The 'is' of
identity  'He is John.' -- that is not a tautology.

CB: This should be 'that is a tautology'." [Quotation marks changed to
conform to the conventions adopted here.]

This odd piece of reasoning was exposed for what it is here, and here.

Despite this, Mr B hopes to neutralise my arguments by referring
merely to his own not inconsiderable authority in this field -- that
is, the field usually occupied by Popes and assorted dictators whose
word is law. And in matters logical, that should be enough for us. It
certainly is for Mr B.

He now deigns to comment on the musings of my colleague Babeuf; here
is an example of truly innovative historical materialism:

"CB: Another fundamental activity was the raising of children. I'm
thinking language/culture emerged between parents and children."

It is reasonably clear that Mr B has shot from the hip again -- or
rather shot from the holster and into his foot --, for if the above
were the case, not only would parents and children confront each other
like Pentecostal ecstatics, mouthing incomprehensible noises at one
another, no two families would share the same idiolect. Communication
between families would thus be impossible. In that case, 'culture', as
Mr B sees it, would soon begin to resemble that cacophony which
constantly sounds in his head.

Now, in Essay Twelve Part One, I asserted that most Marxists give
lip-service to the idea that language is a social phenomenon, but fail
to think through the implications of that fact, and talk and write as
if language were a private affair. Mr B has shown once again that when
it comes to getting things wrong, he is keen to elbow his way to the
front of the queue. How language can be social, but remain a family
affair is perhaps another one of the 'contradictions' that still
compromises his thought processes:

"Before I had even heard of dialectics -- living in the a mental (sic)
world of strict formal logic -- I started to 'run into' lots of
contradictions and paradoxes. My own road to dialectics was a
posteriori, not a priori."

Mr B here confuses matters biographical with matters logical; unless
--, of course, he thinks paradoxes are a posteriori. But, even if he
were right, this otherwise commendable public confession of his own
confused thought should not be read as mere humility. On the contrary,
the road to Hermetic-enlightenment -- a path which all true
dialecticians have to pass along in order to qualify as adepts (and
the reasons for this are exposed here)  -- elevates them way above the
rest of us mortals. This means that if ever they regain power
somewhere they can screw-up once more in a truly almighty and
awe-inspiring manner. After all, they have a suitably screwy theory to
help them on their way.

But what is this? It is none other than our old friend Mr D, who
volunteers a riposte so devastating I hesitate to post it here for
fear it might affect the reader's sanity:

"This is just stupid, even more stupid than the Trotskyist recitations
of dialectics."

Mr D, someone who is not known for his ability to string a clear
argument together -- but a well-respected expert at drawing attention
to that fact --, probably does not know that the material about which
he is commenting has to be compressed into a three minute slot, and
has to be kept to a level that makes it comprehensible to mere
workers. And here he can be forgiven, for over the years, at his site,
he has developed an enviable skill at repelling such lowly types, and
to the extent that he has probably forgotten their limitations. One of
which is that they find the mystical ideas he spouts incomprehensible.
It's a good job then that we have substitutionists of his calibre to
do their thinking for them.

Now, we have already seen that Mr D takes exception to anyone who
cannot compress a PhD thesis into a sentence or two --, a skill he
taunts the rest of us with, since, as the sentence above reveals, he
can squeeze several into a single line. He is, I am sure, working on
doing the same with a single word.

We wait with baited hooks...

Mr B then posted a few sections from a summary Essay of mine, but the
eagle-eyed Mr D swooped in for the kill, with yet more lethal prose:

"This is all pretty juvenile leftism."

Well, Mr D should know.

But, it is rather unfair of him to pull rank, and complain that my
words are juvenile when he still has his dialectical diapers on. And
as if to prove it, he throws another toy out of his pram:

"The entire history of philosophy to Rosa is a scheme, a ruse, duplicity."

He might like to quote where I say this, or even imply it.

But, accuracy is not Mr D's concern; we have seen that several times already.

[Less charitable readers might be forgiven a snigger or ten here when
they notice that Mr D thinks that the history of Philosophy can be a
"a ruse, duplicity". Philosophy itself might be so described (but not
by me), but how the history of that bogus discipline can be depicted
thus is a question that perhaps Mr D's psychiatrist is alone qualified
to answer.]

Back to Mr B, for he is intent on providing yet more amusement. In
response to that summary of my criticisms of Lenin's crass remarks, he
bravely leapt to his defence (but the reader will soon see that Lenin
would be better defended by his sworn enemies, if this is the best Mr
B can do):

"Anyway, the first thing I noticed is that this is from 'Philosophical
Notebooks'. That means personal musings, talking out loud to oneself,
unpublished personal thoughts. That doesn't mean they can't be
criticized, but it also means we can't be sure what status Lenin gave
them, but there's a good chance that he didn't publish them because he
may have had criticisms of them himself.  It's kind of cheating to
attribute to them such a fundamental status in Lenin's arguments for
his positions."

So, with Mr B as his defence attorney, Lenin would be well advised to
plead guilty and throw himself on the mercy of the court.

Mr B should know (but I hesitate to praise him too much here) that
Lenin's words are treated as gospel by practicing Marxists, and it is
these I am addressing in my Essays, not armchair HCDs like him.

However, if Mr B is right, and we can disregard Lenin's amateurish
musings, all well and good, In that case, perhaps we should throw
Hegel's Hermetic hodge-podge onto Hume's bonfire too? Since the
latter's work reads like an extended April Fool's joke, who will miss
it?

But, how does Mr B handle the summary of my argument? Well, it is
worth pointing out that the comment below was written after he had
pointed out that Lenin was summarising his own ideas, and should not
be treated unfairly because of that. No problem, Rosa's summary can be
treated with disdain; after all consistency is not to be expected of
someone who thinks reality is riddled with contradictions.

"Also, the 'John is a man' discussion is not given in the discussion
itself and inferentially by it being a personal diary, the logical
status that Rosa gives it, i.e. that Lenin claimed to derive eternal
truths and universal principles out of it. On the contrary, he seems
to be discussing it as an example, not some kind of fundamental proof
of the universality of dialectics. That's really cheating by Rosa. She
portrays this example by Lenin as if he uses it in the opposite of the
way he actually does. Can't remember whether I raised this with Rosa
when she was here. I do remember she got pretty angry pretty quickly ,
started hurling insults pretty quickly when challenged. I realize she
gets challenged a lot, so for her it was just the same old
lunkheadism, but I mean, I really can't see where Lenin employed the
'John is a man' thing as fundamentally, can't see where he attempted
to derive as much from it as she claims. She should start with an
example from something published. When she uses an intellectual diary
note, it could very well be that Lenin didn't publish it because he
thought of some of the same criticisms of it that she did."

Can anyone figure out what this muddle-head is trying to say here? Is
there a an actual counter-argument in there -- anywhere?

Now, Mr B should know that Lenin is here summarising an argument Hegel
inflicted on humanity (one that had first appeared in Aristotle, but
which assumed classical form in Aquinas and Buridan (references can be
found in Essay Three Part One)), where he does try to derive
everything from the nature of 'judgements' -- sentences of a certain
sort -- where the "is" of predication is re-configured as an "is" of
identity. Hegel uses "The rose is red" to show that the universe is
fundamentally contradictory. Is it unfair of me to point this out?
Perhaps it was even more unfair of Hegel to advert to his own logical
incompetence in this way?

[That argument, if such it may be called, is dissected here, and here.]

In passing, Mr B notes I get angry very quickly. Here is how I
explained why this is so (on the opening page of this site):

How Not To Argue 101

This page contains links to forums on the web where I have 'debated'
this creed with other comrades.

For anyone interested, check out the desperate 'debating' tactics used
by Dialectical Mystics in their attempt to respond to my ideas.

You will no doubt note that the vast majority all say the same sorts
of things... They all like to make things up, too, about me and my
beliefs.

25 years (!!) of this stuff from Dialectical Mystics has meant I now
take an aggressive stance with them every time -- I soon learnt back
in the 1980's that being pleasant with them (my initial tactic) did
not alter their abusive tone, their propensity to fabricate....

So, these days, I generally go for the jugular from the get-go.

Except, of course, I do not get angry, I just go on the offensive.

Mr B's earlier correspondence with me showed that he too was quite
happy to make stuff up about my ideas (without bothering to check).
But still he wonders why I become aggressive. In response, I'd post
this quite rare picture of him, but even I am not that cruel:



Based on a summary of my argument -- which even at 71,000 words
represents less than 10% of the material I have so far published -- he
thinks he has understood my work. Had he bothered to check (and you
can stop that sniggering at the back; I am sure one day he will) he
would have seen that I quote from published work, scores of times,
right across the DM-spectrum. Indeed, I manage to show that every
single dialectician indulges in the same sort of a priori dogmatics --
in private notebooks and published work -- as Lenin, Engels and Hegel.
In fact, that is the only way they can make this loopy 'theory' seem
to work.

But, how does this super-scientist answer that allegation?

"Hegel, Marx, Engels, Lenin give lots of other examples as the basis
for their generalization rendering their claims a posteriori, not a
priori."

However, we can leave Marx out, for he is almost totally silent on
this 'theory'. As for the rest, here is what I say in Essay Seven:

To be sure, there are a handful of scientists who accept this and the
other two 'Laws' as laws -- particularly those who hail from previous
generations of the Communist Party (e.g., Bernal, Haldane and Levy,
etc.), but it is quite clear that these comrades would have treated
with contempt a PhD thesis that relied on evidence as weak as that
found in this area of dialectics. Indeed, their acceptance of the
adequacy of the 'data' in support of DM is somewhat analogous to a
similar acceptance by scientists (who are also Creationists) of
'evidence' in favour of, say, the scientific accuracy of the Book of
Genesis.

In general, however, the examples usually given by dialecticians (like
Hegel, Lenin and Engels) to illustrate their 'Laws' are almost without
exception either anecdotal or impressionistic. If someone were to
submit a paper to a science journal purporting to establish the
veracity of a new law with the same level of vagueness, imprecision,
triteness, lack of detail and overall theoretical naivety, it would be
rejected at the first stage. Indeed, dialecticians would themselves
treat with derision any attempt to establish, say, either the truth of
classical economic theory or the falsity of Marx's own work with an
evidential display that was as crassly amateurish as this --, to say
nothing of the derision they would show for such theoretical
wooliness. In such circumstances, those who might be quick to cry
"pedantry" at the issues raised in this Essay would become devoted
pedants, and nit pick with the best.

Now, anyone who has studied or practiced real science will know this
to be true. It is only in books on DM (and internet discussion boards)
that Mickey Mouse material of this sort seems acceptable.

And this is what I say in the Basic Introductory Essay:

Anyone who has studied and practiced genuine science will know the
lengths to which researchers have to go to alter even minor aspects of
current theory, let alone justify major changes in the way we view
nature.

In stark contrast, and without exception, dialecticians offer a few
paragraphs of trite (and over-used) clich?s to support their claims.
Hence, all we find are hackneyed references to things like boiling
water, balding heads, plants 'negating' seeds, Mamelukes fighting the
French, a character from Moli?re suddenly discovering that he speaks
prose, and the like, all constantly retailed. From such banalities,
dialecticians suddenly derive universal laws, applicable everywhere
and at all times.

Even at its best (for example, in Woods and Grant (1995), which is one
of the most comprehensive defences of classical, hard-core DM to date,
and Gollobin (1986), which is if anything even more comprehensive), we
encounter perhaps a few dozen pages of secondary and tertiary
information, extensively padded out with repetition and bluster (much
of which is taken apart here). Contrary evidence (of which there is
much) is simply ignored. This is indeed Mickey Mouse Science.

As Essays Two and Seven show, the universal and eternally-true theses
dialecticians regularly lift from Hegel go way beyond even the meagre
evidence Engels, Lenin and Hegel offered in support.

Mr B's parting shot:

"With this initial seriously cheating move by Rosa, I have trouble
getting up the energy to look at her further arguments."

Well, what a loss to humanity!

Please, someone e-mail him and tell him to "get" it up.

Otherwise I will have no one to poke fun at.

Word Count: 2710

Return to the Main Index



 ? Rosa Lichtenstein 2007

Hits since August 14 2007:


From rdumain at autodidactproject.org  Tue Sep  8 16:05:33 2009
From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain)
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:05:33 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Rosa Lichtenstein vs. Andrew Kliman on
 dialectics
In-Reply-To: <20090908.130827.27880.0@webmail16.vgs.untd.com>
References: <20090908.130827.27880.0@webmail16.vgs.untd.com>
Message-ID: <E1Ml8qf-00034d-SE@elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

I can't make a lick of sense out of Andrew Kliman's side of the 
debate with Rosa.

But note that none of it has any relationship to dialectical 
materialism or the Marxist-Leninist notion of dialectical logic, 
which is really all that pedestrian Rosa has to argue against. And in 
that arena Rosa and Charles deserve one another.

Rosa = sectarian Trotskyism plus Wittgenstein: a formula for 
mediocrity is ever there was one.

At 01:08 PM 9/8/2009, farmelantj at juno.com wrote:


>http://marxisthumanistinitiative.org/2009/05/05/brief-comments-on-the-relationship-between-marxism-and-the-hegelian-dialectic/



From cb31450 at gmail.com  Wed Sep  9 10:45:34 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:45:34 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Rosa Lichtenstein vs. Andrew Kliman on
	dialectics
In-Reply-To: <E1Ml8qf-00034d-SE@elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
References: <20090908.130827.27880.0@webmail16.vgs.untd.com>
	<E1Ml8qf-00034d-SE@elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909090945sff1c85bgcfbb1c2ac3c22b8b@mail.gmail.com>

Spoken like a true "know" it all saying nothing. Ralph deserves
himself, and that's about all he'll get.

On 9/8/09, Ralph Dumain <rdumain at autodidactproject.org> wrote:
> I can't make a lick of sense out of Andrew Kliman's side of the
> debate with Rosa.
>
> But note that none of it has any relationship to dialectical
> materialism or the Marxist-Leninist notion of dialectical logic,
> which is really all that pedestrian Rosa has to argue against. And in
> that arena Rosa and Charles deserve one another.
>
> Rosa = sectarian Trotskyism plus Wittgenstein: a formula for
> mediocrity is ever there was one.
>
> At 01:08 PM 9/8/2009, farmelantj at juno.com wrote:
>
>
> >http://marxisthumanistinitiative.org/2009/05/05/brief-comments-on-the-relationship-between-marxism-and-the-hegelian-dialectic/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
>


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Wed Sep  9 13:50:21 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 15:50:21 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Unicolonial Ants Pose Challenge to "Selfish Gene"
	Theory
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909091250q53dd7a14lf95032a87c6fa5b3@mail.gmail.com>

Unicolonial Ants Pose Challenge to "Selfish Gene"
       Theory

It has been a mainstay of evolutionary theory since the 1970s. Natural
selection acts purely on the level of the individual and any
cooperation observed between organisms merely hides a selfish genetic
motive. There have been two pioneering theories to explain cooperation
in the natural world given this framework: the first was William
Hamilton's (1964) theory of kin selection and the second was Robert
Trivers' (1971) theory of reciprocal altruism.

However, both of these scenarios break down where it comes to
unicolonial ants. In a paper in the journal Trends in Ecology and
Evolution (subscription required) Heikki Helantera, of the University
of Sussex, and colleagues at Rice University have investigated how
previous theories to explain cooperation don't apply for these unique
supercolonies.

Unicolonial ants carry polydomy [multiple nests in a supercolony that
all individuals rotate through] and polygyny [multiple queens in one
nest] to extremes. Colonies are huge, each being a network of hundreds
or thousands of nests, each with multiple queens. There is no worker
aggression, and there is free movement among nests on a vast scale.
The energy that might have been put into fighting and territoriality
flows into the common good, more ants.

Such a concept, a form of genuine anarchism in the animal world, was
thought to be impossible given existing theory. These ants live in
colonies where relatives exist but, with so much migration throughout
a network stretching thousands of kilometers, each ant worker is
mostly surrounded by total strangers that share none of their genes.
Only one other species has ever been known to organize themselves in
such a fashion (and if you're reading these words right now you know
who you are).



http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/2009/09/unicolonial_ants_pose_challeng.php?utm_source=nytwidget


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Wed Sep  9 14:34:53 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 16:34:53 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Panic of 2008
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909091334g9d9222btc156f301c7736c50@mail.gmail.com>

Lehman's collapse almost brought down the money-market industry By Sam
Mamudi, MarketWatch September 9 2009
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- As the threat of a Lehman Brothers
bankruptcy grew last September, many money-market fund managers were
wary but not worried.

Their industry had quietly grown over the past generation to become a
major rival to the banking system, with $3.5 trillion in assets. It
had weathered crises such as the collapse of Baring Plc, the Asian
currency mess of the late 1990s and the fall of hedge fund giant
Long-Term Capital Management. Though some managers were talking to
their boards and their staff, there wasn't a feeling of impending
disaster.

But all that changed in the late afternoon of Sept. 16, the day after
Lehman actually went down. Reserve Primary Fund -- the oldest and
fifth-largest fund in the business -- said it had about $785 million
in Lehman debt that was now worthless and as a result it would price
its shares at 97 cents.

The impact of the first major retail money-market fund to fall below
$1 a share -- to actually lose money for its investors -- was immense.
In the two days after Reserve Primary's announcement, roughly 22% of
all assets in institutional prime money-market funds -- those that
invest in corporate debt -- were pulled out by panicked investors.

As Lehman's fall spread fear throughout the financial system,
money-market fund managers were squeezed on both sides: investors
demanding their money and frozen credit markets where no one was
buying.

"Countless other money-market funds were poised to break the buck,"
said Peter Crane, president of Crane Data. "The mini-run would have
spread to all funds."

It was a pull-out unprecedented in scale. In the space of just two
days -- Sept. 17 and Sept. 18 -- $210 billion was redeemed from
institutional prime money-market funds. Overall the money-market fund
industry saw roughly 7% of its total assets redeemed in those two
days. While some of that was invested back into government money
funds, the industry lost almost 4% of its assets in 48 hours,
according to data from iMoneyNet.

Even managers at funds with portfolios considered safe from the crisis
were struggling with the market -- because there were no buyers,
pricing the assets in some cases could have meant breaking the buck.
In such cases, managers talked to their boards to explain when they
didn't do daily pricing for their funds.

"It was a shock in that the people who keep the machine going -- the
broker-dealers -- suddenly weren't there to keep things going," said
Mira Stevovich, manager of Ivy Money Market Fund and Waddell & Reed
Advisors Cash Management. "You weren't sure when re-investing that
there'd be anyone behind the securities to make a market if you had to
sell."

"There was a lot of fear, and no one knew what was going to happen,"
added Stevovich.

Even without federal bank insurance, money funds had ballooned in the
past several years as alternatives to holding cash. They often offered
better interest rates than bank deposits, which were insured by the
federal government up to $100,000 at the time (now $250,000). The
sudden prospect of investors losing their savings following the Lehman
collapse caused the run, but because it was mostly in electronic
transactions, it didn't summon visions of anxious crowds banging on
bank doors during the Great Depression. For many, however, the fear
was just as palpable.

"There was a concern that if something wasn't in place to regain
investor confidence, after four or five days [the high redemption
rate] would cause problems," said Debbie Cunningham, head of
money-market funds at Federated Investors Inc. . "Selling into the
market [to meet redemptions] was already a problem -- there was no
liquidity."

The panic was averted only after the Treasury Department on Sept. 19
stepped in and announced it would backstop money-fund assets, in a
series of measures that slowly restored investor confidence. But
industry officials are under no illusions about what might have
happened.

A year of trouble

In reacting to that week's panic, the industry was both helped and
hindered by its experiences over the previous 12 months. Troubles in
the asset-backed securities market and exposure to special investment
vehicles had hit money-market funds from late 2007 and into 2008.

A MarketWatch study conducted at the time found that more than a dozen
funds had looked to parent companies or other sources of credit to
ensure they didn't break the buck. At least 20 had sought regulatory
approval for support if needed.

But the fact that the funds had come through such a choppy period
unscathed meant that even though some funds were known to hold Lehman
paper, few expected a fund to go under.

"We'd gone through a series of problems leading up to Lehman," said
David Glocke, who oversees Vanguard Group's taxable money-market funds
and also manages its Treasury and Admiral Treasury funds. The funds
didn't hold any Lehman paper.

"Watching from the outside, we were completely shocked," when Reserve
Primary broke the buck, he added.

The shock was probably biggest among investors. At roughly $3.5
trillion, the money-market fund industry had grown by $1.5 trillion in
the previous two years and much of that money, said Crane, likely came
from investors fleeing other troubled assets, such as SIVs and
auction-rate securities. At the first sign of trouble in money-market
funds, these investors were likely to bolt once again.

"It wasn't Lehman that killed Reserve Primary Fund, it was the run,"
said Crane.

And fleeing investors caused the effective collapse of another fund,
Putnam Prime Money Market Fund. Putnam closed the fund on Sept. 17
after it came under heavy redemption pressure -- investors cashing out
created a liquidity squeeze that could only have been met by selling
assets below par and thus breaking the buck. Putnam later sold the
fund's assets to Federated, where it was merged into Federated Prime
Obligations Fund .

The Reserve had previously valued its Lehman paper at par, but then
suddenly announced it was valuing the assets at zero, causing the
panic.

While many investors are still waiting to get their cash out of
Reserve Primary, the firm said in late August that it values the
Lehman debt at about 17 cents on the dollar and "shareholders could
possibly receive up to 99 cents per share."

Reserve Primary's basic problem was, of course, that it held Lehman
paper on Sept. 15. All the managers who spoke to MarketWatch said they
had no Lehman exposure and many said they had during the previous
year's troubles been heading more and more into shorter-duration debt
as well as Treasurys and agency debt.

When the Lehman crisis hit, many managers said they doubled their
holdings of debt with seven days or less to maturity, for instance, up
from 15% of a portfolio to 30%.

"One of the strengths of money-market funds is the ability to retool
and adapt to the market conditions quickly," said Joe Benevento,
manager of the DWS money market series of institutional funds.

Dealing with a crisis

But despite these efforts, even the most conservative managers found
themselves on high alert.

"There was a mismatch that lasted over the course of a few days due to
the seizing up of the market and not having the liquidity to meet
demands," said Benevento.

The head of one of the largest money-market fund lines, who declined
to be named because of the delicate nature of last year's events, said
his fund managers, fearing the worst for Lehman, met with the funds'
board during the weekend of Sept. 13 and Sept. 14 to apprise the board
of the funds' status, none of which had Lehman debt. The funds had
also been pulling in their average maturity and credit risk levels.

The group head added that conference calls with sales staff around the
country were also held during the weekend to provide them with talking
points to deliver to worried clients.

Federated's Cunningham said that had the investor panic lasted,
Federated had a "bevy" of resources, both internal and external, to
maintain liquidity, but that the firm "came closer than we ever
thought possible" to using those measures.

"You always talk about contingency planning in meetings, and then all
of a sudden you find yourself in a situation where you could have to
use that planning," she said.

The worst of the crisis passed on Friday Sept. 19, when Treasury said
it would insure all money-market funds that pay a fee -- the entire
industry eventually joined the program. At the same time, the Federal
Reserve said it would buy agency discount notes from primary dealers,
acting as a backstop when and if money-market funds wanted to sell
their assets.

"The [Fed program] was one of the key things done to provide
liquidity," said Benevento.

Cunningham agreed, saying the program was a "great solution." Coupled
with the insurance plan, due to expire on Sept. 18, the two measures
were "enough for everyone to step back and take a breather," she said.

Lower yields more safety

One year later, and the money-market fund industry is roughly back to
where it was just before Lehman collapsed, standing at about $3.5
trillion in assets and serving as a refuge for those on the sidelines.

But last year's experience prompted government action on two fronts:
from the Obama administration and the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The administration's recommendations are still vague and won't be
clear until the financial reform package is unveiled on Sept. 15.

The SEC's proposals were published at the end of June. The plan calls
for better credit quality, shorter maturities and more disclosure.

"The proposals offer a greater level of protection for fund
investors," said Vanguard's Glocke. "The rules now are for credit
events, not liquidity events."

Among the proposals are requirements for certain levels of assets that
must be held in cash, Treasurys or holdings that can be cashed within
one day, and limiting the maximum weighted average maturity of a
fund's portfolio to 60 days, from the current 90 days.

The SEC estimates its proposed changes would lower yields by between
0.02 to 0.04 percentage points. In a comment letter to the agency,
Fidelity Investments said the potential yield reduction could be
between 0.19 to 0.43 percentage points for institutional funds and
0.14 to 0.31 point for retail funds.

Robert Deutsch, head of the global cash business at J.P. Morgan Funds,
estimated the fall in yields would on average be between 0.05 and 0.1
percentage points.

"You're giving up that yield to get extra safeguards," said Deutsch.
"It seems like a good trade-off."

Deutsch said he didn't think the lower yields would put off investors.
After last year's panic, "there's been a big shift in how investors
think, moving away from yield-chasing funds."

Reserve Primary was among the highest-yielding funds in the industry.

Despite the reform efforts, some say that last year's events may
simply have to be seen as a once-in-a-lifetime event.

"The SEC may be able to prevent one or two dominos from falling, but
nothing could have prevented the complex series of events that led to
what happened [last September]," said Crane.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From phil at pwalden.fsnet.co.uk  Wed Sep  9 15:46:47 2009
From: phil at pwalden.fsnet.co.uk (Phil Walden)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 22:46:47 +0100
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] what are GM unions up to?
Message-ID: <3F3473658F04407B9F3B5822E4B438B8@pwalden>

I have the GM bankruptcy petition in front of me and under an item called
"Employee Obligations" it details that an amount of $20 billion has been
paid to the unions, although over what period it does not say.

 

Have officials in the GM unions been taking massive bribes and backhanders?
Or is there some other explanation for this $20 billion?

 

Phil Walden


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 10 11:10:36 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:10:36 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] what are GM unions up to?
In-Reply-To: <3F3473658F04407B9F3B5822E4B438B8@pwalden>
References: <3F3473658F04407B9F3B5822E4B438B8@pwalden>
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909101010q5e9f426bt9e6e68fbd2a16151@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/9/09, Phil Walden <phil at pwalden.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> I have the GM bankruptcy petition in front of me and under an item called
> "Employee Obligations" it details that an amount of $20 billion has been
> paid to the unions, although over what period it does not say.
>
>
>
> Have officials in the GM unions been taking massive bribes and backhanders?
> Or is there some other explanation for this $20 billion?
>
>
>
> Phil Walden


Someon gave me this response:

Not sure without checking with others but maybe it refers to the money
paid to the VEBA.  That changed over time but ended up being a
combination of cash and stock.

I don't think the problem in the UAW is taking bribes - it might be
easier to fix if that was the problem.  They lack a class struggle
approach to fighting the company.

Things I've heard about Gettelfinger is that he's basically honest but
lacks any strategic vision at all of how to build broad unity,
including unity with the rest of the class, to win.

- John


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 07:24:54 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:24:54 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The State and Revolution
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909110624j1c11b79el3cc7c9780dc561fc@mail.gmail.com>

 The State and Revolution By Vladimir Ilich Lenin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The State: a Product of the Irreconcilability of Class Antagonisms
Special Bodies of Armed Men, Prisons, etc.
The State: an Instrument for the Exploitation of the Oppressed Class
The ?Withering Away? of the State, and Violent Revolution


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The State: A Product of the Irreconcilability of Class Antagonisms

What is now happening to Marx's theory has, in the course of history,
happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and
leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the
lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly
hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the
most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and
slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into
harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names
to a certain extent for the ?consolation? of the oppressed classes and
with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing
the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary
edge and vulgarizing it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists
within the labor movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They
omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its
revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or
seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are
now ?Marxists? (don't laugh!). And more and more frequently German
bourgeois scholars, only yesterday specialists in the annihilation of
Marxism, are speaking of the ?national-German? Marx, who, they claim,
educated the labor unions which are so splendidly organized for the
purpose of waging a predatory war!

In these circumstances, in view of the unprecedently wide-spread
distortion of Marxism, our prime task is to re-establish what Marx
really taught on the subject of the state. This will necessitate a
number of long quotations from the works of Marx and Engels
themselves. Of course, long quotations will render the text cumbersome
and not help at all to make it popular reading, but we cannot possibly
dispense with them. All, or at any rate all the most essential
passages in the works of Marx and Engels on the subject of the state
must by all means be quoted as fully as possible so that the reader
may form an independent opinion of the totality of the views of the
founders of scientific socialism, and of the evolution of those views,
and so that their distortion by the ?Kautskyism? now prevailing may be
documentarily proved and clearly demonstrated.

Let us being with the most popular of Engels' works, The Origin of the
Family, Private Property and the State, the sixth edition of which was
published in Stuttgart as far back as 1894. We have to translate the
quotations from the German originals, as the Russian translations,
while very numerous, are for the most part either incomplete or very
unsatisfactory.

Summing up his historical analysis, Engels says:

?The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from
without; just as little is it 'the reality of the ethical idea', 'the
image and reality of reason', as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a
product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the
admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble
contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable
antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these
antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might
not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became
necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that
would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of 'order';
and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and
alienating itself more and more from it, is the state." (Pp.177-78,
sixth edition)[1]

This expresses with perfect clarity the basic idea of Marxism with
regard to the historical role and the meaning of the state. The state
is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class
antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class
antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the
existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are
irreconcilable.

It is on this most important and fundamental point that the distortion
of Marxism, proceeding along two main lines, begins.

On the one hand, the bourgeois, and particularly the petty-bourgeois,
ideologists, compelled under the weight of indisputable historical
facts to admit that the state only exists where there are class
antagonisms and a class struggle, ?correct? Marx in such a way as to
make it appear that the state is an organ for the reconciliation of
classes. According to Marx, the state could neither have arisen nor
maintained itself had it been possible to reconcile classes. From what
the petty-bourgeois and philistine professors and publicists say, with
quite frequent and benevolent references to Marx, it appears that the
state does reconcile classes. According to Marx, the state is an organ
of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; it
is the creation of ?order?, which legalizes and perpetuates this
oppression by moderating the conflict between classes. In the opinion
of the petty-bourgeois politicians, however, order means the
reconciliation of classes, and not the oppression of one class by
another; to alleviate the conflict means reconciling classes and not
depriving the oppressed classes of definite means and methods of
struggle to overthrow the oppressors.

For instance, when, in the revolution of 1917, the question of the
significance and role of the state arose in all its magnitude as a
practical question demanding immediate action, and, moreover, action
on a mass scale, all the Social-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks
descended at once to the petty-bourgeois theory that the ?state?
?reconciles? classes. Innumerable resolutions and articles by
politicians of both these parties are thoroughly saturated with this
petty-bourgeois and philistine ?reconciliation? theory. That the state
is an organ of the rule of a definite class which cannot be reconciled
with its antipode (the class opposite to it) is something the
petty-bourgeois democrats will never be able to understand. Their
attitude to the state is one of the most striking manifestations of
the fact that our Socialist- Revolutionaries and Mensheviks are not
socialists at all (a point that we Bolsheviks have always maintained),
but petty-bourgeois democrats using near-socialist phraseology.

On the other hand, the ?Kautskyite? distortion of Marxism is far more
subtle. ?Theoretically?, it is not denied that the state is an organ
of class rule, or that class antagonisms are irreconcilable. But what
is overlooked or glossed over is this: if the state is the product of
the irreconcilability of class antagonisms, if it is a power standing
above society and ?alienating itself more and more from it", it is
clear that the liberation of the oppressed class is impossible not
only without a violent revolution, but also without the destruction of
the apparatus of state power which was created by the ruling class and
which is the embodiment of this ?alienation?. As we shall see later,
Marx very explicitly drew this theoretically self-evident conclusion
on the strength of a concrete historical analysis of the tasks of the
revolution. And ? as we shall show in detail further on ? it is this
conclusion which Kautsky has ?forgotten? and distorted.


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 08:22:47 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:22:47 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] what are GM unions up to?
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909110722t49bc95a1u717b3aeeeb69953e@mail.gmail.com>

That lack of class struggle perspective is the legacy of Reutherite opportunism.

Charles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reuther


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 9/9/09, Phil Walden <phil at pwalden.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> I have the GM bankruptcy petition in front of me and under an item called
> "Employee Obligations" it details that an amount of $20 billion has been
> paid to the unions, although over what period it does not say.
>
>
>
> Have officials in the GM unions been taking massive bribes and backhanders?
> Or is there some other explanation for this $20 billion?
>
>
>
> Phil Walden


Someon gave me this response:

Not sure without checking with others but maybe it refers to the money
paid to the VEBA.  That changed over time but ended up being a
combination of cash and stock.

I don't think the problem in the UAW is taking bribes - it might be
easier to fix if that was the problem.  They lack a class struggle
approach to fighting the company.

Things I've heard about Gettelfinger is that he's basically honest but
lacks any strategic vision at all of how to build broad unity,
including unity with the rest of the class, to win.

- John


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 08:24:05 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:24:05 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] what are GM unions up to ?
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909110724u77fef4c0hc1582e86ec07d3fb@mail.gmail.com>

Walter Reuther



Walter Philip Reuther (September 1, 1907 ? May 9, 1970) was an
American labor union leader, who made the United Automobile Workers a
major force not only in the auto industry but also in the Democratic
Party in the mid 20th century. He was a socialist in the early 1930s;
he became a leading liberal and supporter of the New Deal coalition.

Contents [hide]
1 Early life
2 Union career
3 Notes
4 References
4.1 Secondary sources
4.2 Primary sources
5 External links



[edit] Early life
Reuther was born in Wheeling, West Virginia, the son of a socialist
brewery worker who had emigrated from Germany. In his entire career he
was close to his brothers and co-workers Victor Reuther and Roy
Reuther. Reuther joined the Ford Motor Company but was laid off as the
Great Depression worsened. He and his brothers went to Europe and then
worked 1933-35 in an auto plant at Gorky in the Soviet Union. While a
committed socialist, he never became a Communist. At the end of the
trip he wrote, "the atmosphere of freedom and security, shop meetings
with their proletarian industrial democracy; all these things make an
inspiring contrast to what we know as Ford wage slaves in Detroit.
What we have experienced here has reeducated us along new and more
practical lines."[1] Unhappy with the lack of political freedom in
Russia, Reuther returned to the United States where he found
employment at General Motors and became an active member of the United
Automobile Workers (UAW).

Reuther was a Socialist party member; he may have paid dues to the
Communist Party for some months in 1935-36; he has been accused of
attending a Communist Party planning meeting as late as February
1939.[2] Reuther cooperated with the Communists in the later 1930s;
this was the period of the Popular Front, and they agreed with him on
internal issues of the UAW; but his associations were with
anti-Stalinist Socialists.[3]

Reuther remained active in the Socialist Party and in 1937 failed in
his attempt to be elected to the Detroit City Council. However,
impressed by the efforts by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to tackle
inequality, he eventually joined the Democratic Party.


[edit] Union career
In 1936 he became president of tiny local 174 (with 100 members),
which on paper had responsibility for 100,000 auto workers on the west
side of Detroit, Michigan. Reuther led several strikes and in 1937 and
1940 was hospitalized after being badly beaten by strike-breakers. He
also survived two assassination attempts, and his right hand was
permanently crippled in an attack on April 20th, 1948.[4]

He had a highly publicized confrontation with Ford security forces on
May 26, 1937, also known as The Battle of the Overpass. By this time,
thanks to the sit-down strikes, UAW membership had exploded and Local
174 was a power inside the UAW. As a senior union organizer, Reuther
helped win major strikes for union recognition against General Motors
in 1940 and Ford in 1941.

After Pearl Harbor, Reuther strongly supported the war effort and
refused to tolerate wildcat strikes that might disrupt munitions
production. He worked for the War Manpower Commission, the Office of
Production Management, and the War Production Board. He led a 113-day
strike against General Motors in 1945-1946; it only partially
succeeded. He never received the power he wanted to inspect company
books or have a say in management, but he achieved increasingly
lucrative wage and benefits contracts. In 1946 he narrowly defeated R.
J. Thomas for the UAW presidency, and soon after he purged the UAW of
all Communist elements. He was active in the Congress of Industrial
Organizations (CIO) umbrella as well, taking the lead in expelling
eleven Communist-dominated unions from the CIO in 1949.

As a prominent figure in the anti-Communist left, he was a founder of
the Americans for Democratic Action in 1947. He became president of
the CIO in 1952, and negotiated a merger with George Meany and the
American Federation of Labor immediately after, which took effect in
1955. In 1949 he led the CIO delegation to the London conference that
set up the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions in
opposition to the Communist-dominated World Federation of Trade
Unions. He had left the Socialist party in 1939, and throughout the
1950s and 1960s was a leading spokesman for liberal interests in the
CIO and in the Democratic party.

Reuther delivered contracts for his membership through brilliant
negotiating tactics. He would pick one of the "Big three" automakers,
and if it did not offer concessions, he would strike it and let the
other two absorb its sales. Besides high hourly wage rates and paid
vacations, Reuther negotiated these benefits for his union:
employer-funded pensions (beginning in 1950 at Chrysler), medical
insurance (beginning at GM in 1950), and supplementary unemployment
benefits (beginning at Ford in 1955). Ruether tried to negotiate lower
automobile prices for the consumer with each contract, with limited
success (The Brothers Reuther, P. 249).


Walter Reuther (second from right) at the March on Washington, August
28, 1963Toward the end of his life, when he took the UAW out of the
AFL-CIO for a short-lived alliance with the Teamsters Union, and
marched with the United Farm Workers in Delano, California, Reuther
seemed to be dissatisfied, looking for the ability to challenge the
injustices that had made the union movement so vital in the 1930s. He
strongly supported the Civil Rights movement; Reuther was an active
supporter of African American civil rights and participated in both
the March on Washington for Freedom and Jobs (August, 1963) and the
Selma to Montgomery March (March, 1965). He stood beside Martin Luther
King Jr. while he made the "I Have A Dream" speech, during the 1963
March on Washington. Although critical of the Vietnam War, he
supported Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey in 1968, and met weekly
with President Johnson during 1964-1965. He was instrumental in
mobilizing UAW resources to minimize the threat that George Wallace
would win more than 10 percent of union votes (Wallace won about 9
percent in the North). On May 9, 1970, Reuther, his wife May,
architect Oscar Stonorov, and also a bodyguard, the pilot and co-pilot
were killed in a chartered plane while on final approach to the
Pellston, Michigan, airstrip near the union?s recreational and
educational facility at Black Lake, Michigan.

In October 1968, a year and a half before the fatal crash, Reuther and
his brother Victor were almost killed in a small private plane as it
approached Dulles airport. Both incidents are amazingly similar; the
altimeter in the fatal crash was believed to have malfunctioned. When
Victor Reuther was interviewed many years after the fatal crash he
said ?I and other family members are convinced that both the fatal
crash and the near fatal one in 1968 were not accidental.? The FBI
still refuses to turn over nearly 200 pages of documents involving
Walter Reuther?s death, and correspondence between field offices and
J. Edgar Hoover.

Walter Reuther appears in TIME magazine's list of the 100 most
influential people of the 20th century.

He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously in 1995
by President William Clinton.

 I-696 In Metro Detroit is named the Walter P. Reuther Freeway.


[edit] Notes
^ Lichtenstein, Most Dangerous Man p 44
^ Victor G. Devinatz, "Reassessing the Historical UAW: Walter
Reuther's Affiliation with the Communist Party and Something of its
Meaning - a Document of Party Involvement, 1939." Labour 2002 (49):
223-245. There is a report of the meeting, clearly unauthorized, which
lists Reuther as a member; it misspells several names, mentions some
unnamed attendees, and its account of the internal politics of the UAW
is disputed. It exists in the papers of one of Reuther's rivals, Jay
Lovestone, who saw many more Communists than other evidence suggests;
the writer was presumably spying on the meeting for him. Lichtenstein
responded that membership this late seems unlikely; Reuther was
already criticizing the Communists ("Reuther the Red?," Labour/Le
Travail, Spring 2003); Devinatz concurs that he must have left the
Party later in 1939. Reuther later insisted he was never a member;
there is indirect evidence that he was a member of both the Socialists
and the Communists in 1935-6.
^ Lichtenstein, Dangerous Man, loc. cit..
^ http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/laborhall/1990_reuther.htm

[edit] References

[edit] Secondary sources
Barnard, John. American Vanguard: The United Auto Workers during the
Reuther Years, 1935-1970. Wayne State U. Press, 2004. 607 pp.
Boyle, Kevin. The UAW and the Heyday of American Liberalism, 1945-1968 (1995)
Kornhauser, Arthur et al. When Labor Votes: A Study of Auto Workers (1956)
Goode, Bill. Infighting in the UAW: The 1946 Election and the
Ascendancy of Walter Reuther (1994)
Lichtenstein, Nelson. The Most Dangerous Man in Detroit: Walter
Reuther and the Fate of American Labor (1995)
Parenti, Michael and Peggy Norton. The Wonderful Life and Strange
Death of Walter Reuther.(1996)
Zieger, Robert H. The CIO, 1935-1955 (1995)

[edit] Primary sources
Christman, Henry M. ed. Walter P. Reuther: Selected Papers (1961)
Ruether, Victor "The Brothers Ruether and The Story of the UAW: A
Memoir" (1976)
infoplease

[edit] External links
 Organized Labour portal
Obituary, NY Times, May 11, 1970
NTSB report on crash
THE TIME 100: BUILDERS AND TITANS: Walter Reuther
[1]
Walter Reuther at Find a Grave
NTSB Accident Report Number: NTSB-AAR-71-3


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 08:25:31 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:25:31 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] what are GM unions up to ?
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909110725i2f4b15fbx12487306f1a37e66@mail.gmail.com>

Ron Gettelfinger


Ron Gettelfinger in 2007Ronald A. Gettelfinger (born August 1, 1944)
is the current chief president of the industrial union United Auto
Workers. He has held the position since 2002.

Gettelfinger started his union involvement in 1964 in Louisville,
Kentucky, at the Louisville Assembly Plant run by Ford Motor Company
while working as a chassis line repairman. The workers at Ford's
Louisville Assembly plant elected Gettelfinger to represent them as
committeeperson, bargaining chair and president. He was elected
president of local union 862 in 1984. In 1987, he became a member of
the Ford-UAW bargaining committee. Afterwards, he held other
positions: director of UAW Region 3 and the UAW chaplaincy program.
For six years he served as the elected director of UAW Region 3, which
represents UAW members in Indiana and Kentucky, before being elected a
UAW vice president in 1998. Gettelfinger was elected to his first term
as president of the UAW at the 33rd Convention in 2002. He was elected
to a second term on June 14, 2006, at the UAW's 34th Convention in Las
Vegas. On March 19, 2009, Gettelfinger announced he intended to retire
at the end of his term and would not run for reelection in 2010.[1]

Gettelfinger is an outspoken advocate for national single-payer health
care in the United States. Under Gettelfinger?s leadership, the UAW
has continued to lobby for fair trade agreements that include
provisions for workers? rights and environmental provisions; and the
union has loudly criticized what it calls "the corporate global chase
for the lowest wage which creates a race to the bottom that no
workers, in any country, can win". He has spoken against offering any
additional worker concessions until the current contract expires in
2011, even though some analysts contend this stance might lead all
three Detroit auto makers into bankruptcy, which would void the
current UAW contract. Gettelfinger was an Elector for Barack Obama in
2008.[2]

Gettelfinger is a 1976 graduate of Indiana University Southeast in New
Albany, Indiana.


[edit] References
^ Campbell, Bob (2009-03-19). "Gettelfinger: 'I'm done' in 2010".
Detroit Free Press.
http://www.freep.com/article/20090319/BUSINESS01/90319036/1014/Gettelfinger+++I+m+done++in+2010.
Retrieved 2009-03-19.
^ Miller, J.L. (2008-12-15). "17 in Mich. to help elect president
today". Detroit News.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081215/METRO/812150337/1409/METRO.
Retrieved 2008-12-22. "International Brotherhood of Teamsters
President James Hoffa and UAW President Ron Gettelfinger are the heavy
hitters in the group."

[edit] External links
Gettelfinger versus the Military
UAW article on Gettelfinger
UAW bio on Gettelfinger
Seattle Times Article: "Steady hand is steering union in tough times"
By Dale Russakoff of the Washington Post21 May 2006, retrieved
2008-12-14
World Socialist Web Site article: "Career bureaucrat named president
of US auto union" By Jerry Isaacs 14 June 2002, retrieved 2008-12-12
UAW torpedoes deal by refusing to make concessions


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 08:27:15 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:27:15 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] what are the GM unions up to ?
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909110727k57cffaa9gbc439d7ae8524259@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/uaw-j14.shtml

Career bureaucrat named president of US auto union
Gettelfinger defended Ford in 1999 blast that killed six workers
By Jerry Isaacs
14 June 2002
The installation of Ronald Gettelfinger as the president of the United
Auto Workers union is a fitting demonstration of the moribund
character of the organization, which has lost over half of its
membership in the last three decades. A functionary within the UAW
apparatus for nearly a quarter of a century, Gettelfinger?s name is
virtually unknown among rank-and-file autoworkers, let alone the
working class as a whole, since he never led a struggle against the
auto companies.

Gettelfinger climbed up the ladder of the UAW bureaucracy by serving
Ford Motor Company, first as a local official at Ford?s truck plant in
Louisville, Kentucky, then as a director of the UAW?s Kentucky-Indiana
region. Since 1998 he has headed the union?s Ford department, during
which time the number two automaker announced its plans to eliminate
35,000 jobs, or 10 percent of the workforce, and shut down at least
five plants.

His selection as head of the union at the UAW Constitutional
Convention in Las Vegas last week was a foregone conclusion. Last fall
Gettelfinger was handpicked by outgoing president Stephen Yokich and
the 19-member Administrative Caucus that controls the union?without
the slightest input from the majority of the union membership.

Gettelfinger entered onto the broader stage after an explosion at
Ford?s River Rouge complex in Dearborn, Michigan, which killed six
autoworkers and severely injured 14 others. On the afternoon of
February 1, 1999, gas inside one of the boilers at the power plant at
the complex ignited, causing a massive explosion and fireball that
ripped through the facility. Donald Harper, 58, who was working on the
60-foot tall boiler, was killed instantly. Over the next three weeks,
five others workers?Warren Blow, 51; Ron Moritz, 44; Ken Anderson, 44;
Cody Boatwright, 51; and John Arseneau, 45?died from devastating burns
and other injuries.

Within hours of the explosion?the deadliest accident in the history of
the US auto industry?Gettelfinger rushed to the defense of the
company. Before any investigation had even begun, he praised Ford,
saying that the power station was among the best run plants in the
Ford system. ?It was a safe facility, there?s no question about that,?
he told the Detroit News. ?That?s why this is so perplexing to us.?

During a joint UAW-Ford press conference the day after the blast,
Gettelfinger again displayed his contempt for the lives of the auto
workers he ostensibly represents. In response to a question about
whether Ford?s cost-cutting and downsizing had resulted in an erosion
of safety protections that might have contributed to the disaster,
Gettelfinger declared, ?I don?t think there has been an erosion of
safety.? He added, ?We have productivity committees and health and
safety committees and we work these things out internally. Ford has
opened its door to us. When there is cost-cutting, Ford?s concern has
always been with the people impacted.?

In fact, the blast was the direct result of Ford?s ongoing
cost-cutting measures?including the elimination of 9,000 jobs and $2.2
billion in spending the previous year alone?and its criminal
negligence towards the safety of its employees. An investigation by
the state?s occupational safety and health administration concluded
that Ford management had been well aware of the potential for disaster
at the 78-year-old power plant, but made a calculated decision not to
spend the money to replace antiquated and dangerous equipment.

The investigation also established the complicity of the UAW, which
under the national UAW-Ford contract was jointly responsible for
safety conditions. UAW officials ignored the safety grievances filed
by powerhouse workers?including three of the six men killed in the
explosion?complaining of dangerous equipment, including the very
boiler that exploded.

Ronald Gettelfinger is a company man who epitomizes the UAW
bureaucracy?s longstanding policy of labor-management collaboration.
The new president of the United Auto Workers union reportedly keeps a
picture of the company?s chairman, William Clay Ford Jr., in his
office.

Like many of those who make up the trade union bureaucracy,
Gettelfinger is a definite social type: a middle class careerist who
has nothing but contempt for those who work for a living in the auto
plants. A recent biographical sketch in the Detroit News noted, ?It
was never Gettelfinger?s intention to become an auto worker.? After
dropping out of Indiana University in 1964, he went to work at the
Ford plant in Louisville. ?If he couldn?t avoid the shop floor,? the
News wrote, ?he would use it to catapult himself to better things.?
While taking business courses at night, Gettelfinger got involved with
?UAW local politics,? according to the newspaper, and in 1978 became
bargaining chairman at the plant, enabling him to get off the assembly
line.

The workers at the Louisville plant had a reputation for militancy and
resistance to speedup. Because of this, Ford decided to shut down the
plant in 1979. Gettelfinger and Local 862 President Owen Hammons went
to work to blackmail their members into accepting management?s
demands. Hammons, who is described as Gettelfinger?s union ?mentor,?
denounced the Louisville workers, writing, ?No one wants to do more
today than they did yesterday even if before, for four hours, they
didn?t do a thing. I mean, that?s not what a union is about. It really
isn?t.?

According to the Detroit News account, ?Gettelfinger told workers
point-blank that if they didn?t start showing up and putting in a full
day?s work, the plant would close and they wouldn?t have jobs. The
message sank in, and the factory?s absenteeism dropped? and
?productivity and quality improved.?

His role as a company stooge earned Gettelfinger the hatred of workers
at the Louisville plant. At the same time, however, it gained him the
attention of the talent scouts in the UAW hierarchy. ?UAW leaders in
Detroit took notice of his leadership and bargaining skills,? the News
writes. ?They promoted him to the union?s regional office, which
oversaw Indiana and Kentucky. He was elected director of the region in
1992.?

An ex-Marine and reportedly a deeply religious Catholic, Gettelfinger
naturally shares all the backward views of the union bureaucracy:
nationalism, anticommunism, devotion to the Democratic Party and
hostility to the rank and file. As an example of this outlook, two
months ago he authored a letter to be distributed to Ford workers
demanding they only buy US-made Ford vehicles, instead of Volvos,
Jaguars and other European brands owned by Ford.

Gettelfinger?s rise to the top of the UAW bureaucracy coincides with
the completion of the union?s transformation into a direct tool of
management. By the late 1970s, company men and careerists like
Gettelfinger filled the leadership positions of the union, which in
many cases had been manned by socialist-minded workers and militants
who had been purged by the Reuther brothers more than a generation
earlier.

In 1979-80, the UAW imposed hundreds of millions of dollars in
concessions on its members during the Chrysler bailout, in return for
a seat on the company?s board of directors. By 1983 the union
officially adopted corporatism as its guiding principle. According to
this outlook, the working class has no independent interests divergent
or distinct from those of the capitalist owners. The UAW?s primary
role, accordingly, was to collaborate with management in boosting
productivity and cutting labor costs in order to help US companies
compete against Japanese and European auto companies.

What has this policy reaped? Since 1978 membership in the UAW has
fallen from 1.5 million to around 700,000. During the same period,
while top auto executives have seen their pay rise by 109 percent?not
counting the millions more they have made in bonuses, stocks options
and other compensation?autoworkers? real wages have grown by only 1.3
percent.

In return for its collaboration in the destruction of hundreds of
thousands of jobs and the suppression of struggles to improve living
standards and working conditions, the UAW bureaucracy gained access to
hundreds of millions of dollars in joint labor-management funds and
other perks. Today the majority of autoworkers rightfully look upon
the UAW as little more than a criminal operation.

While it has repeatedly failed to garner enough support to organize
workers at European and Asian-owned factories in the US, the number of
lawsuits by rank-and-file workers against corruption, nepotism and
intimidation in the union has risen steadily. In the past, retiring
UAW presidents were appointed to important posts in government and
academia. The best that outgoing union president Stephen Yokich can
hope for is keeping himself out of jail, given the number of
allegations of possible criminal activity by the UAW bureaucracy.

The UAW continues to exist today only because of inertia and the
goodwill of management. The elevation of the life-long bureaucrat and
non-entity Ron Gettelfinger is a sure sign it?s on its last legs.


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 08:36:17 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:36:17 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] what are the GM unions doing ?
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909110736i4aa3a264ifa2063a6a133fd56@mail.gmail.com>

UAW approves GM concessions
Published: May 29, 2009 at 4:18 PM
UPI


The United Auto Workers said members voted overwhelmingly to accept
concessions with General Motors Corp. as the U.S. automaker moves
toward bankruptcy.

UAW members voted 74 percent in favor of the deal that includes giving
up cost-of-living raises and performance bonuses and one paid holiday
in 2010 and 2011.

The deal also suspends tuition assistance and dental coverage, and
reduces prescription drug coverage, the Detroit News reported Friday.

"It was a tough, but necessary vote," Local 599 leader Terry Everman
in Flint, Mich., told the newspaper.

UAW President Ron Gettlefinger said the union had done its best to
prevent a bankruptcy filing. Members, however, were "prepared for what
eventually happens," he said at a press conference, The New York Times
reported.

GM, however, is not out of the woods yet. Creditors have until 5 p.m.
Saturday to accept a deal that trades $27.2 billion of debt for 10
percent of the restructured company with a warrant to buy an
additional 15 percent at a later date.

In the latest restructuring plan, the U.S. government would likely end
up with 72.5 percent of GM, while the UAW would end up with 17.5
percent. Bondholders would receive 10 percent, the Detroit Free Press
said


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 08:48:59 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:48:59 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The State and Revolution
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909110748l18ae6717ib6b89b724e633429@mail.gmail.com>

Let us being with the most popular of Engels' works, The Origin of the
Family, Private Property and the State, the sixth edition of which was
published in Stuttgart as far back as 1894. We have to translate the
quotations from the German originals, as the Russian translations,
while very numerous, are for the most part either incomplete or very
unsatisfactory.

^^^^
CB: Interesting that Lenin claims that _The Origin of the Family,
Private Property and the State_ is the most popular of Engels' books -
an anthropology book.


From marxistfront at yahoo.co.in  Fri Sep 11 12:10:17 2009
From: marxistfront at yahoo.co.in (marxistfront at yahoo.co.in)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:40:17 +0530
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Raigad Peasant Revolt
Message-ID: <429807.88780.qm@smtp107.mail.in.yahoo.com>


http://otheraspect.freewebpage.org <http://otheraspect.freewebpage.org/> 


Raigad Peasant Revolt 


 

Aseem Srivastava 

THE FARMERS of Maharashtra's Raigad district are waiting with a restless
enthusiasm. After endless hunger strikes and people's protests, they had
tried something new. Rarely has an anti-Sez people's movement reached the
halls of the Supreme Court. Sometime this month the court is expected to
hold a final hearing that will determine the fate of over one lakh farmers
in Raigad - whether their paddy fields will be converted into the world's
largest privately developed SEZ, or whether they will be allowed to retain
their land. 

In 2003, Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Industries Ltd had submitted a proposal
for setting up a multi-product SEZ in Raigad across 14,000 hectares of
Maharashtra land (an area the size of Chandigarh) in 45 villages in Pen,
Panvel and Uran tehsils. An investment of Rs 40,000 crore and jobs for 20
lakh people were promised. Reliance also claimed its package (Rs 10 lakh per
acre and training for a possible job in the factory) for the affected
farmers was the best across the country. (A simple survey of other SEZs and
industrial projects, though, shows that these promises of employment are
rarely met.) As the project gained momentum, the anti-SEZ committee in the
area launched a massive agitation, prompting a historic farmers' referendum
in September 2008. It was the first time that a public vote of this kind was
sought and taken on an industrial/infrastructure/mining project anywhere in
the country. Regardless of its outcome, it set a valuable precedent on ways
of seeking consensus on the usage of land being taken over on the pretext of
public interest. 

Full Article at http://otheraspect.freewebpage.org
<http://otheraspect.freewebpage.org/>  

 


From cda at yorku.ca  Fri Sep 11 12:32:56 2009
From: cda at yorku.ca (cda at yorku.ca)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:32:56 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Unicolonial Ants Pose Challenge to "Selfish
	Gene"
In-Reply-To: <mailman.5.1252605602.27200.marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu>
References: <mailman.5.1252605602.27200.marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <1252693976.4aaa97d87c12f@mymail.yorku.ca>

Unicolonial Ants Pose Challenge to "Selfish Gene" Theory

1) The first that must be stated unequivocally is that, for my part at least, I
do not believe there is much evidence to suggest that there is a "selfish
gene"--- other than basic physiological drives for survival (which may or may
not be acted upon).

2) Now, having said that, I think that you (CB) have basically attempted to
confront the now-dominant manner of scientific discourse by adopting the very
presuppositions of this hegemonic perspective. Following Whitehead and Husserl,
I would posit that the very ontological framework of the Newtonian and
positivistic natural sciences is wholly bankrupt.

Scientific materialism (a vulgar sort of materialism) reduces the human being to
a 'thing', to an 'object', to an 'animal' (determined by a subconscious play of
forces that the individual himself/herself cannot even come to appreciate).
This sort of Newtonian alienation is precisely what Husserlian phenomenology
(see "The Crisis of the European Sciences") and the Whiteheadian philosophy of
science (see "Modes of Thought") attempted to combat. Enzo Paci (an Italian
Marxist in the tradition of Antonion Gramsci) reconciles these fundamental
phenomenological and ontological insights provided by Husserlian thought with
the vitality and essential spirit of Marx's writings.

I feel, by speaking of genes, we automatically reduce the human to a biological
computer--- something whose behavior we could predict in a controlled setting,
as if it was already predetermined. This, naturally, leaves no room for
self-determination and human freedom. However, rather than confront the
metaphysical, ontolgoical, existential, and epistemological questions involved
here--- viz., questions about very ourselves--- your commentary takes the easy
route of using one set of 'scientific' facts against another. Yet, as Husserl
advised us, such a mode of inquiry will never answer the truly human questions
of life; rather, what we need, for such questions, is not more vulgar
(scientific) materialism, but deep, rigorous philosophical investigation.

3) Tjirdly, I'm astonished that, on a site about Marxist theory, we have
devolved into a scientific discourse about ants (and, even worse, have begun to
anthropomorphisize them by comparing 'their genes' and 'our genes', their
sociality and our sociality as coterminously related, et al., etc.). And, so,
you note among many other correlations that you draw, that

"There is no worker aggression, and there is free movement among nests on a vast
scale. The energy that might have been put into fighting and territoriality
flows into the common good, more ants."

Presumably, again, you are drawing correlations between "worker ants" and
Marxist class analysis, which, is my opinion, may be well intentioned, but it
is far from being grounded in Marx's thought. After all, I hope you don't
advocate that we have "multiple queens" as well! Why abstract and draw some
correlations, but not others? I mean, you even go on to identify possible
political implications for HUMAN societies:

"Such a concept, a form of genuine anarchism in the animal world, was
> thought to be impossible given existing theory...each ant worker is
> mostly surrounded by total strangers that share none of their genes.
> Only one other species has ever been known to organize themselves in
> such a fashion (and if you're reading these words right now you know
> who you are)."

Thus, while in my first point I agree with you (I believe there is no
deterministic gene which makes us selfish), in my second point I disagree with
the ontological and epistemological perspective which you employ to confront
such scientific determinism (and that method of yours, once again, is nothing
other than scientific determinism itself!). However, with respect to this third
point of mine, the problem, CB, with making these sorts of inferences is that
you have made a number of conclusions about ant-sociability which have been
applied (and without much rigour) to human-sociability. Moreover, whilst
reducing the call for anarcho-socialism to another mode of scientific
determinism, you seem to have, at the same time, forgetten Marx's own writings
about ants and their sociality.

4) Thus, my final point brings me to these writings. In the Economic and
Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844-45, Marx penned that:

"The animal is immediately one with its life activity. It is not distinct from
that activity; it is that activity. Man makes his life activity itself an
object of his will and consciousness. He has conscious life activity. It is not
a determination with which he directly merges. Conscious life activity directly
distinguishes man from animal life activity. Only because of that is he a
species-being. Or, rather, he is a conscious being ? i.e., his own life is an
object for him, only because he is a species-being. Only because of that is his
activity free activity. Estranged labour reverses the relationship so that man,
just because he is a conscious being, makes his life activity, his essential
being, a mere means for his existence. The practical creation of an objective
world, the fashioning of inorganic nature, is proof that man is a conscious
species-being ? i.e., a being which treats the species as its own essential
being or itself as a species-being. It is true that animals also produce. They
build nests and dwellings, like the bee, the beaver, the ant, etc. But they
produce only their own immediate needs or those of their young; they produce
only when immediate physical need compels them to do so, while man produces
even when he is free from physical need and truly produces only in freedom from
such need; they produce only themselves, while man reproduces the whole of
nature; their products belong immediately to their physical bodies, while man
freely confronts his own product. Animals produce only according to the
standards and needs of the species to which they belong, while man is capable
of producing according to the standards of every species and of applying to
each object its inherent standard; hence, man also produces in accordance with
the laws of beauty."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm

This whole notion was most likely appropriated by Marx from his Idealist
predecessors, Kant and Hegel. In his Critique of Judgment, Kant had written
that

"By right we ought only to describe as art, production through freedom, i.e.
through a will that places reason at the basis of its actions. For although we
like to call the product of bees (regularly built cells of wax) a work of art,
this is only by way of analogy; as soon as we feel that this work of theirs is
based on no proper proper rational deliberation, we say that it is a product of
nature (of instinct).? (Kant 1961, pp. 145-6) from
http://www.capabilityapproach.com/pubs/4_1_Winslow.pdf

However, this whole German idea--- as Professor Winslow notes in the above
reading of Kant--- is itself merely a sublation and development of classical
Greek (philosophic) anthropology. Aristotle, for instance, observed that there
are many types of "political animals" (Zwon Politkon; 'lives with a city'):

"Furthermore, the following differences are manifest in their modes of living
and in their actions. Some are gregarious, some are solitary, whether they be
furnished with feet or wings or be fitted for a life in the water; and some
partake of both characters, the solitary and the gregarious. And of the
gregarious, some are disposed to combine for social purposes, others to live
each for its own self. Gregarious creatures are, among birds, such as the
pigeon, the crane, and the swan; and, by the way, no bird furnished with
crooked talons is gregarious. Of creatures that live in water many kinds of
fishes are gregarious, such as the so-called migrants, the tunny, the pelamys,
and the bonito. Man, by the way, presents a mixture of the two characters, the
gregarious and the solitary. Social creatures are such as have some one common
object in view; and this property is not common to all creatures that are
gregarious. Such social creatures are man, the bee, the wasp, the ant, and the
crane. Again, of these social creatures some submit to a ruler, others are
subject to no governance: as, for instance, the crane and the several sorts of
bee submit to a ruler, whereas ants and numerous other creatures are every one
his own master."
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=AriHian.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div2

In his Politics, Aristotle reaffirmed the notion, but cautioned, with added
emphasis however, that while all of these creatures can be classed as consonant
with humans insofar as they are 'Zwon Politikon', at the same time, they are
entirely different modes of life--- for the human presents himself as distinct
from all others in his sociability (simply by the innate virtue of our capacity
for reason):

"Now, that man is more of a political animal than bees or any other gregarious
animals is evident. Nature, as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is
the only animal whom she has endowed with the gift of speech. And whereas mere
voice is but an indication of pleasure or pain, and is therefore found in other
animals (for their nature attains to the perception of pleasure and pain and the
intimation of them to one another, and no further), the power of speech is
intended to set forth the expedient and inexpedient, and therefore likewise the
just and the unjust. And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has any
sense of good and evil, of just and unjust, and the like, and the association
of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state. Further, the
state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the
whole is of necessity prior to the part; for example, if the whole body be
destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we
might speak of a stone hand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better than
that. But things are defined by their working and power; and we ought not to say
that they are the same when they no longer have their proper quality, but only
that they have the same name. The proof that the state is a creation of nature
and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not
self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the whole. But
he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is
sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a
state. A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who
first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For man, when
perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he
is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is
equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which
he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most
unholy and the most savage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony.
But justice is the bond of men in states, for the administration of justice,
which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in
political society." http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html

When Kant and Marx wrote, they were clearly making appeals to this Aristotlean
conception of Man. In his essay, an "Idea for a Universal History from a
Cosmopolitan Point of View," Kant implicitly appealed to Aristotle (and his
teleological theory of species-endowment--- which, in our case, entails the
"function" [ergon] of Mind/Reason [logos]....see the acorn and oak tree
analogy). Kant, sounding like Aristotle, penned that

"All natural capacities of a creature are destined to evolve to their natural
end...An organ that is of no use, an arrangement that does not achieve its
purpose, are contradictions in the teleological theory of nature. If we give up
this fundamental principle, we no longer have a lawful but an aimless course of
nature, and blind chance takes the place of the guiding thread of reason. In
man (as the only rational creature on earth) those natural capacities which are
directed to the use of his reason are to be fully developed in the race, not in
the individual...Nature here follows a lawful course in gradually lifting our
race from the lower levels of animality to the highest levels of humanity." See
"On HIstory," 'An Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of
View,' pg. 12-13, 21.

No doubt, Marx was clearly appealing to this very same teleological theory of
human nature as well when he constructed his "Grundrisse:"

"The more deeply we go back into history, the more does the individual, and
hence also the producing individual, appear as dependent, as belonging to a
greater whole: in a still quite natural way in the family and in the family
expanded into the clan [Stamm]; then later in the various forms of communal
society arising out of the antitheses and fusions of the clan. Only in the
eighteenth century, in ?civil society?, do the various forms of social
connectedness confront the individual as a mere means towards his private
purposes, as external necessity. But the epoch which produces this standpoint,
that of the isolated individual, is also precisely that of the hitherto most
developed social (from this standpoint, general) relations. The human being is
in the most literal sense a Zwon politikon [Marx used Greek script here, but my
email program doesn't have such fonts] not merely a gregarious animal, but an
animal which can individuate itself only in the midst of society. Production by
an isolated individual outside society ? a rare exception which may well occur
when a civilized person in whom the social forces are already dynamically
present is cast by accident into the wilderness ? is as much of an absurdity as
is the development of language without individuals living together and talking
to each other."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm



Chris,


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 14:07:53 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:07:53 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Unicolonial Ants Pose Challenge to "Selfish
	Gene"
In-Reply-To: <1252693976.4aaa97d87c12f@mymail.yorku.ca>
References: <mailman.5.1252605602.27200.marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu>
	<1252693976.4aaa97d87c12f@mymail.yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909111307s71b1be3cjc0d1b69fc622c93d@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/11/09, cda at yorku.ca <cda at yorku.ca> wrote:
> Unicolonial Ants Pose Challenge to "Selfish Gene" Theory
>
> 1) The first that must be stated unequivocally is that, for my part at least, I
> do not believe there is much evidence to suggest that there is a "selfish
> gene"--- other than basic physiological drives for survival (which may or may
> not be acted upon).
>
> 2) Now, having said that, I think that you (CB) have basically attempted to
> confront the now-dominant manner of scientific discourse by adopting the very
> presuppositions of this hegemonic perspective.

^^^^^
CB: Moi ? What did I say that makes you think that ?

^^^^^

 Following Whitehead and Husserl,
> I would posit that the very ontological framework of the Newtonian and
> positivistic natural sciences is wholly bankrupt.
>
> Scientific materialism (a vulgar sort of materialism) reduces the human being to
> a 'thing', to an 'object', to an 'animal' (determined by a subconscious play of
> forces that the individual himself/herself cannot even come to appreciate).
> This sort of Newtonian alienation is precisely what Husserlian phenomenology
> (see "The Crisis of the European Sciences") and the Whiteheadian philosophy of
> science (see "Modes of Thought") attempted to combat.


^^^^^
CB: What do you think of Marx and Engels critique of European science
?   They critiqued it before Husserl. Marx criticized the original
positivist Comte.   Engels famously doesn't hold much for Newton.
Are you familiar with _Anti-Duhring_, Notes for a book on Dialectics
of Nature , and  Lenin's _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_

^^^^^^^^


 Enzo Paci (an Italian
> Marxist in the tradition of Antonion Gramsci) reconciles these fundamental
> phenomenological and ontological insights provided by Husserlian thought with
> the vitality and essential spirit of Marx's writings.
>
> I feel, by speaking of genes, we automatically reduce the human to a biological
> computer--- something whose behavior we could predict in a controlled setting,
> as if it was already predetermined.

^^^^^^^
CB: Not from a Marxist standpoint. See for example _Not in Our Genes_
by the Marxist biologists Levins and Lewontin.  Marxism does not take
the position that humans are reducible to their genes. On the
contrary, Marxism finds much determination of human society in human
history. That is historical materialism.

^^^^^^^

 This, naturally, leaves no room for
> self-determination and human freedom.

^^^^^^^^^
CB: Clearly, the _Manifesto of the Communist Party_ has all human
history turning on class struggles, or the struggles of exploited and
oppressed classes for freedom and self-determination, so surely you
don't mean this to apply to the Marxist conception of science.

^^^^^^^

 However, rather than confront the
> metaphysical, ontolgoical, existential, and epistemological questions involved
> here--- viz., questions about very ourselves--- your commentary takes the easy
> route of using one set of 'scientific' facts against another. Yet, as Husserl
> advised us, such a mode of inquiry will never answer the truly human questions
> of life; rather, what we need, for such questions, is not more vulgar
> (scientific) materialism, but deep, rigorous philosophical investigation.

^^^^^
CB: Not vulgar materialism. Dialectical and historical materialism is
what we need.   You should elaborate what you find of value in
Husserl. So far, all you have done is make conclusory remarks that
Husserl has something to offer without presenting any arguments or
evidence for that conclusion.

^^^^^


>
> 3) Tjirdly, I'm astonished that, on a site about Marxist theory, we have
> devolved into a scientific discourse about ants (and, even worse, have begun to
> anthropomorphisize them by comparing 'their genes' and 'our genes', their
> sociality and our sociality as coterminously related, et al., etc.). And, so,
> you note among many other correlations that you draw, that
>
> "There is no worker aggression, and there is free movement among nests on a vast
> scale. The energy that might have been put into fighting and territoriality
> flows into the common good, more ants."

^^^^^^^^^
CB: Not I. The author of the article wrote that, although I see
nothing wrong with that particular statement.

Secondly,  what version of Marxism do you subscribe to that has no
interest in important scientific and biological issues such as these ?

^^^^^^^
>
> Presumably, again, you are drawing correlations between "worker ants" and
> Marxist class analysis, which, is my opinion, may be well intentioned, but it
> is far from being grounded in Marx's thought.

^^^^^^^
CB: Well, I didn't write that. As to the author, I don't know that
he's a Marxist.

Anyway, worker ants are so because of their genes. Human workers are
so , not because of their genes, but because of socio-economic factors
, a fundamental difference that I take it you agree with.

^^^^^^^^


After all, I hope you don't
> advocate that we have "multiple queens" as well! Why abstract and draw some
> correlations, but not others? I mean, you even go on to identify possible
> political implications for HUMAN societies:


^^^^^^^^

CB: Not me. Your hope is met. Ants don't have history , culture,
language, like humans. This makes a big difference. See recent thread
on LBO-talk where I argue exactly that humans have culture and ants
and other animals don't.

^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^
>
> "Such a concept, a form of genuine anarchism in the animal world, was
> > thought to be impossible given existing theory...each ant worker is
> > mostly surrounded by total strangers that share none of their genes.
> > Only one other species has ever been known to organize themselves in
> > such a fashion (and if you're reading these words right now you know
> > who you are)."
>
> Thus, while in my first point I agree with you (I believe there is no
> deterministic gene which makes us selfish), in my second point I disagree with
> the ontological and epistemological perspective which you employ to confront
> such scientific determinism (and that method of yours, once again, is nothing
> other than scientific determinism itself!). However, with respect to this third
> point of mine, the problem, CB, with making these sorts of inferences is that
> you have made a number of conclusions about ant-sociability which have been
> applied (and without much rigour) to human-sociability.

^^^^^^^
CB: Not me. Human sociality is built on culture, tradition, custom,
history. Ant sociality is based on instincts, genes.

^^^^^^^^



 Moreover, whilst
> reducing the call for anarcho-socialism to another mode of scientific
> determinism, you seem to have, at the same time, forgetten Marx's own writings
> about ants and their sociality.


^^^^^^^^^^
CB: No I seem to remember it exactly, and augment it with the findings
of modern anthropology , post-Marx.  Human labor is different from
that of spiders, bees and ants in that human laborers imagine the
project ahead of time . See _Capital_ vol. I

^^^^^^^
>
> 4) Thus, my final point brings me to these writings. In the Economic and
> Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844-45, Marx penned that:
>
> "The animal is immediately one with its life activity. It is not distinct from
> that activity; it is that activity. Man makes his life activity itself an
> object of his will and consciousness. He has conscious life activity. It is not
> a determination with which he directly merges. Conscious life activity directly
> distinguishes man from animal life activity. Only because of that is he a
> species-being. Or, rather, he is a conscious being ? i.e., his own life is an
> object for him, only because he is a species-being. Only because of that is his
> activity free activity. Estranged labour reverses the relationship so that man,
> just because he is a conscious being, makes his life activity, his essential
> being, a mere means for his existence. The practical creation of an objective
> world, the fashioning of inorganic nature, is proof that man is a conscious
> species-being ? i.e., a being which treats the species as its own essential
> being or itself as a species-being. It is true that animals also produce. They
> build nests and dwellings, like the bee, the beaver, the ant, etc. But they
> produce only their own immediate needs or those of their young; they produce
> only when immediate physical need compels them to do so, while man produces
> even when he is free from physical need and truly produces only in freedom from
> such need; they produce only themselves, while man reproduces the whole of
> nature; their products belong immediately to their physical bodies, while man
> freely confronts his own product. Animals produce only according to the
> standards and needs of the species to which they belong, while man is capable
> of producing according to the standards of every species and of applying to
> each object its inherent standard; hence, man also produces in accordance with
> the laws of beauty."
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm
>

^^^^^^^^^
CB:  And since Marx, the science of anthropology has discovered the
important human distinguishing species characteristic : culture,
symboling, language, making Marx's philosophical speculation here more
rigorous and complete.

^^^^^^^


> This whole notion was most likely appropriated by Marx from his Idealist
> predecessors, Kant and Hegel. In his Critique of Judgment, Kant had written
> that
>
> "By right we ought only to describe as art, production through freedom, i.e.
> through a will that places reason at the basis of its actions. For although we
> like to call the product of bees (regularly built cells of wax) a work of art,
> this is only by way of analogy; as soon as we feel that this work of theirs is
> based on no proper proper rational deliberation, we say that it is a product of
> nature (of instinct).? (Kant 1961, pp. 145-6) from
> http://www.capabilityapproach.com/pubs/4_1_Winslow.pdf
>
> However, this whole German idea--- as Professor Winslow

^^^^^^^^
CB: Yes, Professor Ted Winslow is a member of the LBO-talk and
Progressive Economists Network email lists, and I've read maybe
hundreds of his posts explaining this concept and others. I've had
many exchanges with him there. Are you familiar with "internal
relations" ? He's big on that .

^^^^^^^


notes in the above
> reading of Kant--- is itself merely a sublation and development of classical
> Greek (philosophic) anthropology. Aristotle, for instance, observed that there
> are many types of "political animals" (Zwon Politkon; 'lives with a city'):
>
> "Furthermore, the following differences are manifest in their modes of living
> and in their actions. Some are gregarious, some are solitary, whether they be
> furnished with feet or wings or be fitted for a life in the water; and some
> partake of both characters, the solitary and the gregarious. And of the
> gregarious, some are disposed to combine for social purposes, others to live
> each for its own self. Gregarious creatures are, among birds, such as the
> pigeon, the crane, and the swan; and, by the way, no bird furnished with
> crooked talons is gregarious. Of creatures that live in water many kinds of
> fishes are gregarious, such as the so-called migrants, the tunny, the pelamys,
> and the bonito. Man, by the way, presents a mixture of the two characters, the
> gregarious and the solitary. Social creatures are such as have some one common
> object in view; and this property is not common to all creatures that are
> gregarious. Such social creatures are man, the bee, the wasp, the ant, and the
> crane. Again, of these social creatures some submit to a ruler, others are
> subject to no governance: as, for instance, the crane and the several sorts of
> bee submit to a ruler, whereas ants and numerous other creatures are every one
> his own master."
> http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=AriHian.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div2


^^^^^^^^
CB: Yes, although Aristotle's biology and anthropology is very
outdated, whatever basic concepts he may have an inkling about. He
really needs to be sublated, not only by Kant, but by modern
anthropological science, enthnology and biological anthropology.



^^^^^
>
> In his Politics, Aristotle reaffirmed the notion, but cautioned, with added
> emphasis however, that while all of these creatures can be classed as consonant
> with humans insofar as they are 'Zwon Politikon', at the same time, they are
> entirely different modes of life--- for the human presents himself as distinct
> from all others in his sociability (simply by the innate virtue of our capacity
> for reason):
>
> "Now, that man is more of a political animal than bees or any other gregarious
> animals is evident. Nature, as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is
> the only animal whom she has endowed with the gift of speech. And whereas mere
> voice is but an indication of pleasure or pain, and is therefore found in other
> animals (for their nature attains to the perception of pleasure and pain and the
> intimation of them to one another, and no further), the power of speech is
> intended to set forth the expedient and inexpedient, and therefore likewise the
> just and the unjust. And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has any
> sense of good and evil, of just and unjust, and the like,

^^^^^^^
CB: Pretty good up to this point, especially the focus on "speech" or
language as the distinguishing characteristic which makes humans more
social than all  other species. Speech, language , culture makes
humans socially connected to dead generations of our species. This is
the big difference.

^^^^


and the association
> of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state. Further, the
> state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual,


^^^^^^^
CB: He seems to go off the rails a bit here, depending on what he
means by "family".  Kingroup organization of human society predates
the origin of the state. See _The Origin of the Family, Private
Property and the State_ by Engels.

^^^^^^^^

since the
> whole is of necessity prior to the part; for example, if the whole body be
> destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we
> might speak of a stone hand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better than
> that. But things are defined by their working and power; and we ought not to say
> that they are the same when they no longer have their proper quality, but only
> that they have the same name. The proof that the state is a creation of nature
> and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not
> self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the whole.

^^^^^^^
CB: The first human societies, for 200,000 years didn't have states,
but they did have "individuals" and "families" kin groups.  The
"wholes" were organized as kingroups (_societas_ in Lewis Henry
Morgan's terminology) not states or _civitas_ Morgan's term based on
ruling territory.

^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^


But
> he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is
> sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a
> state.

^^^^^
CB: Well , a human society , anyway.

^^^^^^^^


 A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who
> first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For man, when
> perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he
> is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is
> equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which
> he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most
> unholy and the most savage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony.
> But justice is the bond of men in states, for the administration of justice,
> which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in
> political society." http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html
>
> When Kant and Marx wrote, they were clearly making appeals to this Aristotlean
> conception of Man.

^^^^^^^
CB: Sublated, as Ted W. says. Marx is aware that the state is not as
beneficent as Aristotle claims.  See Marx's Critique of Hegel
Philosophy of Right (Law). And then See his ideas on the state , as
essayed by Lenin in _The State and Revolution_.  Marx sees the state
whithering away in communism.

^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^



 In his essay, an "Idea for a Universal History from a
> Cosmopolitan Point of View," Kant implicitly appealed to Aristotle (and his
> teleological theory of species-endowment--- which, in our case, entails the
> "function" [ergon] of Mind/Reason [logos]....see the acorn and oak tree
> analogy). Kant, sounding like Aristotle, penned that
>
> "All natural capacities of a creature are destined to evolve to their natural
> end...An organ that is of no use, an arrangement that does not achieve its
> purpose, are contradictions in the teleological theory of nature. If we give up
> this fundamental principle, we no longer have a lawful but an aimless course of
> nature, and blind chance takes the place of the guiding thread of reason.

^^^^^^^^
CB: This must be critiqued by Darwinian concepts.  Natural selection
is "intelligible happenstance" ( instead of intelligent design).
"Happenstance" is chance.  "Intelligible" means it can be apprehended
by reason, but the process is not guided by Reason or a Reasoning
Being.

^^^^^^^^


 In
> man (as the only rational creature on earth) those natural capacities which are
> directed to the use of his reason are to be fully developed in the race, not in
> the individual...Nature here follows a lawful course in gradually lifting our
> race from the lower levels of animality to the highest levels of humanity." See
> "On HIstory," 'An Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of
> View,' pg. 12-13, 21.
>
> No doubt, Marx was clearly appealing to this very same teleological theory of
> human nature as well when he constructed his "Grundrisse:"


^^^^^^^^
CB: Well, yea there is some doubt that Marx was appealing to a
teleological theory. Lots of doubt.

^^^^^^^^
>
> "The more deeply we go back into history, the more does the individual, and
> hence also the producing individual, appear as dependent, as belonging to a
> greater whole: in a still quite natural way in the family and in the family
> expanded into the clan [Stamm]; then later in the various forms of communal
> society arising out of the antitheses and fusions of the clan. Only in the
> eighteenth century, in ?civil society?, do the various forms of social
> connectedness confront the individual as a mere means towards his private
> purposes, as external necessity.

^^^^^
CB: In the consciousness of the 18th Century in Europe, but in fact ,
materially,  individuals are more interdependent and social in
capitalism than in any previous system.  Marx himself writes about the
increasing division of labor and socialization of society under
capitalism...as in the next sentence that folllows...

^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^


 But the epoch which produces this standpoint,
> that of the isolated individual, is also precisely that of the hitherto most
> developed social (from this standpoint, general) relations. The human being is
> in the most literal sense a Zwon politikon [Marx used Greek script here, but my
> email program doesn't have such fonts] not merely a gregarious animal, but an
> animal which can individuate itself only in the midst of society. Production by
> an isolated individual outside society ? a rare exception which may well occur
> when a civilized person in whom the social forces are already dynamically
> present is cast by accident into the wilderness ? is as much of an absurdity as
> is the development of language without individuals living together and talking
> to each other."


CB: Indeed

> http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm
>
>
>
> Chris,
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
>


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 14:10:46 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:10:46 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Edmund Husserl
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909111310p11e34ffbq830d7015608df5ed@mail.gmail.com>

Edmund Husserl

Edmund Husserl Western Philosophy
20th-century philosophy

Edmund Husserl
Full name Edmund Gustav Albrecht Husserl
Born April 8, 1859 (Prost?jov, Moravia)

Died April 28, 1938 (aged 79) (Freiburg, Germany)

School/tradition Phenomenology
Main interests Epistemology, Mathematics
Notable ideas Epoch?, Natural Standpoint, Noema, Noesis, Eidetic
Reduction, Retention and protention, Phenomenology
Influenced by[show]
Franz Brentano, Carl Stumpf, Karl Weierstrass, Gottlob Frege, Ren?
Descartes, Immanuel Kant
Influenced[show]
Eugen Fink, Kurt G?del, Martin Heidegger, Hans Blumenberg, Jacques
Derrida, Milan Kundera, Bernard Stiegler, Emmanuel Levinas, Maurice
Merleau-Ponty, Jean-Paul Sartre, Max Scheler, John Paul II, Ludwig
Landgrebe, Edith Stein, Rudolf Carnap, Marvin Farber, Alexandre Koyr?,
Jos? Ortega y Gasset, Roman Ingarden, Dietrich von Hildebrand,
Mill?n-Puelles, Hannah Arendt, Leszek Ko?akowski, Jan Pato?ka,
Jean-Luc Marion
Edmund Gustav Albrecht Husserl (German pronunciation: [?h?s?rl]; April
8, 1859, Prost?jov, Moravia, Austrian Empire ? April 26, 1938,
Freiburg, Germany) was a philosopher who is deemed the founder of
phenomenology. He broke with the positivist orientation of the science
and philosophy of his day, believing that experience is the source of
all knowledge, while at the same time he elaborated critiques of
psychologism and historicism.

Born into a Moravian Jewish family, he was baptized as a Lutheran in
1887. Husserl studied mathematics under Karl Weierstrass, completing a
Ph.D. under Leo K?nigsberger, and studied philosophy under Franz
Brentano and Carl Stumpf. Husserl taught philosophy, as a Privatdozent
at Halle from 1887, then as professor, first at G?ttingen from 1901,
then at Freiburg im Breisgau from 1916 until his 1928 retirement.

Husserl's teaching and writing influenced, among others, Hans
Blumenberg, Ludwig Landgrebe, Eugen Fink, Max Scheler, Martin
Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, Emmanuel Levinas, Rudolf Carnap, Hermann
Weyl, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Alfred Sch?tz, Pierre Bourdieu, Paul
Ric?ur, Jacques Derrida, Jan Pato?ka, Roman Ingarden, Dietrich von
Hildebrand, Edith Stein (St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross), Francisco
Varela and Pope John Paul II[citation needed].

Contents [hide]
1 Biography
1.1 Education and early works
1.2 The elaboration of phenomenology
1.3 The Nazi era
2 The Philosophy of Edmund Husserl
2.1 Meaning and Object in Husserl
2.2 Philosophy of Logic and Mathematics
3 Husserl and the Critique of Psychologism
3.1 Philosophy of Arithmetic and Frege
3.2 Husserl's Criticism of Psychologism
4 Philosophers Influenced by Husserl
5 See also
6 References
7 Bibliography
7.1 Primary literature
7.1.1 In German
7.1.2 In English
7.2 Secondary literature
8 External links
8.1 Husserl archives
8.2 Other links



[edit] Biography

[edit] Education and early works
Husserl was born in 1859 into a Jewish family in Prost?jov, a town
that was then in the Austrian Empire, after 1918 a part of
Czechoslovakia, and since 1993 a part of the Czech Republic.

He initially studied mathematics at the universities of Leipzig (1876)
and Berlin (1878), under Karl Weierstrass and Leopold Kronecker. In
1881 he went to Vienna to study under the supervision of Leo
K?nigsberger (a former student of Weierstrass), obtaining the Ph.D. in
1883 with the work Beitr?ge zur Variationsrechnung ("Contributions to
the Calculus of Variations").

In 1884, he began to attend Franz Brentano's lectures on psychology
and philosophy at the University of Vienna. Husserl was so impressed
by Brentano that he decided to dedicate his life to philosophy. In
1886 Husserl went to the University of Halle to obtain his
Habilitation with Carl Stumpf, a former student of Brentano. Under his
supervision he wrote ?ber den Begriff der Zahl (On the concept of
Number; 1887) which would serve later as the base for his first major
work, Philosophie der Arithmetik (1891).

In these first works he tries to combine mathematics, psychology and
philosophy with a main goal to provide a sound foundation for
mathematics. He analyzes the psychological process needed to obtain
the concept of number and then tries to build up a systematical theory
on this analysis. To achieve this he uses several methods and concepts
taken from his teachers. From Weierstrass he derives the idea that we
generate the concept of number by counting a certain collection of
objects. From Brentano and Stumpf he takes over the distinction
between proper and improper presenting. In an example Husserl explains
this in the following way: if you are standing in front of a house,
you have a proper, direct presentation of that house, but if you are
looking for it and ask for directions, then these directions (e.g. the
house on the corner of this and that street) are an indirect, improper
presentation. In other words, you can have a proper presentation of an
object if it is actually present, and an improper (or symbolic as he
also calls it) if you only can indicate that object through signs,
symbols, etc. Husserl's 1901 Logical Investigations is considered the
starting point for the formal theory of wholes and their parts known
as mereology.[1]

Another important element that Husserl took over from Brentano is
intentionality, the notion that the main characteristic of
consciousness is that it is always intentional. While often
simplistically summarised as "aboutness" or the relationship between
mental acts and the external world, Brentano defined it as the main
characteristic of mental phenomena, by which they could be
distinguished from physical phenomena. Every mental phenomenon, every
psychological act, has a content, is directed at an object (the
intentional object). Every belief, desire, etc. has an object that it
is about: the believed, the wanted. Brentano used the expression
"intentional inexistence" to indicate the status of the objects of
thought in the mind. The property of being intentional, of having an
intentional object, was the key feature to distinguish mental
phenomena and physical phenomena, because physical phenomena lack
intentionality altogether.


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 14:11:26 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:11:26 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Edmund Husserl
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909111311h574e5739n91868090004fe527@mail.gmail.com>

The elaboration of phenomenology
Some years after the publication of his main work, the Logische
Untersuchungen (Logical Investigations; first edition, 1900-1901),
Husserl made some key conceptual elaborations which led him to assert
that in order to study the structure of consciousness, one would have
to distinguish between the act of consciousness and the phenomena at
which it is directed (the objects as intended). Knowledge of essences
would only be possible by "bracketing" all assumptions about the
existence of an external world. This procedure he called epoch?. These
new concepts prompted the publication of the Ideen (Ideas) in 1913, in
which they were at first incorporated, and a plan for a second edition
of the Logische Untersuchungen.


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 14:12:59 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:12:59 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Edmund Husserl
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909111312i6f96829fwd6dedfbca680ac29@mail.gmail.com>

The Nazi era
Professor Husserl was denied the use of the library at Freiburg as a
result of the anti-Jewish legislation the National Socialists (Nazis)
passed in April 1933. It is rumoured that his former pupil and Nazi
Party member, Martin Heidegger, informed Husserl that he was
discharged, but Heidegger later denied this, labelling it as
slander[4]. Heidegger (whose philosophy Husserl considered to be the
result of a faulty departure from, and grave misunderstanding of,
Husserl's own teachings and methods) removed the dedication to Husserl
from his most widely known work, Being and Time, when it was reissued
in 1941. This was not due to diminishing relations between the two
philosophers, however, but rather as a result of a suggested
censorship by Heidegger's publisher who feared that the book may be
banned by the Nazi regime[4]. The dedication can still be found in a
footnote on page 38, thanking Husserl for his guidance and generosity.
The philosophical relation between Husserl and Heidegger is discussed
at length by Bernard Stiegler in the film The Ister.

After his death, Husserl's manuscripts, amounting to approximately
40,000 pages of "Gabelsberger" stenography and his complete research
library, were smuggled to Belgium by Herman Van Breda in 1939 and
deposited at Leuven to form the Husserl-Archives of the Higher
Institute of Philosophy. Much of the material in his research
manuscripts has been published in the Husserliana critical edition
series.


[edit] The Philosophy of Edmund Husserl

[edit] Meaning and Object in Husserl

From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 14:14:38 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:14:38 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Edmund Husserl
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909111314u583cf677t16dd0fe4aa56caa@mail.gmail.com>

The Philosophy of Edmund Husserl

[edit] Meaning and Object in Husserl

From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 14:15:45 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:15:45 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Husserl
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909111315j146cd503if1871103763dd668@mail.gmail.com>

Meaning and Object in Husserl

From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 14:17:07 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:17:07 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Husserl
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909111317y58346606h3a9408d0857048a@mail.gmail.com>


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 14:21:16 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:21:16 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The State and Revolution
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909111321odf37c42m3f945a133a10c8b0@mail.gmail.com>

Preface to the First Edition
The question of the state is now acquiring particular importance both
in theory and in practical politics. The imperialist war has immensely
accelerated and intensified the process of transformation of monopoly
capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism. The monstrous oppression of
the working people by the state, which is merging more and more with
the all-powerful capitalist associations, is becoming increasingly
monstrous. The advanced countries - we mean their hinterland - are
becoming military convict prisons for the workers.

The unprecedented horrors and miseries of the protracted war are
making the people's position unbearable and increasing their anger.
The world proletarian revolution is clearly maturing. The question of
its relation to the state is acquiring practical importance.

The elements of opportunism that accumulated over the decades of
comparatively peaceful development have given rise to the trend of
social-chauvinism which dominated the official socialist parties
throughout the world. This trend - socialism in words and chauvinism
in deeds (Plekhanov, Potresov, Breshkovskaya, Rubanovich, and, in a
slightly veiled form, Tsereteli, Chernov and Co. in Russia;
Scheidemann. Legien, David and others in Germany; Renaudel, Guesde and
Vandervelde in France and Belgium; Hyndman and the Fabians[1] in
England, etc., etc.) - is conspicuous for the base, servile adaptation
of the "leaders of socialism" to the interests not only of "their"
national bourgeoisie, but of "their" state, for the majority of the
so-called Great Powers have long been exploiting and enslaving a whole
number of small and weak nations. And the imperialist war is a war for
the division and redivision of this kind of booty. The struggle to
free the working people from the influence of the bourgeoisie in
general, and of the imperialist bourgeoisie in particular, is
impossible without a struggle against opportunist prejudices
concerning the "state".

First of all we examine the theory of Marx and Engels of the state,
and dwell in particular detail on those aspects of this theory which
are ignored or have been distorted by the opportunists. Then we deal
specially with the one who is chiefly responsible for these
distortions, Karl Kautsky, the best-known leader of the Second
International (1889-1914), which has met with such miserable
bankruptcy in the present war. Lastly, we sum up the main results of
the experience of the Russian revolutions of 1905 and particularly of
1917. Apparently, the latter is now (early August 1917) completing the
first stage of its development; but this revolution as a whole can
only be understood as a link in a chain of socialist proletarian
revolutions being caused by the imperialist war. The question of the
relation of the socialist proletarian revolution to the state,
therefore, is acquiring not only practical political importance, but
also the significance of a most urgent problem of the day, the problem
of explaining to the masses what they will have to do before long to
free themselves from capitalist tyranny.

The Author

August 1917


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preface to the Second Edition
The present, second edition is published virtually unaltered, except
that section 3 had been added to Chapter II.

The Author

Moscow
December 17, 1918


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 14:22:22 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:22:22 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The State and Revolution
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909111322m72abf8e5gb288dc3eb75b0378@mail.gmail.com>

Chapter 1

2. Special Bodies of Armed Men, Prisons, etc.
Engels continues:

?As distinct from the old gentile [tribal or clan] order,[2] the
state, first, divides its subjects according to territory...."

This division seems ?natural? to us, but it costs a prolonged struggle
against the old organization according to generations or tribes.

?The second distinguishing feature is the establishment of a public
power which no longer directly coincides with the population
organizing itself as an armed force. This special, public power is
necessary because a self-acting armed organization of the population
has become impossible since the split into classes.... This public
power exists in every state; it consists not merely of armed men but
also of material adjuncts, prisons, and institutions of coercion of
all kinds, of which gentile [clan] society knew nothing...."

Engels elucidates the concept of the ?power? which is called the
state, a power which arose from society but places itself above it and
alienates itself more and more from it. What does this power mainly
consist of? It consists of special bodies of armed men having prisons,
etc., at their command.

We are justified in speaking of special bodies of armed men, because
the public power which is an attribute of every state ?does not
directly coincide? with the armed population, with its ?self-acting
armed organization".

Like all great revolutionary thinkers, Engels tries to draw the
attention of the class-conscious workers to what prevailing
philistinism regards as least worthy of attention, as the most
habitual thing, hallowed by prejudices that are not only deep-rooted
but, one might say, petrified. A standing army and police are the
chief instruments of state power. But how can it be otherwise?


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 14:27:38 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:27:38 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] UAW
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909111327w475e3ddbkcaad35a25779ad83@mail.gmail.com>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


September 11, 2009 http://detnews.com/article/20090911/AUTO01/909110341

UAW a hard sell for Ford

Some say automaker's success hinders more concessions for union

BRYCE G. HOFFMAN
The Detroit News

As talks between Ford Motor Co. and the United Auto Workers continue,
the automaker's top labor negotiator expressed confidence that Ford
will not be left at a competitive disadvantage versus its cross-town
rivals.

However, others familiar with the situation say those talks are being
bogged down by one fact: Ford is doing a lot better than General
Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC, making it hard for union leaders to
sell their members on additional concessions.

Both GM and Chrysler won significant concessions from the union during
their recent bankruptcy reorganizations.

On Wednesday, Ford global labor affairs chief Joe Hinrichs said most
of those gains simply matched more favorable terms that Ford
negotiated with the UAW in 2007.

But he acknowledged that the union had given more to its competitors
in a few areas.

"In the near term, there's no cost disadvantage," he said. "Long term,
there could be."

Hinrichs would not say what those areas were, but other sources say
they include a freeze on entry-level wages, reduced job
classifications for skilled trades and a no-strike agreement.

Ford also wants to match some of the cuts to retiree benefits that the
UAW has agreed to at GM and Chrysler.

Union leaders have promised publicly that Ford would not be
disadvantaged by the UAW's agreements with GM and Chrysler, but they
are said to be concerned about their ability to sell members on
further give-backs.

"People I've talked to feel like they've given up enough," said Gary
Walkowicz, a member of the bargaining committee at Ford's Dearborn
Truck Plant.

"They feel they shouldn't have to give up anymore."

He said that sentiment became stronger after Ford posted a surprise
second-quarter profit of nearly $2.3 billion in July.

"Ford is clearly the most successful of the domestic automakers. The
paradox of that success is that it makes it difficult to negotiate
additional concessions," said labor expert Harley Shaiken of the
University of California, Berkeley.

He said UAW leaders know that a profitable, competitive Ford is the
best guarantor of their members' jobs.

"You have a strong commitment to that, but perhaps some disagreement
about how to get there," he said.

"That's why they're still talking."

Shaiken suggested that concrete commitments by Ford to source new
products in the United States would go a long way to helping union
leaders sell any agreement to their constituents.


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 14:29:10 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:29:10 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wixom plant will get new life as renewable energy
	park
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909111329o61bd22ue8c3105e1655fe52@mail.gmail.com>

Facility selected to produce solar panels, batteries
Wixom plant will get new life as renewable energy park
Christina Rogers / The Detroit News
Wixom -- Two out-of-state renewable energy firms have selected Ford's
shuttered Wixom plant for an ambitious $725 million redevelopment
project, creating what officials are calling the nation's largest
renewable energy park, company officials said Thursday.

The companies, Xtreme Power of Austin, Texas, and Clairvoyant Energy
of Santa Barbara, Calif., plan to retool the aging factory, which once
built such icons as the Lincoln Town Car and Ford Thunderbird, to
manufacture solar panels and utility-scale batteries used for
generating renewable power.

Overall, the project could create more than 4,000 new jobs, with
production starting in 2011. The project hinges on the companies
receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in federal loans to buy the
abandoned site from Ford Motor Co.

Advertisement

If approved, the two companies expect to start hiring next year for
about 1,000 construction jobs to rehab the site.

Details of the project were revealed Thursday at an event that
included Ford Executive Chairman Bill Ford Jr., Gov. Jennifer Granholm
and the companies' CEOs.

"Through this effort, we're going to put this plant and our skilled
workers of Michigan back to work," said Ford, who spoke amid a
backdrop of darkened assembly lines at the plant, which churned out
6.6 million vehicles before its closing in 2007.

The renewable energy companies have been courting state lawmakers to
win enough tax breaks to make Michigan their top choice for the
project. Senate lawmakers approved a specialized $100 million tax
credit Thursday for the project, with a House vote expected next week.

Granholm touted the project as a major win for Michigan, which has
been banking on growth in renewable energy to diversify its
automotive-heavy economy.

"This is symbolic for Michigan in what we're going to become," Granholm said.

The two companies plan to occupy about half of the
4.7-million-square-foot site and hope to attract complementary
businesses, such as wind turbine suppliers.

Clairvoyant plans to make large-scale solar panels at the site, as
well as locate the majority of its engineering and development staff
in Wixom. It's partnered with Switzerland-based, Oerlikon Solar, a
leader in thin-film solar technology, which will also establish its
U.S. operations in Wixom.

Xtreme Power builds large-scale batteries for storing power generated
from renewable sources, such as wind turbines and solar panels.


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 14:51:36 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:51:36 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The State and Revolution
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909111351s4af58613o3f34eb9d5c7e738@mail.gmail.com>

3. The State: an Instrument for the Exploitation of the Oppressed Class
The maintenance of the special public power standing above society
requires taxes and state loans.

?Having pubic power and the right to levy taxes,? Engels writes, ?the
officials now stand, as organs of society, above society. The free,
voluntary respect that was accorded to the organs of the gentile
[clan] constitution does not satisfy them, even if they could gain
it....? Special laws are enacted proclaiming the sanctity and immunity
of the officials. ?The shabbiest police servant? has more ?authority?
than the representative of the clan, but even the head of the military
power of a civilized state may well envy the elder of a clan the
?unrestrained respect? of society.

The question of the privileged position of the officials as organs of
state power is raised here. The main point indicated is: what is it
that places them above society? We shall see how this theoretical
question was answered in practice by the Paris Commune in 1871 and how
it was obscured from a reactionary standpoint by kautsky in 1912.

?Because the state arose from the need to hold class antagonisms in
check, but because it arose, at the same time, in the midst of the
conflict of these classes, it is, as a rule, the state of the most
powerful, economically dominant class, which, through the medium of
the state, becomes also the politically dominant class, and thus
acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed
class....? The ancient and feudal states were organs for the
exploitation of the slaves and serfs; likewise, ?the modern
representative state is an instrument of exploitation of wage-labor by
capital. By way of exception, however, periods occur in which the
warring classes balance each other so nearly that the state power as
ostensible mediator acquires, for the moment, a certain degree of
independence of both....? Such were the absolute monarchies of the
17th and 18th centuries, the Bonapartism of the First and Second
Empires in France, and the Bismarck regime in Germany.

Such, we may add, is the Kerensky government in republican Russia
since it began to persecute the revolutionary proletariat, at a moment
when, owing to the leadership of the petty-bourgeois democrats, the
Soviets have already become impotent, while the bourgeoisie are not
yet strong enough simply to disperse them.

In a democratic republic, Engels continues, ?wealth exercises its
power indirectly, but all the more surely", first, by means of the
?direct corruption of officials? (America); secondly, by means of an
?alliance of the government and the Stock Exchange" (France and
America).

At present, imperialism and the domination of the banks have
?developed? into an exceptional art both these methods of upholding
and giving effect to the omnipotence of wealth in democratic republics
of all descriptions. Since, for instance, in the very first months of
the Russian democratic republic, one might say during the honeymoon of
the ?socialist? S.R.s and Mensheviks joined in wedlock to the
bourgeoisie, in the coalition government. Mr. Palchinsky obstructed
every measure intended for curbing the capitalists and their marauding
practices, their plundering of the state by means of war contracts;
and since later on Mr. Palchinsky, upon resigning from the Cabinet
(and being, of course, replaced by another quite similar Palchinsky),
was ?rewarded? by the capitalists with a lucrative job with a salary
of 120,000 rubles per annum ? what would you call that? Direct or
indirect bribery? An alliance of the government and the syndicates, or
?merely? friendly relations? What role do the Chernovs, Tseretelis,
Avksentyevs and Skobelevs play? Are they the ?direct? or only the
indirect allies of the millionaire treasury-looters?

Another reason why the omnipotence of ?wealth? is more certain in a
democratic republic is that it does not depend on defects in the
political machinery or on the faulty political shell of capitalism. A
democratic republic is the best possible political shell for
capitalism, and, therefore, once capital has gained possession of this
very best shell (through the Palchinskys, Chernovs, Tseretelis and
Co.), it establishes its power so securely, so firmly, that no change
of persons, institutions or parties in the bourgeois-democratic
republic can shake it.

We must also note that Engels is most explicit in calling universal
suffrage as well an instrument of bourgeois rule. Universal suffrage,
he says, obviously taking account of the long experience of German
Social-Democracy, is

?the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never
will be anything more in the present-day state."

The petty-bourgeois democrats, such as our Socialist-Revolutionaries
and Mensheviks, and also their twin brothers, all the
social-chauvinists and opportunists of Western Europe, expect just
this ?more? from universal suffrage. They themselves share, and instil
into the minds of the people, the false notion that universal suffrage
?in the present-day state" is really capable of revealing the will of
the majority of the working people and of securing its realization.

Here, we can only indicate this false notion, only point out that
Engels' perfectly clear statement is distorted at every step in the
propaganda and agitation of the ?official? (i.e., opportunist)
socialist parties. A detailed exposure of the utter falsity of this
notion which engels brushes aside here is given in our further account
of the views of Marx and Engels on the ?present-day? state.

Engels gives a general summary of his views in the most popular of his
works in the following words:

?The state, then, has not existed from all eternity. There have been
societies that did without it, that had no idea of the state and state
power. At a certain stage of economic development, which was
necessarily bound up with the split of society into classes, the state
became a necessity owing to this split. We are now rapidly approaching
a stage in the development of production at which the existence of
these classes not only will have ceased to be a necessity, but will
become a positive hindrance to production. They will fall as they
arose at an earlier stage. Along with them the state will inevitably
fall. Society, which will reorganize production on the basis of a free
and equal association of the producers, will put the whole machinery
of state where it will then belong: into a museum of antiquities, by
the side of the spinning-wheel and the bronze axe."

We do not often come across this passage in the propaganda and
agitation literature of the present-day Social-Democrats. Even when we
do come across it, it is mostly quoted in the same manner as one bows
before an icon, i.e., it is done to show official respect for Engels,
and no attempt is made to gauge the breadth and depth of the
revolution that this relegating of ?the whole machinery of state to a
museum of antiquities? implies. In most cases we do not even find an
understanding of what Engels calls the state machine.


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Sat Sep 12 09:31:53 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 11:31:53 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The State and Revolution
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909120831ub6c4035s5496243340695987@mail.gmail.com>

And yet, concretely, we are in many ways at an historical anti-pole
with the situation in Russia in 1917. Lenin might chastise me for
dogmatic reference to _The State and Revolution_ given that the South
and Central American revolution has organized the working class
majorities in many countries so as to use the bourgeois-democratic
electoral/mass sufferage system to seize state power. The
fascist/comprador bourgeois classes have had to resort to that
favorite of the reaction the coup d'etat in Venezuela and Honduras.
Violent overthrow is the desparate polictal location of the rich
enemies of the working masses today in the South of the Western
Hemisphere.


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Sat Sep 12 13:58:54 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:58:54 EDT
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Intensive versus extensive design for Soviet Legacy
Message-ID: <bc5.51ef66f7.37dd577e@aol.com>

Quote 
"From 1966 to 1970, under Leonid Brezhnev, the GNP held around  5.3 per 
year. Then during 1971 to 1975 the GNP fell, averaging 3.7 growth per  year. 
And after 1975 the GNP fell to a growth of between 2.6 and 2.7 percent per  
year. In these years production around the world was growing rapidly, rising 
to  an average annual rate for the world of 6.2 percent in 1973. The Soviet 
Union  was keeping up with the United States in the production of steel, pig 
iron,  cement and oil, but the future lay in electronics and specialty 
chemicals.  [note] 
According to Manuel Castells, End of Millennium, Volume III, Second  
Edition, p. 26, in the 1980s the Soviet Union compared to the U.S. was producing  
80 percent more steel, 78 percent more cement, 42 percent more oil and twice 
as  much pig iron. Brezhnev and his colleagues wished Soviet citizens to be 
as  prosperous as those in the capitalist nations, and to produce more for 
consumers  they tried to incorporate innovations from the West, including 
innovations  involving chemicals and computers. The Soviet Union was not 
keeping up with  sophisticated techniques in computers, software and 
communications electronics  or the design and manufacturing of automobiles -- as were 
Taiwan and Korea. The  Soviet Union lost its second place standing in 
manufacturing, falling behind the  losers of World War II, Japan and Germany, and 
falling behind Britain and Italy.  The Soviet Union's biggest customer for its 
manufactured goods was its military,  and manufacturing for the military 
continued to use the Soviet Union's most  skilled people, to the detriment of 
production for civilians. _http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch33.htm_ 
(http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch33.htm)   (end quote) 
Quote 

The rate of progress has been astounding. In 1928, the GNP of the USSR  was 
28% of the US?s, and in 1980, 75%. The population has been transformed from 
 primarily an ignorant mass of peasants, with a relatively small industrial 
 working class to one of the most educated, urban and industrialized in the 
 world. The human cost has been high, but it is an open question as to 
whether it  is any higher there than in the rest of the developed world. First, 
since the  period of growth has been so concentrated, most of the 
tribulations of the  Soviet people are still within living memory. Who is alive to 
personally  remember that much late Renaissance development was paid for by 
Bolivian and  Mexican Indian slaves being worked to death in the gold and 
silver mines? How  many alive today can remember the Trail of Tears or Wounded 
Knee or Nat Turner  or Bloody Ludlow? Second, the cost of development in the 
West was often paid by  people in other countries, be they colonies or 
otherwise, not by the dominant  groups now living there. (Without doubt, much that 
happened in the USSR, such as  the Great Purges of the 1930s, was 
unnecessary by any stretch of the  imagination; it was even counterproductive. If it 
did not contribute to  development, can it be counted as a cost? That is a 
question for the  philosophers and the politicians.) End Quote 
_http://www.old-yankee.com/writings/SovietEconomy.html#Evaluation_ 
(http://www.old-yankee.com/writings/SovietEconomy.html#Evaluation)  

Presentation of the theoretical issue: 

When Marx implied that an animal pulled plow as a primary instrument of  
production gives one a certain kind of society and a steam engine another, he  
was indicating that every society is riveted to a specific development of 
tool,  instruments, machines and energy source. Capitalist and feudal society 
are  riveted to and evolve based on different economic and social 
formations. What is  fundamental to an economic formation is its historically 
specific and definable  state of development of productive forces and then its mode 
of distribution,  which expresses and is the consequence of the former. 

I share the opinion that it is a unique event in human history for two  
different social/political formation to exist upon the same economic 
foundation.  American capitalism and Soviet socialism were two different 
political/property  formation developing on the same foundation of industrial production. 
If it is  true - (and it is), that the plow creates a certain kind of 
society and the  steam engine another, then the computer and semi-conductor must 
create a  different kind of society than that of a society founded on 
electro-mechanical  motion - industry proper. Stated another way, no expression of 
human will could  have made an industrial society leap to economic 
communism, even under  conditions of world socialism in every country on earth. What 
is required for  economic communism is not politics or political will but a 
new economic  foundation that destroys the value relation. 

Soviet Russia was doomed from day one. Add to these twenty wars in  
twenty-one years and then the big war against the counterrevolution - European  led 
German fascism. Even these brutal factors are external events, considering  
matters from the lens of the development of the productive forces. What 
doomed  the Soviets is the theoretical conclusion summed up in Marx famous 
statement on  social revolution and how no social formation is driven out of 
existence until  it has used up all the space for development of its productive 
forces. 

The problem is that no one could quantify the meaning of "space," in  the 
1930?s, 50?s, and 1980?s. other than as an abstract notion of the "end of  
value," without outlining the means by which the value relation is shattered. 
 Industrial society as described by Marx in Capital 1, cannot leap forward 
to  economic communism until a new revolution in the productive forces takes 
place.  The inherent nature of and limits of industrialism establishes the 
material  boundary, which the economic foundation of society cannot leap 
beyond. This  simple observation is simple today, but impossible to articulate 
40 years ago  precisely because we are undergoing revolution in the mode of 
production: a  revolution away from industrial society. 
Looking back today - September  2009, it becomes increasingly clear that 
Soviet society faced a number of  constrains due purely to the industrial 
character of its productive forces,  which exacerbated the hundred of millions 
of big and small human errors.  Generally this equation is presented 
backwards or from the standpoint of  ideological proclamations. "The problem of the 
USSR is the lack of workers  control" or "defeat of democracy in the form of 
the armed Soviets" or "the  outlawing of opposition within the party." Well 
. . . No, this is not the case.  These problems - real problems, 
exacerbated the contradiction that is the  limitation imposed on society as the 
specific shape and material power of  production - division of labor. 
The relationships of the superstructure -  party, government, state, forms 
of organization of the workers, education  institutions, etc., may becomes 
primary as moments of lived experience, but the  most mobile aspects of the 
mode of production is always the productive forces  themselves. To proceed 
from the standpoint of the superstructure as the "tell  all" and "definitive" 
summation of the Soviet Legacy runs against the grain of  historical 
materialism. 

My contention is that the shape of the productive forces in the Soviet  
Union expressed and reproduced the public property relation, rather than the  
bourgeois private property relations, as continuous cycles of reproduction. 
The  logic of Soviet industrial expansion runs directly counter to the 
division of  labor evolving within a capitalist shell. 

Presentation of the practical issue. Extensive and intensive  
development/shape of productive forces. 

(Quote from previous thread)

"One of the problems long evident in the Soviet economy has been its  
chronic 
inefficiency; reforms have not yet overcome the lags and transformed  
extensive productive techniques [based on increases in the proportions of  
labor power applied] into intensive [based on the substitution of 
machinery,  
thus amplifying the productivity of labor]. Low maintenance standards and  
long-neglected infrastructure investment in the past have meant that much  
investment has been needed for replacement rather than a net addition to 
capital  stock. The scarcity of productive capital has been further exacerbated 
by the  conflicting demands between the high costs of armaments, the huge 
costs of  opening up new areas and resources and the increasing production of 
consumer  goods. The 'problems' of the modern economy have not been 
absolute: growth has  continued, consumption has improved. Rather the economy has 
failed to meet the  expectations of the country and the political leadership, 
both in the  particular-- the plan forecasts [the ninth 5-year plan being 
particularly  disappointing] -- and in the general.<< (End quote)
 
The extensive quality of productive forces in the Soviet Union is not  
limited to a "certain" quantitative boundary of technical development, defined  
and measured by tendency to see labor additions to increase production. The  
issue of the shape of Soviet productive forces is worthy of the same 
treatment  Karl Marx gave to the capitalist system as the "shape" of industrial 
production  of commodities. Such a treatment is outside my thinking capacity, 
desire and  purpose. However, I am convinced that approaching the Soviet 
economy using the  nomenclature of the bourgeoisie is self defeating for anyone 
with a desire to  unravel the Soviet miracle expressed in its productive 
force development.  

Extensive quality is also the shape of productive forces or a concept of  
design and functional utility of machinery and tools. The most basic law of  
extensive "quality" of tools and machinery say "the more operations a tool 
or  machinery must perform, the less its intensive efficiency. Likewise, 
increasing  the intensive design and shape of tools and machinery requires 
limiting its  functionality to ultimate one task. 
In contradistinction to multiplicity of  function of a single tool, 
instrument or machine, is "intensive design," which  increases the single task 
function - orientation, of machines so as to exact the  greatest amount of 
surplus value from the individual worker. Extensive evolution  of industrial 
machinery under the Soviets is the spontaneous and conscious  impulse to design 
productive forces to carry out a multiple range of functions.  
Extensive and intensive design of machinery is not a concept of two 
mutually  exclusives properties. Extensive design of machinery means increasing the 
 multiple task of machinery or system of machinery. The same machinery 
should one  moment produce parts for automobiles and with a simple change of 
dies and  realigning machine parts, be able to produce bicycle parts, parts for 
a  refrigerator, washing machines, armaments and stoves. 

For instance, the legendary Ford Rouge automotive complex of the 1930?s  
would not produce exclusively for automobiles but also for every industry that 
 share similar mechanical parts of a 1930?s automobile. Further, a Soviet 
version  of Ford Rouge would also include production of the means of 
production as well  as items for the military. 

Bourgeois private property as individual ownership of all the material  
conditions of labor facilities machine design along lines of single commodity  
production deploying technical specs geared to greatest extraction of 
surplus  value from the individual worker. This in turn creates a system dynamic. 
The  capitalist owners of a facility must in turn purchase their equipment 
from  another capitalist owner driven by the same impulse for intensive shape 
of  machinery. Each owner is driven by the law of capitalist competition. 
The sum  total of all the production process are driven towards intensive 
shape and  design and cheapening of products as means to increase 
profitability. This in  turn narrows the skill capacity of the individual worker in favor 
of  intensifying repetitive motion. Here is Marx observation of 
intensive/extensive  development driven by bourgeois property: 
(Quote)

"Division of labour within the workshop implies the undisputed  authority 
of the capitalist over men, that are but parts of a mechanism that  belongs 
to him. The division of labour within the society brings into contact  
independent commodity-producers, who acknowledge no other authority but that of  
competition, of the coercion exerted by the pressure of their mutual 
interests;  just as in the animal kingdom, the bellum omnium contra omnes [war of 
all  against all ? Hobbes] more or less preserves the conditions of existence 
of  every species. The same bourgeois mind which praises division of labour 
in the  workshop, life-long annexation of the labourer to a partial 
operation, and his  complete subjection to capital, as being an organisation of 
labour that  increases its productiveness that same bourgeois mind denounces 
with equal  vigour every conscious attempt to socially control and regulate the 
process of  production, as an inroad upon such sacred things as the rights 
of property,  freedom and unrestricted play for the bent of the individual 
capitalist. It is  very characteristic that the enthusiastic apologists of 
the factory system have  nothing more damning to urge against a general 
organisation of the labour of  society, than that it would turn all society into 
one immense factory. 
_http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch14.htm_ (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch14.htm)  

Further . . . . "While division of labour in society at large, whether  
such division be brought about or not by exchange of commodities, is common to  
economic formations of society the most diverse, division of labour in the  
workshop, as practiced by manufacture, is a special creation of the 
capitalist  mode of production alone." (end quote) 
 
Capitalist shape of machinery is a concept of machinery whose intensive  
quality - productivity capacity, is configured to extract the greatest amount 
of  surplus value from the individual worker, based on single function 
performance.  This intensive shape is the means by which the individual is 
enslaved to the  capitalist shape of the division of labor. The impact on the 
individual is  profound, stifling and killing the creative of one generation 
after another.  Designing an entire society from the stand point of intensive 
led design of  productive forces not only deskills labor but deskills in such 
a way as to  stifle the internal life of the mind. Marxism examines this 
impact under the  rubric of alienation. All subordination to the divison of 
labor is not  enslaving. 

II. (Quote) 
"By decomposition of handicrafts, by specialisation of  the instruments of 
labour, by the formation of detail labourers, and by grouping  and combining 
the latter into a single mechanism, division of labour in  manufacture 
creates a qualitative gradation, and a quantitative proportion in  the social 
process of production; it consequently creates a definite  organisation of the 
labour of society, and thereby develops at the same time new  productive 
forces in the society. In its specific capitalist form and under the  given 
conditions, it could take no other form than a capitalistic one  manufacture 
is but a particular method of begetting relative surplus-value, or  of 
augmenting at the expense of the labourer the self-expansion of capital  usually 
called social wealth, "Wealth of Nations," &c. It increases the  social 
productive power of labour, not only for the benefit of the capitalist  instead 
of for that of the labourer, but it does this by crippling the  individual 
labourers. It creates new conditions for the lordship of capital over  labour. 
If, therefore, on the one hand, it presents itself historically as a  
progress and as a necessary phase in the economic development of society, on the  
other hand, it is a refined and civilised method of exploitation." 
_http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch14.htm#S3_ 
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch14.htm#S3)  

Industrial implements are more productive than manufacture, which is  more 
productive than handicraft. Industrial production yields a qualitative  
increase in the productivity of labor as compared with manufacture. It is not  
the intensive versus extensive properties of industrial machinery that  
constitutes its ability to increase the productivity of labor as compared with  
manufacturing process. It is the character of industrial machinery itself - 
(the  flywheel, transfer bar, mechanical gears, motor mechanism and external 
energy  source), which constitutes "why" (augments the power of labor) 
industrial  production is more productive than manufacture. In this sense, 
industry is a  more efficient use - deployment, of human labor than manufacture, 
especially a  developed division of labor. Here efficiency is a measure 
between two different  modes of production rather than a measure of the impact of 
production on man and  the earth within a given mode. 

Measuring the difference in augmentation of labor between different  kinds 
of industrial societies, capitalist America and Soviet Russia, is a horse  
of a different color from measuring the productivity rates of the individual  
within each system. The former is a measure of automation. Automation 
allows for  the freeing up of labor from one factory and sector of the economy 
and shifting  it to another under Soviet socialism. Under capitalism this same 
automation  increases structural unemployment; intensifies the law of the 
tendency for the  rate of profit to fall and drives the workers further and 
further into poverty. 

The latter is an impossible measure, or rather a demand to measure the  
rate of exploitation of a Chrysler worker in 1980, against a Soviet autoworker  
in the same year. Perhaps, there a way to make such a measure of the  
productivity of the individual, but I confuse here and now, that such is above  
my little brain. 
Intensive led design of industrial machinery arises to  dominance under the 
impact of the capitalist shell of the growing division of  labor, when 
society is leaping from manufacture to industry. Intensive design  increases the 
rate of extraction of surplus value from the individual worker.  Before the 
consolidation of Soviet Power and at least the second five year plan,  it 
was not possible to speak of the extensive shape of industrial machinery  
except as a theoretical abstraction or as the early "Left Opposition" put  
matters . . . . "we do not want capitalist machinery and capitalist technique."  
At best the "Opposition" expressed a sentiment against inheriting the  
capitalistic shell of division of labor, which required Soviet society to start  
from scratch. This was so because all the assembled machinery in the world  
market had evolved for the last 100 years under the impact of capital. The  
distinction between British and American machinery for instance was not a  
qualitative difference in extensive and intensive design. Practical politics 
won  the day. However, the distinction that is extensive and intensive 
evolution of  machinery would begin to appear as second generation productive 
forces - 15 - 20  years later. 

Evolved extensive design of industrial machinery increases the  socialist 
productivity of labor, in its mental and physical dimensions; on the  job and 
off and registers as an absolute increase in things produced. This takes  
place based on increasing the functionality of insturments and machinery. 
This  in turn demands deploying the human mind and more complex tools from "the 
 historical mental tool box ." 
Productivity means "the productivity of human  labor," which includes 
"broadness of knowledge," on the job and off. Who but an  insane man, driven by 
centuries of property view intensifying the labor process  as "human 
progress?" 

In my opinion, the extensive and intensive shape of industrial  production, 
as a theoretical field of inquiry demands acknowledging the  capitalist 
shape of division of labor and the historical division of labor are  not 
identical in scope. Further, Sovietism could not survive without first  inheriting 
the existing shape of division of labor; which had been handed down  from 
the period of manufacture and then deploying it. In the process of its  
evolution, one then observes and develops the extensive shape to serve the  
unique requirements of socialist production. Soviet genius is witnessed in the  
worker that invented the AK 47, although everyday more information is 
available  about Soviet computer technology. A tool or machine that can carry out 
its  functional utility without breaking down, and can be deployed by 
basically any  member of society, with minimum training is more productive. 

By intensifying the labor process capital digs its own grave. Capital  
cannot develop the division of labor without ousting human labor from the labor  
process and destroying the fundamental basis of the value relations. 
Capital is  not and was not more productive than Soviet socialism. Rather, the 
bourgeosie  had a head start in its sicence-technical development of the means 
of  production. The Soviets closed the gap at a break neck pace. 

Marx Capital Chapter Fourteen: Division of Labour and Manufacture gives  
the definitive presentation of the development of the division of labor within 
 the capitalist shell. Anyone that rereads this Chapter with my child like  
presentation of extensive and intensive shape of industrial productive 
forces,  might see something different and more profound in Marx writing. To my 
knowledge  no one on any Marxist list has attempted to unravel these aspects 
of development  of the productive forces. NO ONE. 
 
III. Ergonomics and why property alters application of concepts. Another  
way of looking at the same thing. 
Ergonomics is the study of workplace  design: the study of how a workplace 
and the equipment used there can best be  designed for comfort, safety, 
efficiency, and productivity. This definition  applies to industrial capitalism 
and industrial socialism. By industrial  socialism is meant a value 
producing system where the law of value is contained  and prevented from dictating 
the price form; where means of production do not  appear on the market as 
commodities; and reproduction of the society  infrastructure (the base level 
network of heavy machinery, transportation as  trucks, railway lines, 
hospitals, schools, bridges, electricity grid, water  network, etc.), is not ignited 
or driven in its reproduction cycle by the quest  for surplus value. 
Ergonomics may generally mean the same thing in America  and the former 
Soviet Union, but as an applied science the intensive and  extensive shape of 
productive forces comes into play. Machinery - industrial  machinery, with 
enhanced extensive design requires a different spatial  requirement within a 
single factory. I cannot prove this to anyone that has not  been in a modern 
plant specializes in single product production. For instance  any engine 
plant built after year 2000 is hideous and crystallizes a level of  alienation 
and isolation of the individual, which is unbearable. Modern American  
plants are deliberately designed to prevent communications between individuals  
and even their location is based on increasing maximum isolation of the 
workers  from any community. These ergonomic aspects of capitalist production 
express  intensive conception and design. 

IV. Art: A digression and excursion into the individual self. 

Art is perceptible by the senses and as such is alienated labor. Human  art 
externalizes and offers to the sense perception the inner life of the 
human.  Nature as art - beauty, is what it is or is the index for every 
definition and  concept of beauty. In nature form is proof of function or establishes 
function.  Green is life or oxygen. Green movements adopt the "Green" 
symbol as affirmation  of continuous breathing or life. Art is profoundly 
individual and I suspect  agreement on a concept called "people?s art" is all but 
impossible. I believe  art has a class shape and texture. Although, I have 
never mentioned it publicly  my objection to the Cubists is how they color the 
fragmented man - human, rather  than representation of fragmentation. That 
which is human is not fragmented  under the impact of the division of labor. 
Rather, fragmentation is the result  of the capitalist shell in which the 
division of labor evolves. My own very  personal concept of beauty and man 
fragmented under capital is best expemplied  in the art on the cover of the 
Marvin Gaye's album, "I Want You." 

Obviously art and beauty is individual in its historic impact.  

It is possible to have agreement on what is a machine and its impact on the 
 senses. Machine design can be a beautiful thing, but then, I love machines 
in  perhaps an unhealthy way. 
Every machine on earth has as its evolutionary  "Eve" and inspiration "the 
human body" or is an externalized symbolic  representation of the human body 
in motion. Machines are created by the human or  appeared to us in the form 
of alienated labor or materialized labor outside the  body. Machines are 
conceived as extensions of the human body. A simple lever is  a concept and 
symbolic representation of the human body being deployed to  magnify its 
material power. 
Break . . . . .

Extensive design is a beautiful thing. Intensive design is ugly,  monstrous 
and "brown, gray and black" or the fundamental color scheme of the  Cubists 
portraying the abstract fragmented human abstractly and outside nature.  

This is a story for later but part of the Soviet Legacy. 
WL. 
 
 


From shmage at pipeline.com  Sat Sep 12 14:04:44 2009
From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:04:44 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The State and Revolution
In-Reply-To: <5c2e4d230909120831ub6c4035s5496243340695987@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5c2e4d230909120831ub6c4035s5496243340695987@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2656B377-966B-4191-8D32-1C926E15583D@pipeline.com>


On Sep 12, 2009, at 11:31 AM, c b wrote:
>  Lenin might chastise me for dogmatic reference to _The State and  
> Revolution_ given that the South
> and Central American revolution has organized the working class
> majorities in many countries so as to use the bourgeois-democratic
> electoral/mass sufferage system to seize state power.

But he should not be forgiven for that, because his allegedly deep  
understanding of Marxian theory was in fact much too shallow even to  
dream of the existence of such a wonderful creature as "the South and  
Central American revolution" which could--in the absence of modern  
working classes, significant proletarian parties, or meaningful trade  
unions, (not to mention soviets)--"seize state power" by electoral  
means.

Who could have imagined how much more *die vernunft* has gotten  
*listige* nowadays!

Shane Mage

> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Sat Sep 12 14:09:21 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:09:21 EDT
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The State and Revolution
Message-ID: <cdd.591a2606.37dd59f1@aol.com>

Why would Lenin chastise you for using his exact characterization of the  
seizure of state power by the bourgeois democratic majorities, that he 
described  in "Imperialism?" Lenin characterized this exact same process as 
expressing the  meaning of "semi-colony" or having not broken out of the value 
relations as it  operates on the basis of the bourgeois property relations. 
 
No one calls the "South and Central American revolution" communists - at  
least on this list, and why would one criticize any struggle against the 
ravages  of capital? 
 
WL. 
 
>> And yet, concretely, we are in many ways at an historical  anti-pole
with the situation in Russia in 1917. Lenin might chastise me  for
dogmatic reference to _The State and Revolution_ given that the  South
and Central American revolution has organized the working  class
majorities in many countries so as to use the  bourgeois-democratic
electoral/mass sufferage system to seize state power.  The
fascist/comprador bourgeois classes have had to resort to  that
favorite of the reaction the coup d'etat in Venezuela and  Honduras.
Violent overthrow is the desparate polictal location of the  rich
enemies of the working masses today in the South of the  Western
Hemisphere.<<



From phil at pwalden.fsnet.co.uk  Sat Sep 12 14:33:12 2009
From: phil at pwalden.fsnet.co.uk (Phil Walden)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:33:12 +0100
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] what are GM unions up to?
In-Reply-To: <5c2e4d230909110722t49bc95a1u717b3aeeeb69953e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5c2e4d230909110722t49bc95a1u717b3aeeeb69953e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F178CE79522B43DE8A829E4EF6663CF7@pwalden>

Can you tell me what VEBA stands for in the response that you were given?

Phil Walden


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

On 9/9/09, Phil Walden <phil at pwalden.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> I have the GM bankruptcy petition in front of me and under an item called
> "Employee Obligations" it details that an amount of $20 billion has been
> paid to the unions, although over what period it does not say.
>
>
>
> Have officials in the GM unions been taking massive bribes and
backhanders?
> Or is there some other explanation for this $20 billion?
>
>
>
> Phil Walden


Someon gave me this response:

Not sure without checking with others but maybe it refers to the money
paid to the VEBA.  That changed over time but ended up being a
combination of cash and stock.

I don't think the problem in the UAW is taking bribes - it might be
easier to fix if that was the problem.  They lack a class struggle
approach to fighting the company.

Things I've heard about Gettelfinger is that he's basically honest but
lacks any strategic vision at all of how to build broad unity,
including unity with the rest of the class, to win.

- John

_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis



From Waistline2 at aol.com  Sat Sep 12 16:35:52 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:35:52 EDT
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Red Medicine (1)
Message-ID: <c48.4276d08b.37dd7c48@aol.com>

(I would argue, that not "all" USSR citizens had access to health care. If  
we think of the fact that about 10% of the USSR in 1956 had NO electricity, 
then  you ought to think again about how wide spread the benefits of a 
planned economy  actually reacted). The spurring on of WWII caused the 
*political* understanding,  always something of a formality, to spur on 
industrialization. <<  

Comment 

Yea, I am familiar with your arugment on anything Soviet . . .  Negative. 
Red Medicine is a must read primer for those seeking the truth of  Soviet 
socialism and universal health care in the Soviet Union of 1931. 
_http://marx.org/archive/newsholme/1933/red-medicine/introduction.htm_ 
(http://marx.org/archive/newsholme/1933/red-medicine/introduction.htm)   

Quote 
"Our description of what has been accomplished in medical  administration 
may easily be regarded as giving a distorted and too favorable  view of 
medico-social developments in Russia. Our statements are open to this  
accusation, which has been similarly urged against the particulars given in the  many 
earlier volumes which have described personal observations made by foreign  
visitors to the U.S.S.R. Doubtless we were shown the best of what exists in  
Russia. The same would hold equally good if any foreign visitors came with  
influential introductions to inspect medical and public health work in 
England  or America. We realized all the time that we were seeing the best that 
the  U.S.S.R. had succeeded in developing. But when this best was seen 
repeated in  many cities visited by us, and when it was everywhere frankly stated 
that their  arrangements were not yet complete, that the dearth of doctors 
made more  adequate provisions difficult for a few years; and when we were 
told openly of  the great difficulties which were being experienced in 
extending the medical  provisions of cities to the vast rural communities of 
Russia, and of the only  partial success hitherto achieved in overcoming these 
difficulties, we were  forced to the conclusion that we were not being 
victimized by a  "window-dressing" display; and that, indeed, a marvelous reformed 
and extended  medical service had been organized in Russia, the methods and 
procedures of  which the rest of the world would do well to study." Red 
Medicine, written 1932-  1933 
_http://marx.org/archive/newsholme/1933/red-medicine/introduction.htm_ 
(http://marx.org/archive/newsholme/1933/red-medicine/introduction.htm)   (my emphasis) End Quote 

The wonderfulness of the reality of Soviet socialism - in 1932, is  enough 
to make one smile. Think 1932 America. When I learnt the truth of Soviet  
socialism, no revisionist huckster of the Nikita Khrushchev ilk, could push me 
 on the of anti-Sovietism and anti-Stalinism. There is much to critique and 
 subject to harsh criticism in Soviet history, but universal health care in 
the  1930s is not on the short or long list. The fact that this system 
developed five  years after the Stalin plan for industrialization of the Soviet 
Union is  remarkable and a testimony to genius. 

Quote 
"Kazan has a population of 179,000, of which 50 per cent are  Tartars. We 
learned that at the time when the Soviet Government proclaimed the  Tartar 
Republic there was almost no hospital provision for the Tartar  population. 
Now they have twenty large hospitals and sanatoria, while the  hospitals for 
non-Tartars have increased in number. We were met by the Commissar  of 
Health, a huge finelooking Tartar. He took us to visit a large university  clinic, 
including all the departments of medicine, in which students are taught  
special subjects. About 1,500 patients are treated daily at this clinic. It 
has  70 beds for inpatients. We got glimpses of other health institutions in 
the  city, and we carried away an impression of an Oriental city in the 
course of  transition, with signs of modernization already visible. 

An interesting example of Soviet wholesale preventive measures is the fact  
that the entire population of Kazan was vaccinated or revaccinated in June, 
 1932, following some fifteen cases of smallpox the preceding winter. 
Through  similar mass work typhus has disappeared from this city." End Quote 

Stalinist propaganda? Read the pamphlet for yourself, keeping in mind this  
is 1932. 
Sorry I cannot reframe from this passage: 

Quote 
"West of Samara are many industrial plants working the rich  deposits of 
chalk, gypsum, combustible shale, and phosphorites. At the village  of Batraki 
is a railroad bridge nearly a mile long, and, as our steamer  approached 
this, we were all ordered under cover. This seemed extraordinary, but  we 
understood it when we learned that two spans of the bridge had been blown up  by 
enemies and that there had been counterrevolutionary threats from time to  
time. The incident illustrates the "war mentality" which still continues in 
many  parts of the country. 

In the afternoon of our third day on the Volga we entered the Autonomous  
Republic of the Germans of the Volga. Here live half a million Germans, 
speaking  their own language and preserving their own characteristic culture. 
This was  evident in the general aspect of Saratov, a city of about 215,000 
population. 

Here the Health Commissar and practically his whole staff came aboard  to 
meet us, a woman doctor acting as chairman and spokesman. As the boat was  
several hours late we were unable to make any inspection ashore, but we were  
fortunate in having a twohour conference with the deputation. We were 
informed  that there is no typhus and very Iittle typhoid in Saratov, Tuberculosis 
is  declining. Our visitors gave a very clear and concise descriion of the  
hospitals, sanatoria, night sanatoria, ambulatoria, consultation centres, 
the  medical technicums (for training nurses), and antialcoholic dispensaries 
in  Saratov. They also described the work in maternity care, birth control, 
and the  control of prostitution." End quote 
 
Finally a small piece about Tiflis Georgia although I probably should have  
reprinted a paragraph about the Ukraine. 

Quote 
"Our study of health services in Tiflis began with a  conference with the 
Commissar of Health for Georgia, Dr. G. L. Kuchaidze. We  were oriented as to 
the character of the city, the rapid mechanization of  industry, the 
development of the university, which now has about 16,000  students, and the 
preventive and curative medical services. The Commissar  pointed 0ut that, except 
for adaation to local circumstances, the plan for  health work was the same 
here as in the R.S.F.S.R. In Georgia, as elsewhere,  there is a chain of 
ambulatoria, polyclinics, and hospitals, general and  special, all linked 
together. He discussed with us at some length the education  and training of 
doctors at the Medical Institute connected with the university,  the education 
of midwives, instructed in Russian as well as in their native  languages, 
maternity and child care, welfare work, and in general the procedure  in 
preventive work and in the treatment of patients." 

If not today, then perhaps tomorrow, American workers might want to  learn 
about and consider a 21 st century Soviet approach to the health care  
system as it grew up under the old Stalin regime. Not just its economic features  
but its communist ideology. After the economic issue is resolved and the 
power  of capital is shattered and overthrown, the chief enemy in the health 
care field  is illiteracy and ignorance. Communist advocate an approach that 
says health  care is also health concerns built into the workplace, the 
public school system  and cultural organizations 

There are different sides to the economic problem of health cost. We  
American?s are obsessed with cost because the capitalist charge us for  
everything without mercy. Just by making higher education free, one is about to  
train and field 100 times as many doctors amongst the population as the  
capitalist system provides. Even according to the logic of capitalist economy,  
"throwing" an addition million doctors throughout our society would drop the  
"cost" of health care overnight. That is how we communist pay for things.  
When tiny Cuba offered to send thousands of doctors to America the  
capitalist screamed bloody murder denouncing communism because more doctors - in  
their thousands and hundreds of thousands, would destroy the profits of the  
insurance company and drive the cost of medical care down. 
The Soviet model  is worth considering. Under a modified and 100% 
Americanized Soviet type plan,  where government by passes the Federal Reserve 
system, abolishes all medical  insurance companies and directly issue credit 
(money) to doctors and  institutions performing services. After all no one in 
America needs health  insurance. What we need is medical care not insurance. 

Because we have been trained in the way of capitalism it seems when  
government issues credit - money, it is creating debt. This is not true. When  
government (the will of the people and not the Federal Reserve) creates money 
it  is creating a credit instrument - not debt, and this credit instrument 
allowed  one to purchase things. Such a system can work and works very good 
when people  are not excluded from laboring as is the case under capitalism. 

When people are excluded from the system of creating products and services  
the cycle of exchange of things breaks down. 

The legacy of the Soviet system is that such a system can operate  without 
a stock market, insurance companies or private banks.
 
WL. 
 
 


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 14 05:50:24 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:50:24 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] what are GM unions up to?
In-Reply-To: <F178CE79522B43DE8A829E4EF6663CF7@pwalden>
References: <5c2e4d230909110722t49bc95a1u717b3aeeeb69953e@mail.gmail.com>
	<F178CE79522B43DE8A829E4EF6663CF7@pwalden>
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909140450r22e1bb5eie8297c792b36285a@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0,,id=154610,00.html

Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association - 501(c)(9)

A voluntary employees' beneficiary association (VEBA) under Internal
Revenue Code section 501(c)(9) is an organization organized to pay
life, sick, accident, and similar benefits to members or their
dependents, or designated beneficiaries if no part of the net earnings
of the association inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or
individual. The organization must meet the following requirements:

It must be a voluntary association of employees;
The organization must provide for payment of life, sick, accident, or
other similar benefits to members or their dependents or designated
beneficiaries and substantially all of its operations are for this
purpose; and
Its earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or
shareholder other than through the payment of benefits described in
(2) above.
Membership of a section 501(c)(9) organization must consist of
individuals who are employees who have an employment-related common
bond. This common bond may be a common employer (or affiliated
employers), coverage under one or more collective bargaining
agreements, membership in a labor union, or membership in one or more
locals of a national or international labor union. An organization
that is part of a plan will not be exempt unless the plan meets
certain nondiscrimination requirements. However, if the organization
is part of a plan maintained under a collective bargaining agreement
between employee representatives and employers, and such plan was the
subject of good faith bargaining between such employee representatives
and employers, the plan need not meet such nondiscrimination
requirements for the organization to qualify as tax exempt.. For more
information, see Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Associations.

An organization will not be treated as exempt under section 501(c)(9)
unless it gives timely notice to the IRS that is it applying for
recognition of such status.  See When to File in the instructions to
Form 1024 for more information.






On 9/12/09, Phil Walden <phil at pwalden.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Can you tell me what VEBA stands for in the response that you were given?
>
> Phil Walden
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> On 9/9/09, Phil Walden <phil at pwalden.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > I have the GM bankruptcy petition in front of me and under an item called
> > "Employee Obligations" it details that an amount of $20 billion has been
> > paid to the unions, although over what period it does not say.
> >
> >
> >
> > Have officials in the GM unions been taking massive bribes and
> backhanders?
> > Or is there some other explanation for this $20 billion?
> >
> >
> >
> > Phil Walden
>
>
> Someon gave me this response:
>
> Not sure without checking with others but maybe it refers to the money
> paid to the VEBA.  That changed over time but ended up being a
> combination of cash and stock.
>
> I don't think the problem in the UAW is taking bribes - it might be
> easier to fix if that was the problem.  They lack a class struggle
> approach to fighting the company.
>
> Things I've heard about Gettelfinger is that he's basically honest but
> lacks any strategic vision at all of how to build broad unity,
> including unity with the rest of the class, to win.
>
> - John
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
>


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 14 05:53:38 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:53:38 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The State and Revolution
In-Reply-To: <2656B377-966B-4191-8D32-1C926E15583D@pipeline.com>
References: <5c2e4d230909120831ub6c4035s5496243340695987@mail.gmail.com>
	<2656B377-966B-4191-8D32-1C926E15583D@pipeline.com>
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909140453t7e23042et42bc20556f7a743@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/12/09, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 12, 2009, at 11:31 AM, c b wrote:
> >  Lenin might chastise me for dogmatic reference to _The State and
> > Revolution_ given that the South
> > and Central American revolution has organized the working class
> > majorities in many countries so as to use the bourgeois-democratic
> > electoral/mass sufferage system to seize state power.
>
> But he should not be forgiven for that, because his allegedly deep
> understanding of Marxian theory was in fact much too shallow even to
> dream of the existence of such a wonderful creature as "the South and
> Central American revolution" which could--in the absence of modern
> working classes, significant proletarian parties, or meaningful trade
> unions, (not to mention soviets)--"seize state power" by electoral
> means.
>
> Who could have imagined how much more *die vernunft* has gotten
> *listige* nowadays!
>
> Shane Mage

^^^^^^^^

CB: What is this evidence of your deep understanding of Marxian theory
such that we should take seriously your claim that there is not a
South and Central American revolution right now ?



>
> > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> > always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> > kindling in measures and going out in measures."
> >
> > Herakleitos of Ephesos
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
>


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 14 05:58:46 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:58:46 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The State and Revolution
In-Reply-To: <cdd.591a2606.37dd59f1@aol.com>
References: <cdd.591a2606.37dd59f1@aol.com>
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909140458l6150fb88va236c8d8890bd49a@mail.gmail.com>

<Waistline2 at aol.com> wrote:
> Why would Lenin chastise you for using his exact characterization of the
> seizure of state power by the bourgeois democratic majorities, that he
> described  in "Imperialism?"

^^^^^
CB: Because I'm  talking about working class democratic majorities using
the  bourgeois-democratic electoral/mass sufferage system
^^^^^^^^


 Lenin characterized this exact same process as
> expressing the  meaning of "semi-colony" or having not broken out of the value
> relations as it  operates on the basis of the bourgeois property relations.
>
> No one calls the "South and Central American revolution" communists - at
> least on this list,

^^^^^
CB: I call it working class revolution on this list.

^^^^^^^


 and why would one criticize any struggle against the
> ravages  of capital?
>
> WL.

^^^^^^^
CB: Not criticize the struggles. Criticize my reference to a book
analyzing another concrete situation in which Lenin was encouraging
the Russian masses not to wait for an electoral victory.


>
> >> And yet, concretely, we are in many ways at an historical  anti-pole
> with the situation in Russia in 1917. Lenin might chastise me  for
> dogmatic reference to _The State and Revolution_ given that the  South
> and Central American revolution has organized the working  class
> majorities in many countries so as to use the  bourgeois-democratic
> electoral/mass sufferage system to seize state power.  The
> fascist/comprador bourgeois classes have had to resort to  that
> favorite of the reaction the coup d'etat in Venezuela and  Honduras.
> Violent overthrow is the desparate polictal location of the  rich
> enemies of the working masses today in the South of the  Western
> Hemisphere.<<
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
>


From cdb1003 at prodigy.net  Mon Sep 14 06:14:09 2009
From: cdb1003 at prodigy.net (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 05:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] UNIONS MUST MOVE LEFT -- THEY HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE
Message-ID: <970111.47179.qm@web180115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

UNIONS MUST MOVE LEFT -- THEY HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE
Questioning the Direction of U.S. Labor
By David Bacon
Monthly Review, September 2009

A Review of Solidarity Divided
By Bill Fletcher Jr. and Fernando Gapasin
University of Californa Press, 2008

    Through the 1980s I was a union organizer and activist in our Bay Area labor anti-apartheid committee.  As we picketed ships carrying South African cargo, and recruited city workers to support the African National Congress (then called a terrorist organization by both the U.S. and South Africa), I looked at South African unions with great admiration.
    The South African Congress of Trade Unions, banned in the 1950s, had found ways to organize African and Colored workers underground, to support a liberation struggle in a broad political alliance.  Heroic SACTU leaders like Vuysile Mini gave their lives on the scaffold for freedom.  Then, as apartheid tottered and eventually fell, SACTU unions became the nucleus of a new federation, the Congress of South African Trade Unions.  With roots in that liberation war, it declared socialism as its goal, and still does today.
    COSATU unions prize rank-and-file control over their elected leaders, and engage members in long and thorough discussions of the country's development plans.  The labor federation has the most sophisticated political strategy of any union in the world today - balanceing a leading role in the tripartite alliance that governs South Africa with independence of program and action, even striking to force policies that put the needs of workers before the neoliberal demands of the World Bank.  Jacob Zuma owes his election as president of South Africa today to South African labor.
    As an organizer during the same period I worked with many others to force our own labor movement to recognize that organizing new members and changing our politics was necessary for survival at home.  If we could double our size (at least), I thought, we'd have more power, while the streetheat generated by the intense conflict organizing creates would set the stage for political transformation. Needless to say, that  transformation process turned out to be much more complicated than I expected.
    At the beginning of Solidarity Divided, Bill Fletcher recalls a comment made by a healthcare unionist at a meeting in South Africa which sums up at least part of what makes COSATU so different from the AFL-CIO.  "'Comrades,' they began, 'the role of the union is to represent the interests of the working class.  There are times when the interests of the working class conflict with the interests of the members of our respective unions.'"
    Fletcher and Fernando Gapasin, Solidarity Divided's coauthor, use the quote to dramatize two important differences between our movements.  South African unions talk about workers' class interests, using words that still frighten unionists here.  And not only can COSATU militants see the potential conflict that can sometimes arise, but believe that when it does, unions should put the interests of all workers before their own institutional needs.
    There are many differences between the U.S. labor movement and other union movements around the world.  In France in recent months workers have imprisoned their bosses in their offices to force them to negotiate over the closure of factories and job elimination. On May Day hundreds of thousands of workers poured into the streets in Germany and Russia, and in Turkey unions had to battle the police for the right to stand in Taksim Square.  In El Salvador unions supported the guerrilleros during a civil war to upend Central America's most unjust social order, while their offices were bombed and their leaders killed.  In the Philippines workers commonly put up tents at the gate of a factory on strike, and live there until the strike is over.  Even workers from Mexico and Canada use phrases like "working class" as part of ordinary conversation.
    By comparison we seem pretty conservative.  Our labor movement has resources and wealth that are enormous by comparison with most unions around the world.  But our own existence and power is just as threatened as that of many others.
    The purpose of Solidarity Divided is not to compare us unfavorably with labor elsewhere, or to mount an unrelieved criticism of our conservatism.  It is to ask questions, so that we can come to grips with the problems that endanger our survival.  And the experience of unions and workers in other countries, while it can't be transferred or copied, can at least inspire us with the courage to face our own situation with realism and the determination to change it.

    Solidarity Divided has been criticized by some activists for the dark picture it paints of the situation faced by unions in the U.S.  It is not a hopeless one, but it is certainly sobering.  Few would argue that with 12% of workers in unions there is no crisis for U.S. labor.  And the authors are not saying that workers can't win in conflicts with employers today, or with the political system.  The continuation of the Bush era was defeated in large part by union activists, money and votes.  Workers can still win major organizing drives, as they did after a sixteen year struggle at Smithfield Foods in North Carolina.  US Labor Against the War can win labor to call for U.S. troops to leave Iraq, and for solidarity with Iraqi workers.
    But in reality, the working class here at home faces profound changes that have fundamentally undermined its political rights and standard of living.  Over the last four decades, corporations have built an international system of production and distribution that links together the workers of many countries, but in which workers have no control over the expropriation and distribution of the wealth they create.  Further, this system has forced devastating and permanent unemployment on entire generations of U.S. workers, especially in African American and Chicano neighborhoods.  Meanwhile, neoliberal economic policies displace communities in developing countries, creating a reserve labor force of hundreds of millions, migrating both within and across borders, desperate for work.
    Fletcher and Gapasin wrote Solidarity Divided before the current economic crisis, which only highlights the problems they describe.  Many elements of this crisis are structural, and won't disappear with the next turn of the business cycle.  Workers increasingly can't buy back what the system produces - the bizarre loan conditions that financed home purchases only illustrate that thousands of purchasers didn't have the income necessary to buy housing.
    For unions and workers to survive in this environment, they must demand increasingly radical reforms.  As Fletcher and Gapasin point out, the idea that "the needs of workers can be met by the bargaining demands and institutional needs of unions" is a relic of a vanished past.
    Corporations today are almost entirely opposed to any reforms to the current system, whether single payer healthcare or the right to a job.  They've discarded the social charter in which employers accepted the existence of unions, under certain conditions, after World War Two.  When one considers the ferocity with which they battle the relatively minor changes in U.S. labor law proposed by the Employee Free Choice Act, it's clear that to them the idea that unions should be encouraged, an ideal enshrined in the preamble to the National Labor Relations Act, is just so much meaningless verbiage.
    Despite a desperate desire by U.S. labor leaders to revive mutual respect between corporations and unions, Fletcher and Gapasin say, "that peace has not come.  Nor can these leaders, nor anyone else, identify any sector of corporate America that intends to establish a new social compact with labor."
    Each month for the last half year, over half a million people have lost their jobs.  Banks, meanwhile, have been showered with hundreds of millions of dollars to keep them afloat, while working families can't get their loans renegotiated so they can stay in their homes.  Yet there has been no national demonstration called by either labor federation, demanding a direct Federal jobs program or redirecting the bailout to workers instead of the wealthy.  Remember those French workers?  They're not just organizing (yet another!) general strike protesting the same conditions, but holding their bosses hsotage.
    The book, then, is about change.  Where did labor's current conservatism come from?  We too have a radical past.  In the U.S. people also used to talk about the working class, debated the nature of capitalism, and discussed strategies for radically transforming or replacing it.  So what happened?  Why is it now so difficult for labor to change?
    One of the most valuable parts of Solidarity Divided is its examination of our own history.  It is not a detailed academic history, but it establishes the fact that U.S. labor has always had a left wing that advocated the organization of all workers and radical social change, at the same time that racism limited its potential.
    William Syvis organized the National Labor Union and included African Americans during the post-Civil War decades, yet failed to protest the end of Reconstruction and the reestablishment of the racist white power structure in the south.  The Wobblies organized immigrants in many languages, and used free speech fights and working class songs and music to organize a population of itinerant floating workers.  We see day labor unions developing the same ideas today. The CIO won the crucial battle to organize the country's basic industry, but lost its radicalism in the purge of the left, substituting a centralized bureaucracy for earlier rank-and-file democratic traditions.
    To change, we need to reexamine the ideas and strategy that are part of our own inheritance.  But we also need to come to grips with the purges that drove that leftwing culture underground.
    One of the most important reasons why change is so hard for U.S. unions is the continuing legacy of the cold war.  Fletcher and Gapasin make a crucial contribution in urging a reexamination of the cost paid for the suppression of the left.  That period may seem long ago, but it fundamentally shaped the relationship between leftwing activists and their ideas, and the centers of power in modern unions. "Today the dominant coalition of traditionalist and pragmatist union leaders continues to shape union culture," they say, "whereas leftists get coopted or marginalized.  This situation limits the union movement's scope and narrows unions' political and social impact."  Although Solidarity Divided has a rare analysis of the role of new left militants in unions during the post-Civil Rights years, it offers no comment on why those activists made so little effort to come to terms with the history that created the conservatism against which they rebelled.
    No pair of authors can write a prescription for change - "just do what we say and your problems will be cured."  But they can urge us not to be afraid of facing the truth, and Gapasin and Fletcher do that.
    Discussion in labor is difficult because the cold war taught unionists that political differences beyond a limited range would result in marginalization at best, expulsion at worst.  You can't talk freely if you're afraid for your career or your job.  That cold war straightjacket strengthened a hierarchical structure and culture, very differnt from the egalitarianism in COSATU or Salvadoran unions. We have forgotten the wobblies' idea that we're all leaders, equals among equals.  At the same time, unions have accumulated property, treasuries, and political debts, and have an interest in defending them, making institutional needs paramount.  We don't challenge the government out in the streets beyond a certain point becaaue we don't want to risk not being at the table when the deals affecting our future are made.

    Fletcher and Gapasin spend a great deal of the book analyzing the various efforts to change labor's direction following the election of John Sweeney as president of the AFL-CIO at the New York convention in 1995.  One important reason for the halting and incomplete nature of these changes was the failure to come to grips with what had come before.  Labor needed then, and still needs today, its own truth commission, to publicly discuss the consequences of the anticommunist hysteria of the 1950s.
    Radical ideas and the language to describe them continue to be illegitimate because their suppression has been unacknowledged. After 1995, the prevailing attitude in national leadership was, "We don't need to rehash the past.  Let's concentrate on where we're going now."  It's difficult, however, to determine that new direction if you can't talk about where the old one was headed, and what was wrong with it.  Nowhere is this confusion more evident than in labor's attitude toward U.S. foreign policy.  In Colombia the barriers to solidarity with its leftwing union federation came down, and unions like the Steel Workers became bastions of support for its embattled unionists.  Yet next door in Venezuela, U.S. labor supported coup plotters against the radical regime of Hugo Chavez. Under pressure from US Labor Against the War, the AFL-CIO publicly rejected U.S. military intervention in Iraq.  Yet the Democratic Party's support for war in Afghanistan and
 for Israel's attack on Gaza are greeted with silence.
    Change is always uneven and incomplete, but the change process in U.S. labor has virtually stopped, leaving unions increasingly caught up in internal divisions and conflict. Solidarity Divided was written before the current internal struggle between SEIU and its California healthcare local, and its intervention into battles within UNITE HERE.  But these are conflicts over the basic issues raised in the book - class partnership vs. class struggle, and the right and ability of union members to control their own organizations.
    Lacking agreement on how and why the power of unions was undermined by the suppression of the left, there has been no consensus on what should replace the old cold war philosophy.  Much of Solidarity Divided, then, is devoted to description and analysis of the different ideas about how labor should be revitalized, some good, some at best ineffective, and some awful.
    Both authors write as "participant observers," Fletcher as a highly-placed staff member at SEIU, then education director at the AFL-CIO and special assistant to Sweeney, and Gapasin as a local union leader, labor council head, and labor and ethnic studies professor at UCLA. They were there for many of the arguments and movements they describe, and they outline some of the most important efforts to get the union movement to change direction - Jobs with Justice, the Los Angeles Manufacturing Action Project and others.
    They pay particular attention to the "organizing model," which was developed in opposition to the philosophy of business unionism, in which members pay dues and receive in exchange union services, as though a union was an insurance program rather than an organization built to fight the boss.  But, the book says, "reformers began to worship member mobilization and activism, certainly a component of a vibrant trade unionism, without much discussion of who should do the mobilizing, what the objectives should be, and what methods were approporiate."
    An even bigger problem with this model, however, was that it has so little interest in the education of workers about the nature of the society in which they live.  A deeper understanding (that is, greater class consciousness) can lead to ideas for alternatives, both in radical reforms of the existing system, and even its replacement. This kind of education, part of the normal life of unions in South Africa or El Salvador, requires an investment of time, and a real interest in how workers think.  People act autonomously based on their ideas, and workers with greater understanding and consciousness are able to lead themselves and each other, rather than acting solely on directives from above.  Further, while education doesn't necessarily produce immediate mobilizing results, it does treat workers as the people whose thinking, and eventually whose leadership, is the key element in building a union.
    Instead, Fletcher and Gapasin point out, the mobilizing model produces unions that are directed by fulltime paid staff, in which workers play a subordinate role.  At worst, workers become almost irrelevant in a numbers game in which the size of the union is what counts, rather than creating an organization they can learn to use to challenge the employer at work to win better wages and conditions.
    Fletcher was himself the creator of the most ambitious effort in decades to educate union activists and local leaders, a program called "Common Sense Economics."  Strangely, Solidarity Divided has no discussion of that experience.  There are some other puzzling omissions, especially the impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement.  That treaty caused a huge debate in labor which coincided with the rebellion that eventually brought Sweeney into office.  It marked a watershed in the growing awareness among U.S. workers of the impact of globalization, and brought forth important new movements of solidarity, especially between unions and workers in the U.S. and Mexico.
    Solidarity Divided has an important section on globalization, but it sees it mostly in terms of military domination.  But what is new about the role workers play in this system?  Are the anti-globalization movemennts sweeping Europe and the developing world allies of the labor movement?  Do they propose real alternatives, or are they united primarily by a common hatred of capitalism?
    NAFTA and the battle in Seattle at the WTO not only profoundly affected the thinking of workers about the future of their own jobs, but they also set the stage for the huge debate over immigration that followed.  Those workers and unions who were educated by the debate were in a much better position to understand the way neoliberal reforms displaced workers and farmers in Mexico, and led to migration across the U.S./Mexico border.
    The debate over immigration policy now puts critical questions before U.S. unions.  Are unions going to defend all workers (including the undocumented), or just some?  Should unions support immigration enforcement designed to force millions of workers from their jobs, so that they will leave the country?  How can labor achieve the unity and solidarity it needs to successfully confront transnational corporations, both internally within the U.S., and externally with workers in countries like Mexico?
    Understanding that NAFTA hurt workers on both sides of the border is a crucial step in answering these questions, providing the raw material workers need to understand globaliztion.  But raw material is just that.  Workers and unions need an education process, and educators, who can help turn that raw material into consciousness and action.  In more radical times, that role of educator was played by leftwing socialist and communist parties.  Since this kind of organized left presence in labor is so small today, it is unclear what can take its place.  Solidarity Divided helps in presenting the question, but no one has a good answer today for this one.
    Fletcher and Gapasin call for a new kind of unionism.  "The current framework of U.S. trade unionism is so fundamentally flawed," they say, "that a new framework is needed.  With that new framework will inevitably come new organizational structures, but forging new structures without defining the moment and defining the framework would simply create new problems."  Arguing that the kind of structural proposals that led eventually to setting up the Change to Win federation are meaningless without a change in political direction, they call for discarding the body of ideas that guides unions today.  They condemn the effort to reduce every problem to a question of pragmatic organizing tactics, while essentially seeking a strategic partnership with corporations and the government.
    "We call this new unionsim social justice solidarity," Fletcher and Gapasin say, and contrast it with "pragmatic solidarity," which sees alliances only in terms of what they can offer to help unions win immediate battles.  Using as examples the anti-apartheid movement, the solidarity movement with Central America, and even the broad oppostion to WalMart, they declare that "social justice solidarity begins with an important assumption - that unions are workers' organizations engaged in class struggle (whether they like it or not) rather than corporations."
    It is unfair to expect the authors to come up with quick solutions to such deeply-rooted problems, so many years in the making.  And absent the kind of discussion they urge, any suggestions for a new direction are going to sound very general.  Their most important contribution is to put the questions.  The labor movemenet is full of intelligent activists, most with a deep loyalty to their class and a real commitment to social change.  Any change in direction depends on their willingness to call for a much deeper discussion that can look for answers.
    There are no experts here.  There are no leaders with quick fixes.  It is time for us all to take responsibility for the future of our own movement.  As the pair state in conclusion, "the U.S. union movement must become part of a new labor movement.  To do so, unions must move left; they have no alternative."
    Solidarity Divided is a critical contribution to that effort.
-- __________________________________

David Bacon, Photographs and Stories
http://dbacon.igc.org

__________________________________



From cb31450 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 14 06:21:52 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:21:52 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] This Rewriting of History is Spreading Europe's
	Poison
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909140521t56bf747ap1ed56ea6cabfab79@mail.gmail.com>

This Rewriting of History is Spreading Europe's Poison

By Seumas Milne
The Guartdian (UK)
September 9, 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/09/second-world-war-soviet-pact

Through decades of British commemorations and coverage
of the second world war - from Dunkirk to D-day - there
has never been any doubt about who started it. However
dishonestly the story of 1939 has been abused to
justify new wars against quite different kinds of
enemies, the responsibility for the greatest
conflagration in human history has always been laid at
the door of Hitler and his genocidal Nazi regime.

That is until now. Fed by the revival of the
nationalist right in eastern Europe and a creeping
historical revisionism that tries to equate nazism and
communism, some western historians and commentators
have seized on the 70th anniversary of Hitler's
invasion of Poland this month to claim the Soviet Union
was equally to blame for the outbreak of war. Stalin
was "Hitler's accomplice", the Economist insisted,
after Russian and Polish politicians traded accusations
over the events of the late 1930s.

In his introduction to this week's Guardian history of
the war, the neoconservative historian Niall Ferguson
declared that Stalin was "as much an aggressor as
Hitler". Last month, the ostensibly more liberal
Orlando Figes went further, insisting the Molotov-
Ribbentrop non-aggression pact was "the licence for the
Holocaust".

Given that the Soviet Union played the decisive
military role in Hitler's defeat at the cost of 25
million dead, it's scarcely surprising that Russians
are outraged by such accusations. When the Russian
president Dmitry Medvedev last week denounced attempts
to draw parallels between the role of the Nazis and the
Soviet Union as a "cynical lie", he wasn't just
speaking for his government, but the whole country -
and a good deal of the rest of the world besides.

There's no doubt that the pact of August 1939 was a
shocking act of realpolitik by the state that had led
the campaign against fascism since before the Spanish
civil war. You can argue about how Stalin used it to
buy time, his delusions about delaying the Nazi
onslaught, or whether the Soviet occupation of the
mainly Ukrainian and Byelorussian parts of Poland was,
as Churchill maintained at the time, "necessary for the
safety of Russia against the Nazi menace".

But to claim that without the pact there would have
been no war is simply absurd - and, in the words of the
historian Mark Mazower, "too tainted by present day
political concerns to be taken seriously". Hitler had
given the order to attack and occupy Poland much
earlier. As fellow historian Geoff Roberts puts it, the
pact was an "instrument of defence, not aggression".

That was a good deal less true of the previous year's
Munich agreement, in which British and French
politicians dismembered Czechoslovakia at the Nazi
dictator's pleasure. The one pact that could
conceivably have prevented war, a collective security
alliance with the Soviet Union, was in effect blocked
by the appeaser Chamberlain and an authoritarian Polish
government that refused to allow Soviet troops on
Polish soil.

Poland had signed its own non-aggression pact with Nazi
Germany and seized Czech territory, which puts last
week's description by the Polish president Lech
Kaczynski of a Soviet "stab in the back" in
perspective. The case against the Anglo-French
appeasers and the Polish colonels' regime over the
failure to prevent war is a good deal stronger than
against the Soviet Union, which perhaps helps to
explain the enthusiasm for the new revisionism in both
parts of the continent.

But across eastern Europe, the Baltic republics and the
Ukraine, the drive to rewrite history is being used to
relativise Nazi crimes and rehabilitate collaborators.
At the official level, it has focused on a campaign to
turn August 23 - the anniversary of the non-aggression
pact - into a day of commemoration for the victims of
communism and nazism.

In July that was backed by the Organisation of Security
and Cooperation in Europe, following a similar vote in
the European parliament and a declaration signed by
Vaclav Havel and others branding "communism and nazism
as a common legacy" of Europe that should be jointly
commemorated because of "substantial similarities".

That east Europeans should want to remember the
deportations and killings of "class enemies" by the
Soviet Union during and after the war is entirely
understandable. So is their pressure on Russia to
account, say, for the killing of Polish officers at
Katyn - even if Soviet and Russian acknowledgment of
Stalin's crimes already goes far beyond, for example,
any such apologies by Britain or France for the crimes
of colonialism.

But the pretence that Soviet repression reached
anything like the scale or depths of Nazi savagery - or
that the postwar "enslavement" of eastern Europe can be
equated with wartime Nazi genocide - is a mendacity
that tips towards Holocaust denial. It is certainly not
a mistake that could have been made by the Auschwitz
survivors liberated by the Red Army in 1945.

The real meaning of the attempt to equate Nazi genocide
with Soviet repression is clearest in the Baltic
republics, where collaboration with SS death squads and
direct participation in the mass murder of Jews was at
its most extreme, and politicians are at pains to turn
perpetrators into victims. Veterans of the Latvian
Legion of the Waffen-SS now parade through Riga,
Vilnius's Museum of Genocide Victims barely mentions
the 200,000 Lithuanian Jews murdered in the Holocaust
and Estonian parliamentarians honour those who served
the Third Reich as "fighters for independence".

Most repulsively of all, while rehabilitating convicted
Nazi war criminals, the state prosecutor in Lithuania -
a member of the EU and Nato - last year opened a war
crimes investigation into four Lithuanian Jewish
resistance veterans who fought with Soviet partisans: a
case only abandoned for lack of evidence. As Efraim
Zuroff, veteran Nazi hunter and director of the Simon
Wiesenthal Centre, puts it: "People need to wake up to
what is going on. This attempt to create a false
symmetry between communism and the Nazi genocide is
aimed at covering up these countries' participation in
mass murder."

As the political heirs of the Nazis' collaborators in
eastern Europe gain strength on the back of growing
unemployment and poverty, and antisemitism and racist
violence against Roma grow across the region, the
current indulgence of historical falsehoods about the
second world war can only spread this poison.


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 14 07:17:31 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:17:31 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Trumka heads AFL-CIO
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909140617u64230f48jb55cf24180668ce@mail.gmail.com>

Labor in a Time of Diminished Expectations, Trumka
Takes Over AFL-CIO By JOANN WYPIJEWSKI

Counterpunch Sept. 11-13, 2009

http://www.counterpunch.org/jw09112009.html


Twelve years ago, the last time delegates to the
AFL-CIO???s National Convention mustered in Pittsburgh,
the rhetoric was lofty with invocations to organizing
and expanded horizons, Union Cities and Street Heat,
but in retrospect the most striking feature was money.
Money represented by the legions of smarty-pants
staffers and the repeated vows to spend $20 million a
year on organizing and whatever it took on politics;
money as expressed in the ubiquitous media ???outreach,??
the glossy brochures and overproduced sets whose only
functional purpose was to justify the retainers of the
formidable crew of hired pr experts; money as an AFL
side business in the form of its Union Plus credit card
program, then being vigorously promoted.

Those were heady days, not quite the party being
enjoyed by business in the 1990s, but more than enough
to signal that the team that had begun its ascent as
the Committee for Change to challenge Lane Kirkland???s
leadership of the AFL-CIO in 1994 and that then morphed
into the New Voices Campaign the next year to take
control of the federation in the first contested
election in 100 years was well-financed, in the saddle
and swinging with confidence. At a boat ride soiree on
Pittsburgh???s rivers one night during that 1997
convention Andy Stern, then relatively new as John
Sweeney???s successor as SEIU president, was breezily
chatty about labor???s fighting side, the potential for
blue-green alliances and subjects far afield union
matters. He had been instrumental in organizing
Sweeney???s victory as president of the federation in
1995, and as the union president most identified with
the style and scaffolding of the New AFL, it seemed he
could not have been happier.

Now Stern is gone and the money???s gone, from the
AFL-CIO at least, and when delegates again converge on
Pittsburgh for another National Convention from
September 13 through 17 they will bid a final adieu to
Sweeney too. What will remain most prominently of that
season of change will be Rich Trumka, elected secretary
treasurer of the AFL-CIO fourteen years ago and now
barreling forward to an uncontested election as the
head of the federation, promising again to be an agent
of change.

???Unions don???t live or die on their budgets,??  my old
friend Jerry Tucker, a longtime labor strategist and
onetime high-up in the United Auto Workers, remarked
the other day, and he???s right. All the money the UAW
once had did not make it a tough, smart fighting
machine in the long years of concession bargaining and
shutdowns leading up to the recent implosion of most of
the auto industry, just as all the money spread around
by the AFL-CIO across the years could not buy it
political power, internal unity, rising membership or a
winning hand against the most vicious employer class in
the developed world. Still, it???s worth talking a little
bit about money if only because it???s a subject that a
lot of people would rather not talk about, especially
since, as secretary treasurer, Trumka had the job of
keeping an eye on the AFL???s balance sheet. That sheet
is steeped in red now. The numbers aren???t fully known,
but the federation???s debt is said by one union leader
to be in the neighborhood of $24 million. The money
gained from royalties on the Union Plus card, which
once accounted for something like 30 per cent of the
federation???s revenue, has been blown, as have most of
the operating reserves. What had been a $66 million
surplus in 2000 has vanished, to the point where the
Machinists??? Tom Buffenbarger warned earlier in the year
that ???insolvency might be right around the corner.??

In part labor???s financial crash can be laid to the
disaffiliation of SEIU and six other unions that formed
their own federation, Change to Win, in 2005; in part
to the decline in per capita contributions from
affiliated unions that have seen their own numbers
tumble. Five years ago the UAW, for one, had 800,000
members; now it???s down to about 300,000, a disaster in
human terms and a major headache for an institution
that depends financially on a portion of their dues.
None of this, however, impeded the federation???s
spending on politics: $40 million on the 2006
elections, $7.5 million lobbying in 2007 and 2008
combined, $54 million on the 2008 elections. That in
turn is dwarfed by the $250 million spent in the last
election by all the AFL???s affiliated unions. Tens of
millions were spent on blind canvassing to boost the
numbers of Working America, the federation???s
non-dues-paying, individual-membership appendage. Now
the federation is joining most of the country???s
employers in laying off staff.

Trumka was no more the ultimate decision-maker on those
expenditures than he was on the estimated $50 million
renovation of the Labor College or the estimated $30
million renovation of AFL HQ on 16th Street. But nor
was he the financial gatekeeper that his title implied,
and in fact for some time now it has seemed that Trumka
was merely warming a seat all those years as the AFL???s
second man, making the occasional fiery speech and
waiting, for John Sweeney to retire and himself to
inherit the president???s platform.

???Bully pulpit??  is the term being used, and it fits.
Beloved by some in organized labor ??? for his heroics at
the helm of the 1989-90 Pittston strike when he headed
the United Mine Workers, for his fist-thumping rhetoric
and brusque manner ??? Trumka is the bane of others for
his performance as part of a team that turned out to be
less inspiring than many had hoped.

???Narcissistic, lazy, self-indulgent,??  one longtime
union organizer quickly ticked off when I asked for an
assessment of Trumka. ???With Richard, everything will
always be about Richard.??  He will claim center stage.
He will disburse rewards and punishments based on who
makes him feel comfortable or not. He will take credit
for victories and deflect blame for failures. He will
bristle at even polite criticism. More than anything,
perhaps, he will enjoy the sound of his own voice.

And yet, another longtime organizer said, with some
restraint, maybe that last bit is what???s necessary. It
was always a mistake to believe that AFL officials
could do much to change the way the affiliated unions
behave. Sweeney could exhort union leaders to organize
(though ???exhort??? overanimates Sweeney???s rather mealy
public deliveries); he could create new structures
directed from central HQ and staff them up to try to
drive his program. But he couldn???t control the
affiliates. And it wasn???t Sweeney???s nature or talent to
use the megaphone of his office to take on capital,
amplify local struggles and argue not just for unions
but for the class in a vigorous, visible way to a
larger audience. With John, nothing was ever about
John; it was about the staff and the press release. In
other words, in the culture of the loudmouth, maybe
labor needs a loudmouth.

That assumes that the latter has an ideological
framework, and there is action on the ground to wrap it
around; also that there is something behind the
loudmouth besides ego. Or, as Jerry Tucker put it,
???What the Republic workers did [sitting in at their
door and window plant in Chicago in January] a labor
federation could not instigate. But a federation could
adopt it, popularize it, do its version of the old
call-out to solidarity: ???A fireman in trouble! All
firemen assemble.??? Workers and their unions have to
wage struggle at the point of production. A federation
ideally lifts those struggles up to the level of a
movement, offers significant strategic assistance,
builds the coalition in labor and beyond and takes up
the fight at the point of consumption, making it part
of a broader social struggle.??

In Pittsburgh, Trumka is expected to talk a lot about
organized labor in the context of the larger,
unorganized and increasingly unemployed or
underemployed working class, to focus on the hard times
for younger workers and the general crises of economic
insecurity, labor rights and health care. Taking a page
from the old New Voices playbook, he told the Las Vegas
Sun recently that he aimed to make the AFL ???an
???agitating, mobilizing, organizing??? machine,??  to have a
???reserve army??  of 1,000 organizers for use in strategic
campaigns and to ???grow the movement from the grass
roots,??  which helps get around the question of how that
reserve army will be paid. He also will likely attack
the corporate-driven structure of the system and vow to
punish Democrats who cross labor on health care and
labor law reform.

The tough and tender talk will no doubt get roars of
approval from the convention, which traditionally
enjoys the pageant of put-upon workers and the rhetoric
of resistance and retribution. With less bombast,
Sweeney and even his predecessors promised to punish
Democrats for supporting NAFTA and other sell-outs on
trade, though never made good on their threats at
election time. It???s hard to imagine a Trumka-led AFL
being different, but Trumka has additional objectives
for his self-presentation.

Not only does he need to differentiate himself as the
un-Sweeney???to say, as one union leader put it, ???I???ve
been there for fourteen years but everything???s new?? ???he
wants to project himself as the un-Stern. The gritty
worker (at least in memory) rather than the technocrat.
The guy who trusts the people (???the grassroots?? ) rather
than the union staff or the corporate chiefs at
Wal-Mart, whom Andy Stern has been courting, to the
dismay of his confreres in the increasingly frayed
Change to Win. If public perception is one piece of
Trumka???s agenda, the politics of unifying organized
labor is another. Whether he has any serious plan of
action were unity to be achieved is an open question,
but efforts to bring all 16 million of the country???s
unionized workers into some kind of functional alliance
have been going on since January. The AFL and Change to
Win have been working together to push legislative
priorities. But other, structural shifts are underway.
UNITE HERE, which broke with the AFL in 2005 and more
recently split internally, with half going into SEIU,
is in talks over reaffiliation with the AFL. The
National Education Association, which has always been
independent and, with 3.2 million members, is the
biggest union in America, is poised to confederate with
other unions for the first time in some way, but what
shape that might take is not yet clear.

The multiple crises for labor and the working class,
together with self-interest and what should be an
opportune political moment, are driving unity efforts
at the top. Meanwhile, a unity effort of another kind
has been building among unions joined in Central Labor
Councils, State Federations and community/labor
alliances. It might reflect one of the most positive
legacies of the Sweeney era, because until Sweeney
activated these local labor bodies in order to lock up
their votes in 1995, they were relative backwaters in
organized labor. The Sweeney team???s claims of
spectacular rejuvenation at the state and local level
afterward were always exaggerated, but in some places
real changes occurred, as evidenced by the fact that in
Pittsburgh the gathered delegates will be enjoined to
consider the case put forward by about seventy labor
councils and states feds who spearheaded the Labor
Campaign for Single Payer. They have put forth a
resolution to make single payer the health care policy
of the AFL-CIO and commit the federation to work for it
regardless of what happens with the legislation being
mooted in Washington. Given that there are a few
labor/community campaigns to win single payer at the
state level, most notably in Vermont, following the
model of Saskatchewan whose localized experiment
eventually led to Canada???s national system, the Labor
Campaign???s work could be the start of something big.
Its resolution will be considered by the convention on
the same day that President Obama comes to speak. If
nothing else, it will confront the stage-managed
proceedings in Pittsburgh with one real debate.

JoAnn Wypijewski writes for CounterPunch, particularly
on labor issues. She will be filing regular reports
over the next year from around the country.  She can be
reached at jwyp at earthlink.net.


From cda at yorku.ca  Tue Sep 15 16:21:29 2009
From: cda at yorku.ca (cda at yorku.ca)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:21:29 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Unicolonial Ants Pose Challenge to "Selfish
	Gene"
In-Reply-To: <mailman.5.1252778404.8010.marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu>
References: <mailman.5.1252778404.8010.marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <1253053289.4ab01369dc066@mymail.yorku.ca>

"> > 2) Now, having said that, I think that you (CB) have basically attempted to
> > confront the now-dominant manner of scientific discourse by adopting the
> very
> > presuppositions of this hegemonic perspective.
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: Moi ? What did I say that makes you think that ?"

Well, again, as I noted, you combated genetic determinism (i.e., the frontiers
of genetic science) by employing genetic determinism (viz., new evidence that
there is no genetic proof for a selfish gene).

"CB: What do you think of Marx and Engels critique of European science
> ?   They critiqued it before Husserl. Marx criticized the original
> positivist Comte.   Engels famously doesn't hold much for Newton.
> Are you familiar with _Anti-Duhring_, Notes for a book on Dialectics
> of Nature , and  Lenin's _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_"


Well, thanks for wondering what I think. I appreciate very much Engels and
Marx's critique of positivism (especially the sort which COmte preached).
Having said that, however, I have found that many Marxists (and it seems to me,
and please correct me if I am wrong, that I could class you as consonant with
the following segment of Marxist thought) have reduced Marxism, and Marx's
analysis, to a form of scientific-technological determinism.


"> CB: Not from a Marxist standpoint. See for example _Not in Our Genes_
> by the Marxist biologists Levins and Lewontin.  Marxism does not take
> the position that humans are reducible to their genes. On the
> contrary, Marxism finds much determination of human society in human
> history. That is historical materialism."

Well, what's the point of referring to genetic evidence unless you feel it has
some decisive influence upon men's lives? For me, I feel that "objective truth
must be made" and practiced [praxis] (to paraphrase the theses), and not simply
"proved." Hence, how do we prove there is no selfish gene? Simply by not being
selfish. Whereas, if we reduce the debate to Newtonian terms we are left with a
deterministic ontology. Also I feel that finding the "determinination of human
society in human history" (if we think of History as a process with its own
supraorganic logic and separate-life distinct from the totality of things and
people who make it up) leads us to almost as vulgar a form of determinism as
Newtonianism has.

"> CB: Clearly, the _Manifesto of the Communist Party_ has all human
> history turning on class struggles, or the struggles of exploited and
> oppressed classes for freedom and self-determination, so surely you
> don't mean this to apply to the Marxist conception of science."

Following from the last point, I here caution that I necessarily agree with you,
sir, that Marx is the greatest of the philosophers of human freedom (for he
grounds his analysis in "historical materialism"). On whether I attribute such
a determinism-objectification to Marx....well, of course not since he was, in
being a great philosopher of freedom, also a great opponent of determinism and
objectification (see the Manuscripts).


"> CB: Not vulgar materialism. Dialectical and historical materialism is
> what we need.   You should elaborate what you find of value in
> Husserl. So far, all you have done is make conclusory remarks that
> Husserl has something to offer without presenting any arguments or
> evidence for that conclusion."


Well, as I tried to elucidate, and perhaps I had obvious shortcomings here,
Husserl (and Whitehead) presented an alternative ontological framework.
Whitehead, for his part, largely achieved this by articulating a phenomenology
of internal relations (as opposed to the atomistic and deductively static
framework of scientism). Husserl, with some congruence, went about the same
process as Whitehead but stressed, rather, than Newtonian model lends itself to
objectification (whereas, returning to Aristotlean and Hegelian philosophy,
Husserl envisions a teleological perspective on human history and social
development).

"What version of Marxism do you subscribe to that has no
> interest in important scientific and biological issues such as these ?"


It`s not that they have no importance, but that, mainly, their importance is
dialectical insofar as these regressive ideas need to be negated if we are ever
to progress beyond them. But, "my version of Marxism" is grounded, wait for
it......in Marx and the references I gave you where he indeed makes analogies
as you have made been ant sociality and human society.....but, with the added
distinction, which you completely fail to comprehend, that we are "rational"
and not "gregarious" creatures....ultimately, Marx discourages, therefore, such
deterministic comparisons, and prefers, instead, an understanding which returns
to an Aristotlean philosophy of "function" [ergon].

"> Presumably, again, you are drawing correlations between "worker ants" and
> > Marxist class analysis, which, is my opinion, may be well intentioned, but
> it
> > is far from being grounded in Marx's thought.
>
> ^^^^^^^
> CB: Well, I didn't write that. As to the author, I don't know that
> he's a Marxist."

Right, I understand that now. But don't my correlations stand since you posted
this on a Marxist theory list? Again, I also stated that you "presumably" held
such beliefs...and I don't find that such a presumption at all (because you
seem to have confirmed it herein).


"Anyway, worker ants are so because of their genes. Human workers are
> so , not because of their genes, but because of socio-economic factors
> , a fundamental difference that I take it you agree with."

Phew. I think that's my point precisely--- and, if you've something to agree
with there, then there can be some consensus between us.
"> After all, I hope you don't
> > advocate that we have "multiple queens" as well! Why abstract and draw some
> > correlations, but not others? I mean, you even go on to identify possible
> > political implications for HUMAN societies:
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> CB: Not me. Your hope is met. Ants don't have history , culture,
> language, like humans. This makes a big difference. See recent thread
> on LBO-talk where I argue exactly that humans have culture and ants
> and other animals don't."


I will take a look at that thank you.

"> CB: Not me. Human sociality is built on culture, tradition, custom,
> history. Ant sociality is based on instincts, genes."


Agreed. but then why post it as a Marxist on a Marxist listserv? Pure
debate....or do you think such correlations to Marxism should be combatted?

"> CB: No I seem to remember it exactly, and augment it with the findings
> of modern anthropology , post-Marx.  Human labor is different from
> that of spiders, bees and ants in that human laborers imagine the
> project ahead of time . See _Capital_ vol. I"

Sorry, founded on my assumption that you agreed with the authors (which you
still seem to in some regard).

"> CB:  And since Marx, the science of anthropology has discovered the
> important human distinguishing species characteristic : culture,
> symboling, language, making Marx's philosophical speculation here more
> rigorous and complete."

Well, I don't know how much I would credit anthropology. And while "culture,
symboling [sic?], language" are indeed related to the species-essence
[Gattungswesen] it's not quite right to say that are the "distinguishing
species characteristic"--- which is "self-conscious life-activity" (i.e., the
rational self-mastery of one's own life).

"> CB: Yes, Professor Ted Winslow is a member of the LBO-talk and
> Progressive Economists Network email lists, and I've read maybe
> hundreds of his posts explaining this concept and others. I've had
> many exchanges with him there. Are you familiar with "internal
> relations" ? He's big on that ."

Yes, lol, I am familiar, but I must say that I don't think many others around
here are.

"> CB: Yes, although Aristotle's biology and anthropology is very
> outdated, whatever basic concepts he may have an inkling about. He
> really needs to be sublated, not only by Kant, but by modern
> anthropological science, enthnology and biological anthropology."

Well, everything becomes outdated with History, but I doubt modern anthropology
will retain such vitality for another hundred years, let alone the millennia of
Aristotle. I do think that there were many things wrong with Aristotle
though...but his conception of human nature is probably not one of them. I
think his ethics and politics retain an essential relevancy to them for just
the very reasons I have pointed out.

"> and the association
> > of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state. Further,
> the
> > state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual,
>
>
> ^^^^^^^
> CB: He seems to go off the rails a bit here, depending on what he
> means by "family".  Kingroup organization of human society predates
> the origin of the state......
CB: The first human societies, for 200,000 years didn't have states,
> but they did have "individuals" and "families" kin groups.  The
> "wholes" were organized as kingroups (_societas_ in Lewis Henry
> Morgan's terminology) not states or _civitas_ Morgan's term based on
> ruling territory."

Pardon me for speaking bluntly, but that's because I think you fail to
comprehend his understanding of Nature. The "nature of any given thing," wrote
aristotle, be it a "man, or horse" is its "end" [telos] not its "beginning".
So, if you think of it statically and historico-empirically (as you seem to be
doing) then the only conclusion is, naturally, Aristotle is wrong
anthropologically because he was wrong historically. However, take the acorn
analogy (which I'm sure you are familiar), the "nature of the acorn" is to
flourish (under ideal conditions) into an oak tree. This teleological
perspective is not "determinism" (since, sticking to the metaphor, not ALL
acorns actually come to flourish). However, neither is teleology mere fancy
either because the "actuality [i.e., the acorn]" presupposes the manifest
nature of its own "potentiality" as an oak tree. Hence, the state (for
hegelians) and  statelessness (for marxists) is the culmination of a process of
historical development whereby Mankind comes to realize its full self (viz., its
species-character becomes fully-developed so that human are able to actualize
the highest power of humanity: mind).

"> CB: Sublated, as Ted W. says. Marx is aware that the state is not as
> beneficent as Aristotle claims.  See Marx's Critique of Hegel
> Philosophy of Right (Law). And then See his ideas on the state , as
> essayed by Lenin in _The State and Revolution_.  Marx sees the state
> whithering away in communism."

Marx is indeed aware of the harmfulness of the state (given the context of what
states did around his time), whereas Aristotle was indeed concerned with
statelessness at times (i.e., a life without the city....which he attributes to
barbarians without culture). However, I would not say that Aristotle was unaware
of the cruelty of states...his politics explored many different city-states and
assessed their various levels of justice. He noted, for instance, that many
greeks were illegitimately enslaved by other greeks through war.


"> CB: This must be critiqued by Darwinian concepts.  Natural selection
> is "intelligible happenstance" ( instead of intelligent design).
> "Happenstance" is chance.  "Intelligible" means it can be apprehended
> by reason, but the process is not guided by Reason or a Reasoning
> Being."



Again, you're reverting to scientific determinism, whereas a truly philosophic
concept would not descend into Darwinian biological determinism.



"> CB: Well, yea there is some doubt that Marx was appealing to a
> teleological theory. Lots of doubt."

I don't think so at all. He theory of essence and nature prespposes it....since
he does not believe that human nature is fully-realized (see everything from
the manuscripts and notes on mill to the critique of gotha programme). For him,
like Aristotle, the realization of human nature as an end in itself comes with
History, not in some original state (see the Grundrise below):

"We [49] have seen that the capitalist process of production is a historically
determined form of the social process of production in general. The latter is
as much a production process of material conditions of human life as a process
taking place under specific historical and economic production relations,
producing and reproducing these production relations themselves, and thereby
also the bearers of this process, their material conditions of existence and
their mutual relations, i.e., their particular socio-economic form. For the
aggregate of these relations, in which the agents of this production stand with
respect to Nature and to one another, and in which they produce, is precisely
society, considered from the standpoint of its economic structure. Like all its
predecessors, the capitalist process of production proceeds under definite
material conditions, which are, however, simultaneously the bearers of definite
social relations entered into by individuals in the process of reproducing their
life. Those conditions, like these relations, are on the one hand prerequisites,
on the other hand results and creations of the capitalist process of production;
they are produced and reproduced by it. We saw also that capital ? and the
capitalist is merely capital personified and functions in the process of
production solely as the agent of capital ? in its corresponding social process
of production, pumps a definite quantity of surplus-labour out of the direct
producers, or labourers; capital obtains this surplus-labour without an
equivalent, and in essence it always remains forced labour ? no matter how much
it may seem to result from free contractual agreement. This surplus-labour
appears as surplus-value, and this surplus-value exists as a surplus-product.
Surplus-labour in general, as labour performed over and above the given
requirements, must always remain. In the capitalist as well as in the slave
system, etc., it merely assumes an antagonistic form and is supplemented by
complete idleness of a stratum of society. A definite quantity of
surplus-labour is required as insurance against accidents, and by the necessary
and progressive expansion of the process of reproduction in keeping with the
development of the needs and the growth of population, which is called
accumulation from the viewpoint of the capitalist. It is one of the civilising
aspects of capital that it enforces this surplus-labour in a manner and under
conditions which are more advantageous to the development of the productive
forces, social relations, and the creation of the elements for a new and higher
form than under the preceding forms of slavery, serfdom, etc. Thus it gives rise
to a stage, on the one hand, in which coercion and monopolisation of social
development (including its material and intellectual advantages) by one portion
of society at the expense of the other are eliminated; on the other hand, it
creates the material means and embryonic conditions, making it possible in a
higher form of society to combine this surplus-labour with a greater reduction
of time devoted to material labour in general. For, depending on the
development of labour productivity, surplus-labour may be large in a small
total working-day, and relatively small in a large total working-day. If the
necessary labour-time = 3 and the surplus-labour = 3, then the total
working-day = 6 and the rate of surplus-labour = 100%. If the necessary labour
= 9 and the surplus-labour = 3, then the total working-day = 12 and the rate of
surplus-labour only = 33&#8531;%. In that case, it depends upon the labour
productivity how much use-value shall be produced in a definite time, hence
also in a definite surplus labour-time. The actual wealth of society, and the
possibility of constantly expanding its reproduction process, therefore, do not
depend upon the duration of surplus-labour, but upon its productivity and the
more or less copious conditions of production under which it is performed. In
fact, the realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is
determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very
nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production. Just
as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and
reproduce life, so must civilised man, and he must do so in all social
formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development
this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the
same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase.
Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated
producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it
under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces
of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under
conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it
nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that
development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of
freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as
its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch48.htm

"> CB: In the consciousness of the 18th Century in Europe, but in fact ,
> materially,  individuals are more interdependent and social in
> capitalism than in any previous system.  Marx himself writes about the
> increasing division of labor and socialization of society under
> capitalism...as in the next sentence that folllows..."

Absolutely! I agree. But, he also notes its not quite as social as the human
nature which is both a result of, and a cause in, the advent of communism.
Hence, I again return to the point that, therefore, he stresses a teleological
perspective which feels, like aristotle, that the nature of any given thing, be
it a man or horse, is its end, not its beginning.

Chris


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Tue Sep 15 16:52:22 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:52:22 EDT
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The State and Revolution
Message-ID: <d3e.4854804b.37e174a6@aol.com>

In a message dated 9/14/2009 7:59:04 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
cb31450 at gmail.com writes:

>Lenin characterized this exact same process as
> expressing  the  meaning of "semi-colony" or having not broken out of the 
value
>  relations as it  operates on the basis of the bourgeois property  
relations.
>
> No one calls the "South and Central American  revolution" communists - at
> least on this list,

^^^^^
CB: I  call it working class revolution on this list.
 
 
Comment
 
Just curious, what do you call it on other lists? I could go directly to  
the other list if this is inappropriate. Lenin was not against voting or  
anything like that. There are times when the social struggle moves beyond  
voting, as was amply shown by the long history of the Civil Rights Movement and  
the movement for industrial unionism. Some call the Civil Rights Movement a 
 revolution and the Black Revolution. I consider the Civil Rights Moment an 
 important movement that reformed relations in America - between and within 
 classes, without changing the relations of production. 
 
I cannot say what will be the outcome of the revolutionary process in South 
 America, at least in the short run. All roads however lead to communism,  
more or less. How you get there is less important than getting there. 
 
In fact the electoral arena is extremely important because it tosses  
millions of people into "play." I love elections of all sorts.  
 
WL. 
 


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 16 06:37:18 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:37:18 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] On contradiction
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909160537l53ca7977u45362853ad53fc23@mail.gmail.com>

On the contradiction implied in ?John is a man?, we might ask is John
the only man ? If so, then the correct expression is ?John is the
man?.

So, if John is a man , then there are other men. Joe is a man. Jack is
a man. Andrew is a man.

If John is identical with ?a man? , and Joe is identical with ?a man?,
and Jack is identical with ?a man?, then through some kind of
transitivity of identities we reach the contradiction that

John is Joe. John is Jack.

Rosa L will say what is the contradiction in ?John is Jack? ?

It is that John is not Jack , as stipulated above when we said there
are other men besides John. Jack is another man from John is identical
with the expression John is not Jack.

So directly the contradiction is that we have both John is Jack and
John is not Jack at the same time.


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 16 06:40:21 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:40:21 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Revisiting Rosa L.
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909160540m35fc6510kee4064d826739848@mail.gmail.com>

I followed up on Jim F.'s link to Rosa L. and Andrew K. I will forward
my comments from that thread.

CB


http://marxisthumanistinitiative.org/2009/05/05/brief-comments-on-the-relationship-between-marxism-and-the-hegelian-dialectic/comment-page-1/#comment-131

24 Charles B said at 5:14 pm on September 8th, 2009:
Here?s my exchange with Rosa. She spends most of her time developing
cute _ad hominems_, but those don?t count as arguments. She seems to
have it backwards as to whose irascible (smile).

In terms of the ?is? of predication and the ?is? if identity, my first
comment demonstrates what the contradiction is in ?John is a man.?
Rosa couldn?t see it then either.

CB

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2007-August/021365.html

Rosa gets CB (smile)
Charles Brown
Thu Aug 23 09:48:11 MDT 2007

???????????????????????????

I may be lliterate, but at least she admits I?m logical.

CB

^^^^^^^

Logical Illiterates Strike Again

A year or so ago I had the great misfortune to correspond with an
irascible fellow who could not resist making ill-informed comments
about my Essays, all the while refusing to read them.

I refused to continue to correspond with him on that basis, and, it
seems, he has been sulking ever since. Last year I had occasion to
slap some materialist sense into him (here), but I fear that this
incorrigible Idealist is beyond even my help. Despite several attempts
to inoculate him from his own folly, Mr B has once again demonstrated
that he is immune to the influence of modern logic, preferring his own
brand of sub-Hegelian make-believe. Commenting on an argument of mine,
he had this to say:

?CB: The sentence ?John is a man? means John is both the same and
different from Joe, Jack, Rosa, Charles? It is precisely the ?is? of
predication that is a unity and struggle of opposites. The ?is? of
identity ?He is John.? ? that is not a tautology.

CB: This should be ?that is a tautology?.? [Quotation marks changed to
conform to the conventions adopted here.]

This odd piece of reasoning was exposed for what it is here, and here.

Despite this, Mr B hopes to neutralise my arguments by referring
merely to his own not inconsiderable authority in this field ? that
is, the field usually occupied by Popes and assorted dictators whose
word is law. And in matters logical, that should be enough for us. It
certainly is for Mr B.

He now deigns to comment on the musings of my colleague Babeuf; here
is an example of truly innovative historical materialism:

?CB: Another fundamental activity was the raising of children. I?m
thinking language/culture emerged between parents and children.?

It is reasonably clear that Mr B has shot from the hip again ? or
rather shot from the holster and into his foot ?, for if the above
were the case, not only would parents and children confront each other
like Pentecostal ecstatics, mouthing incomprehensible noises at one
another, no two families would share the same idiolect. Communication
between families would thus be impossible. In that case, ?culture?, as
Mr B sees it, would soon begin to resemble that cacophony which
constantly sounds in his head.

Now, in Essay Twelve Part One, I asserted that most Marxists give
lip-service to the idea that language is a social phenomenon, but fail
to think through the implications of that fact, and talk and write as
if language were a private affair. Mr B has shown once again that when
it comes to getting things wrong, he is keen to elbow his way to the
front of the queue. How language can be social, but remain a family
affair is perhaps another one of the ?contradictions? that still
compromises his thought processes:

?Before I had even heard of dialectics ? living in the a mental (sic)
world of strict formal logic ? I started to ?run into? lots of
contradictions and paradoxes. My own road to dialectics was a
posteriori, not a priori.?

Mr B here confuses matters biographical with matters logical; unless
?, of course, he thinks paradoxes are a posteriori. But, even if he
were right, this otherwise commendable public confession of his own
confused thought should not be read as mere humility. On the contrary,
the road to Hermetic-enlightenment ? a path which all true
dialecticians have to pass along in order to qualify as adepts (and
the reasons for this are exposed here) ? elevates them way above the
rest of us mortals. This means that if ever they regain power
somewhere they can screw-up once more in a truly almighty and
awe-inspiring manner. After all, they have a suitably screwy theory to
help them on their way.

But what is this? It is none other than our old friend Mr D, who
volunteers a riposte so devastating I hesitate to post it here for
fear it might affect the reader?s sanity:

?This is just stupid, even more stupid than the Trotskyist recitations
of dialectics.?

Mr D, someone who is not known for his ability to string a clear
argument together ? but a well-respected expert at drawing attention
to that fact ?, probably does not know that the material about which
he is commenting has to be compressed into a three minute slot, and
has to be kept to a level that makes it comprehensible to mere
workers. And here he can be forgiven, for over the years, at his site,
he has developed an enviable skill at repelling such lowly types, and
to the extent that he has probably forgotten their limitations. One of
which is that they find the mystical ideas he spouts incomprehensible.
It?s a good job then that we have substitutionists of his calibre to
do their thinking for them.

Now, we have already seen that Mr D takes exception to anyone who
cannot compress a PhD thesis into a sentence or two ?, a skill he
taunts the rest of us with, since, as the sentence above reveals, he
can squeeze several into a single line. He is, I am sure, working on
doing the same with a single word.

We wait with baited hooks?

Mr B then posted a few sections from a summary Essay of mine, but the
eagle-eyed Mr D swooped in for the kill, with yet more lethal prose:

?This is all pretty juvenile leftism.?

Well, Mr D should know.

But, it is rather unfair of him to pull rank, and complain that my
words are juvenile when he still has his dialectical diapers on. And
as if to prove it, he throws another toy out of his pram:

?The entire history of philosophy to Rosa is a scheme, a ruse, duplicity.?

He might like to quote where I say this, or even imply it.

But, accuracy is not Mr D?s concern; we have seen that several times already.

[Less charitable readers might be forgiven a snigger or ten here when
they notice that Mr D thinks that the history of Philosophy can be a
"a ruse, duplicity". Philosophy itself might be so described (but not
by me), but how the history of that bogus discipline can be depicted
thus is a question that perhaps Mr D's psychiatrist is alone qualified
to answer.]

Back to Mr B, for he is intent on providing yet more amusement. In
response to that summary of my criticisms of Lenin?s crass remarks, he
bravely leapt to his defence (but the reader will soon see that Lenin
would be better defended by his sworn enemies, if this is the best Mr
B can do):

?Anyway, the first thing I noticed is that this is from ?Philosophical
Notebooks?. That means personal musings, talking out loud to oneself,
unpublished personal thoughts. That doesn?t mean they can?t be
criticized, but it also means we can?t be sure what status Lenin gave
them, but there?s a good chance that he didn?t publish them because he
may have had criticisms of them himself. It?s kind of cheating to
attribute to them such a fundamental status in Lenin?s arguments for
his positions.?

So, with Mr B as his defence attorney, Lenin would be well advised to
plead guilty and throw himself on the mercy of the court.

Mr B should know (but I hesitate to praise him too much here) that
Lenin?s words are treated as gospel by practicing Marxists, and it is
these I am addressing in my Essays, not armchair HCDs like him.

However, if Mr B is right, and we can disregard Lenin?s amateurish
musings, all well and good, In that case, perhaps we should throw
Hegel?s Hermetic hodge-podge onto Hume?s bonfire too? Since the
latter?s work reads like an extended April Fool?s joke, who will miss
it?

But, how does Mr B handle the summary of my argument? Well, it is
worth pointing out that the comment below was written after he had
pointed out that Lenin was summarising his own ideas, and should not
be treated unfairly because of that. No problem, Rosa?s summary can be
treated with disdain; after all consistency is not to be expected of
someone who thinks reality is riddled with contradictions.

?Also, the ?John is a man? discussion is not given in the discussion
itself and inferentially by it being a personal diary, the logical
status that Rosa gives it, i.e. that Lenin claimed to derive eternal
truths and universal principles out of it. On the contrary, he seems
to be discussing it as an example, not some kind of fundamental proof
of the universality of dialectics. That?s really cheating by Rosa. She
portrays this example by Lenin as if he uses it in the opposite of the
way he actually does. Can?t remember whether I raised this with Rosa
when she was here. I do remember she got pretty angry pretty quickly ,
started hurling insults pretty quickly when challenged. I realize she
gets challenged a lot, so for her it was just the same old
lunkheadism, but I mean, I really can?t see where Lenin employed the
?John is a man? thing as fundamentally, can?t see where he attempted
to derive as much from it as she claims. She should start with an
example from something published. When she uses an intellectual diary
note, it could very well be that Lenin didn?t publish it because he
thought of some of the same criticisms of it that she did.?

Can anyone figure out what this muddle-head is trying to say here? Is
there a an actual counter-argument in there ? anywhere?

Now, Mr B should know that Lenin is here summarising an argument Hegel
inflicted on humanity (one that had first appeared in Aristotle, but
which assumed classical form in Aquinas and Buridan (references can be
found in Essay Three Part One)), where he does try to derive
everything from the nature of ?judgements? ? sentences of a certain
sort ? where the ?is? of predication is re-configured as an ?is? of
identity. Hegel uses ?The rose is red? to show that the universe is
fundamentally contradictory. Is it unfair of me to point this out?
Perhaps it was even more unfair of Hegel to advert to his own logical
incompetence in this way?

[That argument, if such it may be called, is dissected here, and here.]

In passing, Mr B notes I get angry very quickly. Here is how I
explained why this is so (on the opening page of this site):

How Not To Argue 101

This page contains links to forums on the web where I have ?debated?
this creed with other comrades.

For anyone interested, check out the desperate ?debating? tactics used
by Dialectical Mystics in their attempt to respond to my ideas.

You will no doubt note that the vast majority all say the same sorts
of things? They all like to make things up, too, about me and my
beliefs.

25 years (!!) of this stuff from Dialectical Mystics has meant I now
take an aggressive stance with them every time ? I soon learnt back in
the 1980?s that being pleasant with them (my initial tactic) did not
alter their abusive tone, their propensity to fabricate?.

So, these days, I generally go for the jugular from the get-go.

Except, of course, I do not get angry, I just go on the offensive.

Mr B?s earlier correspondence with me showed that he too was quite
happy to make stuff up about my ideas (without bothering to check).
But still he wonders why I become aggressive. In response, I?d post
this quite rare picture of him, but even I am not that cruel:

Based on a summary of my argument ? which even at 71,000 words
represents less than 10% of the material I have so far published ? he
thinks he has understood my work. Had he bothered to check (and you
can stop that sniggering at the back; I am sure one day he will) he
would have seen that I quote from published work, scores of times,
right across the DM-spectrum. Indeed, I manage to show that every
single dialectician indulges in the same sort of a priori dogmatics ?
in private notebooks and published work ? as Lenin, Engels and Hegel.
In fact, that is the only way they can make this loopy ?theory? seem
to work.

But, how does this super-scientist answer that allegation?

?Hegel, Marx, Engels, Lenin give lots of other examples as the basis
for their generalization rendering their claims a posteriori, not a
priori.?

However, we can leave Marx out, for he is almost totally silent on
this ?theory?. As for the rest, here is what I say in Essay Seven:

To be sure, there are a handful of scientists who accept this and the
other two ?Laws? as laws ? particularly those who hail from previous
generations of the Communist Party (e.g., Bernal, Haldane and Levy,
etc.), but it is quite clear that these comrades would have treated
with contempt a PhD thesis that relied on evidence as weak as that
found in this area of dialectics. Indeed, their acceptance of the
adequacy of the ?data? in support of DM is somewhat analogous to a
similar acceptance by scientists (who are also Creationists) of
?evidence? in favour of, say, the scientific accuracy of the Book of
Genesis.

In general, however, the examples usually given by dialecticians (like
Hegel, Lenin and Engels) to illustrate their ?Laws? are almost without
exception either anecdotal or impressionistic. If someone were to
submit a paper to a science journal purporting to establish the
veracity of a new law with the same level of vagueness, imprecision,
triteness, lack of detail and overall theoretical naivety, it would be
rejected at the first stage. Indeed, dialecticians would themselves
treat with derision any attempt to establish, say, either the truth of
classical economic theory or the falsity of Marx?s own work with an
evidential display that was as crassly amateurish as this ?, to say
nothing of the derision they would show for such theoretical
wooliness. In such circumstances, those who might be quick to cry
?pedantry? at the issues raised in this Essay would become devoted
pedants, and nit pick with the best.

Now, anyone who has studied or practiced real science will know this
to be true. It is only in books on DM (and internet discussion boards)
that Mickey Mouse material of this sort seems acceptable.

And this is what I say in the Basic Introductory Essay:

Anyone who has studied and practiced genuine science will know the
lengths to which researchers have to go to alter even minor aspects of
current theory, let alone justify major changes in the way we view
nature.

In stark contrast, and without exception, dialecticians offer a few
paragraphs of trite (and over-used) clich?s to support their claims.
Hence, all we find are hackneyed references to things like boiling
water, balding heads, plants ?negating? seeds, Mamelukes fighting the
French, a character from Moli?re suddenly discovering that he speaks
prose, and the like, all constantly retailed. From such banalities,
dialecticians suddenly derive universal laws, applicable everywhere
and at all times.

Even at its best (for example, in Woods and Grant (1995), which is one
of the most comprehensive defences of classical, hard-core DM to date,
and Gollobin (1986), which is if anything even more comprehensive), we
encounter perhaps a few dozen pages of secondary and tertiary
information, extensively padded out with repetition and bluster (much
of which is taken apart here). Contrary evidence (of which there is
much) is simply ignored. This is indeed Mickey Mouse Science.

As Essays Two and Seven show, the universal and eternally-true theses
dialecticians regularly lift from Hegel go way beyond even the meagre
evidence Engels, Lenin and Hegel offered in support.

Mr B?s parting shot:

?With this initial seriously cheating move by Rosa, I have trouble
getting up the energy to look at her further arguments.?

Well, what a loss to humanity!

Please, someone e-mail him and tell him to ?get? it up.

Otherwise I will have no one to poke fun at.

Word Count: 2710

Return to the Main Index

? Rosa Lichtenstein 2007

Hits since August 14 2007:


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 16 06:42:24 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:42:24 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Revisiting Rosa L.
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909160542v20e5ab86g8fac4c17eb991a31@mail.gmail.com>

29 Rosa Lichtenstein said at 12:28 am on September 9th, 2009:
Ah, I see Mr B has raised his empty head again ? helpfully confirming
his logically-challenged state of mind by confusing argumentum ad
hominem with abuse.

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

I have little to say to him, since little goes in.


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 16 06:45:48 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:45:48 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Rosa L. revisited
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909160545n16ff6681x82998f0976cc5d46@mail.gmail.com>

45 CB said at 1:13 pm on September 9th, 2009:
Rosa: He now deigns to comment on the musings of my colleague Babeuf;
here is an example of truly innovative historical materialism:

?CB: Another fundamental activity was the raising of children. I?m
thinking language/culture emerged between parents and children.?

Rosa: It is reasonably clear that Mr B has shot from the hip again

^^^^
CB: Actually,no. I?ve been in anthropology since 1968, and I have
thought about this issue for many, many years. This is the result of
long deliberation, not shooting from the hip. And I didn?t shoot from
the hip the ?last ? time either.
^^^^
? or rather shot from the holster and into his foot ?,

^^^^
CB: I think I shot you in the mouth (smile)

^^^

for if the above were the case, not only would parents and children
confront each other like Pentecostal ecstatics, mouthing
incomprehensible noises at one another, no two families would share
the same idiolect.
Communication between families would thus be impossible

^^^^
CB: Care to elaborate on the ?reasoning? by which you reached these
conclusions ?

?Families? were being invented at the same time that language and
culture were being invented, dummie.
^^^^
. In that case, ?culture?, as Mr B sees it, would soon begin to
resemble that cacophony which constantly sounds in his head.

^^^^^
CB: However, ?that? was not the case, therefore, ?culture? didn?t
resemble cacaphony, etc.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

46 CB said at 1:35 pm on September 9th, 2009:
Now, in Essay Twelve Part One, I asserted that most Marxists give
lip-service to the idea that language is a social phenomenon, but fail
to think through the implications of that fact, and talk and write as
if language were a private affair.

^^
CB: No, the relationship between parents and children is social, not private.

Note: these early ?families? or kin groups wherein language and
culture were invented are not ?nuclear families? of modern capitalism.

That language and culture are social , and that the human social is
expanded enormously in its inception as language and culture is
fundamental to what I?m saying, comrade.
^^^^^

^^^^

Mr B has shown once again that when it comes to getting things wrong,
he is keen to elbow his way to the front of the queue. How language
can be social, but remain a family affair is perhaps another one of
the ?contradictions? that still compromises his thought processes:

^^^
CB: That you think families are not social is an obvious ?oversight?
on your part.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

47 CB said at 1:57 pm on September 9th, 2009:
CB: ?Before I had even heard of dialectics ? living in the a mental
(sic) world of strict formal logic ? I started to ?run into? lots of
contradictions and paradoxes. My own road to dialectics was a
posteriori, not a priori.?

Rosa: Mr B here confuses matters biographical with matters logical;
unless ?, of course, he thinks paradoxes are a posteriori.

^^^^
CB: Actually, these are biographical experiences with matters logical,
no confusion about it for me.

Once again, are there no contradictions, no paradoxes for Rosa, honey ?

^^^^^^^

Rosa: But, even if he were right,

^^^
CB: Which ?he? is,

^^^^

this otherwise commendable public confession of his own confused
thought should not be read as mere humility. On the contrary, the road
to Hermetic-enlightenment ? a path which all true dialecticians have
to pass along in order to qualify as adepts (and the reasons for this
are exposed here) ? elevates them way above the rest of us mortals.
This means that if ever they regain power somewhere they can screw-up
once more in a truly almighty and awe-inspiring manner. After all,
they have a suitably screwy theory to help them on their way.

^^^
CB: Pass

^^^

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

48 cb said at 4:47 pm on September 9th, 2009:
But, even if you are right, this in no way shows that this ?duality?
is a contradiction, and the fact that you also think indeterminacy is
a contradiction suggests you have an insecure grasp of this term,
anyway.

^^^^^
CB: Certainly there is a way to think of indeterminancy as a
contradiction, as a contradiction to the previous way of thinking
about particles as having a definite speed and location at the same
time. Einstein seemed to think that the principle contradicted his
fundamental way of thinking about physics. God does not play with dice
or whatever.

Goedel?s ?incompleteness? contradicts previously understandings of the
fundamental logical consistency of mathematics.

Does Rosa have an example of what she considers a contradiction ?

Your comment is awaiting moderation.


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 16 06:47:15 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:47:15 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Rosa L revisited
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909160547x689a5b34k70a0bd4fd8fbe96a@mail.gmail.com>

50 CB said at 3:58 pm on September 15th, 2009:
Rosa L: ?we already have devices in language that allow us to identify
things: we can point at a rose and say ?That?s a rose?, or at an
individual called ?John? and say. ?John is over there. He standing
next to your father.? We do not need to examine ?concepts? to be able
to do this.?

^^^^
CB: These devices are inadequate for things that are not in our
presence. So, with only these would not be able to identify most of
what language is good for identifying, what language allows us to do
that animals , who don?t have language , can?t do.

Marx couldn?t adequately identify capitalism by saying ?that?s
capitalism over there.? The founders of human kinship systems couldn?t
say ?That my great grand mother over there? after grandmother was
dead.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

51 cb said at 4:24 pm on September 15th, 2009:
Rosa L. :But, how does this super-scientist *(yours truly CB, smile)
answer that allegation?

?Hegel, Marx, Engels, Lenin give lots of other examples as the basis
for their generalization rendering their claims a posteriori, not a
priori.?

However, we can leave Marx out, for he is almost totally silent on
this ?theory?. As for the rest, here is what I say in Essay Seven:

^^^
CB: For a little lesson in rigor for our blooming logician Rosa L.,
Marx is ?_almost_totally silent on this ?theory? ?, but not totally
silent. I think the passage from one of the afterwords or forewords
from _Capital_I was posted on this thread already, but I?m sure Rosa
has read Marx?s claim that he is a follower of that great thinker,
Hegel. Could Marx have meant that he followed everything but the most
fundamental ideas of Hegel?s dialectic ? I doubt it.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

52 cb said at 8:36 am on September 16th, 2009:
On the contradiction implied in ?John is a man?, we might ask is John
the only man ? If so, then the correct expression is ?John is the
man?.

So, if John is a man , then there are other men. Joe is a man. Jack is
a man. Andrew is a man.

If John is identical with ?a man? , and Joe is identical with ?a man?,
and Jack is identical with ?a man?, then through some kind of
transitivity of identities we reach the contradiction that

John is Joe. John is Jack.

Rosa L will say what is the contradiction in ?John is Jack? ?

It is that John is not Jack , as stipulated above when we said there
are other men besides John. Jack is another man from John is identical
with the expression John is not Jack.

So directly the contradiction is that we have both John is Jack and
John is not Jack at the same time.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 16 11:02:55 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:02:55 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Unicolonial Ants Pose Challenge to "Selfish
	Gene"
In-Reply-To: <1253053289.4ab01369dc066@mymail.yorku.ca>
References: <mailman.5.1252778404.8010.marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu>
	<1253053289.4ab01369dc066@mymail.yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909161002u11c5f22dte55a3041e0c70a7c@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/15/09, cda at yorku.ca <cda at yorku.ca> wrote:
> "> > 2) Now, having said that, I think that you (CB) have basically attempted to
> > > confront the now-dominant manner of scientific discourse by adopting the
> > very
> > > presuppositions of this hegemonic perspective.
> >
> > ^^^^^
> > CB: Moi ? What did I say that makes you think that ?"
>
> Well, again, as I noted, you combated genetic determinism (i.e., the frontiers
> of genetic science) by employing genetic determinism (viz., new evidence that
> there is no genetic proof for a selfish gene).



^^^^^^^
CB: It will improve this exchange much from my standpoint  if you take
note that I didn't write what you are commenting on above. It was in
an article I sent to the list


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 16 11:04:14 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:04:14 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] The State and Revolution
In-Reply-To: <d3e.4854804b.37e174a6@aol.com>
References: <d3e.4854804b.37e174a6@aol.com>
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909161004g7bca86f9hddb9ecb687eacb46@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/15/09, Waistline2 at aol.com <Waistline2 at aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 9/14/2009 7:59:04 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> cb31450 at gmail.com writes:
>
> >Lenin characterized this exact same process as
> > expressing  the  meaning of "semi-colony" or having not broken out of the
> value
> >  relations as it  operates on the basis of the bourgeois property
> relations.
> >
> > No one calls the "South and Central American  revolution" communists - at
> > least on this list,
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: I  call it working class revolution on this list.
>
>
> Comment
>
> Just curious, what do you call it on other lists?


^^^
CB: Same thing


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 17 10:30:07 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:30:07 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Kliman vs Rosa L.
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909170930jfb0611epb3f0d01f1e7452db@mail.gmail.com>

In this part of his exchange with Rosa L. ,  Andrew Kliman uses his
special work defending Marx on the socalled or mythical
transformation problem as an example.

CB


19 Andrew Kliman said at 10:21 pm on September 6th, 2009:
Hi Rosa,

As I understand your argument, you maintain that if I explicitly state

?x is round and x is square and anything which is square is not round,
and anything which is round is not square?

I am being self-contradictory.

But if I don?t talk like a logician, but like a regular person, so
that I say ?this? instead of ?x,?

and if I don?t use stilted English, but instead turn ?this is round
and this is square? into ?this is a round square,?

and if I don?t explicitly define what the words ?round? and ?square?
mean or what they exclude, because the people I?m addressing know the
common meanings of these words, and I?m using them in the normal way,

then I?m not being self-contradictory.

Some questions:

1. Do I have you right?

2. If so, has anyone (except Russell and Frege and Mr. Spock ?, anyone
who talks normally) ever been self-contradictory? (I?m referring to
normal discourse, not long chains of philosophical or scientific or
mathematical reasoning.)

3. If not, then aren?t you just using the word ?contradictory? in a
way that?s different from how others use it?

4. If so, then when you deny that a contradiction in terms is a
contradiction, isn?t this just a matter of semantics?

5. Do you maintain that arguments (such as enthymemes) are invalid and
unsound if they fail to supply stuff like definitions of common words?

6. If so, haven?t all the arguments you?ve been making against Hegel
and against me been invalid and unsound?

P.S. My point about arrant pedantry wasn?t to excuse sloppy thinking.
It was to defend normal ways of speaking. I?m sorry, but life is far
too short to write ?a thought shall be defined as sloppy if and only
if ?? and such junk, unless and until it becomes necessary.

There are a couple of horrible simultaneist Marxist economists?Simon
Mohun and Roberto Veneziani?out there who picked at a proof Alan
Freeman and I had offered which showed that, given commodity
production, surplus labor is the sole source of profit according to
the temporal single-system interpretation. Their claim that the proof
was invalid rested on the alleged fact that we hadn?t proved at the
total price of output is non-zero.

We had proved that some commodities? prices must be positive and some
quantities of outputs must be positive (these things are implied by
the term ?commodity production?), but these great minds claimed that
the TSSI is ?incoherent? and our argumentation was ?seriously
deficient? because we still hadn?t proved that the total price of
output (obtained by multiplying each commodity?s price and output
together and then summing across all commodities) is always positive.
If the positive prices are associated with commodities whose
quantities are zero, and if the positive quantities are associated
with commodities whose prices are zero, the total price is zero! Ha ha
ha.

In our response, we exposed this tendentious and enervating arrant
pedantry for what it is:

?they deny that we proved that P [the total price of output] > 0. ?
[Their] argument relies on a very uncharitable reading of our proof
that isn?t consonant with our intended meaning. We noted that
?commodity production is incompatible with cases in which all prices
are zero? (K&F 2006: 122). Here and later in that paragraph, we were
referring to prices of of things that actually exist. This should have
been obvious: if something doesn?t exist, neither does the price of
it! But for the benefit of the rigorous M&V, we shall now ?revise? our
?incoherent? and ?seriously deficient? (M&V 2007: 139) proof
accordingly:

Under commodity production, as we showed, P < 0 is impossible and P =
0 only if all prices of of things that actually exist are zero. But
commodity production is incompatible with cases in which all prices of
of things that actually exist are zero. Hence P > 0.?

There really isn?t enough time in this life to go around saying ?of
things that actually exist? again and again. Everyone knows that when
one says ?prices of commodities,? one is referring to commodities that
actually exist, since those that don?t exist don?t have prices! Only
pieces of s*** would pretend that this isn?t clear.

So, when one has to show that horrible simultaneist-Marxist economists
like Mohun and Veneziani aren?t the disinterested champions of rigor
that they make themselves out to be, and that their real goals are to
put the TSSI in its place and perpetuate the myth that Marx?s value
theory has been proved internally inconsistent, then, yes, adding the
words of things that actually exist is in order. What?s especially in
order is ridiculing the s*** that makes this arrant pedantry
necessary.

But otherwise, it?s just arrant pedantry, up with which I will not put.


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 17 11:34:13 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:34:13 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Verb "to be" as self-reference
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909171034i2cda79e7iddc4cc5951192775@mail.gmail.com>

53 CB said at 1:31 pm on September 17th, 2009:
I have now made the contradiction implicit in ?John is a man? so
explicit and patent that even contradiction-blind Rosa L. should be
able to see it. But thanks to Rosa for pressing the point on this
example from Lenin?s philosophical notebooks, as it is only in
?contradiction? with Rosa that I was moved to move the thought to full
demonstration.

The contradiction inherent in the verb ?to be? , ?is?, can be seen as
the same as that found in ?self-reference? by modern mathematical
philosophers like Russell. Russell?s famous paradox derived from the
self-reference of ?the set of all sets that don?t contain
them_selves_.

The wikipedia article on paraconsistency notes the efforts at avoiding
self-reference in the logics after that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic

In any sentence with a verb form of the verb ?to be? makes a reference
, a self-reference, of the subject of the sentence. The subject refers
to itself in the predicate.

?John is a man?, is a reference of John to him_self_ as ?a man?, a
self-reference.

So, modern mathematics rediscovered the paradoxes of self-reference
that Hegel had discovered, perhaps as described in the quote of Hegel
adduced on this thread by Rosa L. above


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 17 11:51:20 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:51:20 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama scraps Bush's European missile defense plan
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909171051ha2f2114ld36657f8902a1d67@mail.gmail.com>

Obama scraps Bush's European missile defense plan
By ANNE GEARAN and DESMOND BUTLER, Associated Press Writers Anne
Gearan And Desmond Butler, Associated Press Writers 23 mins ago
WASHINGTON ? President Barack Obama on Thursday shelved a Bush-era
plan for an Eastern European missile defense shield that has been a
major irritant in relations with Russia. He said a redesigned
defensive system would be cheaper and more effective against the
threat from Iranian missiles.

"Our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger,
smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies,"
Obama said in an announcement from the White House.

Anticipating criticism from the right that he was weakening America's
security, Obama said repeatedly that this decision would provide more
? not less ? protection.

"It is more comprehensive than the previous program, it deploys
capabilities that are proven and cost effective, and it sustains and
builds upon our commitment to protect the U.S. homeland," he said.

With the announcement, Washington scrapped what had become a
politically troublesome plan, and one the Pentagon says was ill-suited
to the true threat from Iran. In its place would be a system the
Pentagon contends will accomplish the original goal and more.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Iran's changing capabilities drove
the decision, but he acknowledged that the replacement system is
likely to allay some of Russia's concerns.

Obama also made a pointed reference to Russia and its heated
objections to the shield. "Its concerns about our previous missile
defense programs were entirely unfounded," Obama said.

The missile defense system planned under the Bush administration was
to have been built in the Czech Republic and Poland. Obama phoned
Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer Wednesday night and Polish Prime
Minister Donald Tusk Thursday morning to alert them of his decision.

It was immediately unclear whether any part of the new system would
still be hosted by those nations, which agreed to host the
Bush-planned shield at considerable cost in public opinion and their
relations with Russia. Obama said the U.S. will continue to work
cooperatively with what he called "our close friends and allies."

Criticism came immediately from Republicans.

Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the second-ranking Republican in the
House, said he would "work to overturn this wrong-headed policy."

"Scrapping our missile defense effort in Europe has severe
consequences for our diplomatic relations and weakens our national
security," Cantor said in a statement. "Our allies, especially Poland
and the Czech Republic, deserve better and our people deserve smarter
and safer."

The new plan would rely sea and land-based sensors and interceptor
missiles intended as a bulwark against Iranian short- and medium-range
missiles.

The Bush missile shield plan, which never moved beyond the blueprint
stage, would have been a deterrent for Iranian long-range missiles,
but Russians worried that the system would be aimed at them.

Gates said that the initial stage of Obama's alternate plan would
deploy Aegis ships armed with interceptors, giving the military the
ability to move the system around.

Another key to the near-term network would be new, more mobile radar
used to detect and track short- and medium-range missiles if they were
launched from Iran.

In a press conference that followed Obama's remarks, Gates said that a
second phase of the plan would add a modified version of a land-based
missile that is still being developed. Gates said the U.S. told the
Czech Republic and Poland that they would be part of that stage of the
system, which won't take place until 2015.

That second stage could result in missiles being placed on land in
Eastern Europe, Gates said.

Gates said the decision to abandon the Bush administration's plans
came about because of a change in the U.S. perception of the threat
posed by Iran. U.S. intelligence decided short- and medium-range
missiles from Iran now pose a greater near-term threat than the
intercontinental ballistic missiles the Bush plan addressed, he said.

Still, the decision can be read at least in part as an effort to
placate Russia at a time when its support against Iran's suspected
nuclear program has not been forthcoming and is sorely needed.

Obama faced the dilemma of either setting back the gradual progress
toward repairing relations with Russia or disappointing the Czech
Republic and Poland, two key NATO allies.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is preparing to visit the United
States next week for the U.N. General Assembly and the Group of 20
nations economic summit.

The plan for a European shield was a darling of the Bush
administration, which reached deals to install 10 interceptors in
Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic ? eastern European
nations at Russia's doorstep and once under Soviet sway. Moscow argued
vehemently that the system would undermine the nuclear deterrent of
its vast arsenal.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen called the U.S. decision
"a positive step."

And Konstantin Kosachev, head of the foreign affairs committee in the
lower house of the Russian parliament, said, "It reflects
understanding that any security measure can't be built entirely on the
basis of one nation."

Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl called the decision "dangerous and
shortsighted."

"The message the administration sends today is clear: The United
States will not stand behind its friends and views 're-setting'
relations with Russia more important," said the Arizona senator. "This
is wrong!"

Sen. John McCain, who lost to Obama in last year's presidential
election, called the decision a disappointment that "has the potential
to undermine perceived American leadership in Eastern Europe."

___

Associated Press writers Lara Jakes, Matthew Lee, Robert Burns,
Pauline Jelinek and Julie Pace in Washington; Karel Janicek in Prague;
and Monika Scislowska and Vanessa Gera in Warsaw contributed to this
report.


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 17 12:30:41 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:30:41 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Self-reference
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909171130l70165032xe8b0a9856d39399c@mail.gmail.com>

Self-reference


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reference

The Treachery Of Images (1928-29) by Ren? Magritte depicts a pipe
along with text stating "This is not a pipe."Self-reference occurs in
natural or formal languages when a sentence or formula refers to
itself. The reference may be expressed either directly; through some
intermediate sentence or formula; or by means of some encoding. In
philosophy, it also refers to the ability of a subject to speak of or
refer to himself, herself, or itself: to have the kind of thought
expressed by the first person pronoun, the word "I" in English.
Self-reference is related to self-reflexivity and apperception.

Self-reference is studied and has applications in mathematics,
philosophy, computer programming, and linguistics. Self-referential
statements sometimes have paradoxical behavior.

Contents [hide]
1 Usage
2 Examples
2.1 Words
2.2 Mathematics
2.3 Sentences
2.4 The Fumblerules
2.5 Literature
3 See also
4 References
5 External links



[edit] Usage
An example of a self-referential situation is the one of autopoiesis,
as the logical organization produces itself the physical structure
which creates itself.

In metaphysics, self-reference is subjectivity, while
"hetero-reference", as it is called (see Niklas Luhmann), is
objectivity.

Self-reference also occurs in literature and film when an author
refers to his work in the context of the work itself. Famous examples
include Cervantes's Don Quixote, Denis Diderot's Jacques le fataliste
et son ma?tre, Italo Calvino's If on a winter's night a traveler, many
stories by Nikolai Gogol, Lost in the Funhouse by John Barth, Luigi
Pirandello's Six Characters in Search of an Author, and Federico
Fellini's 8? . This is closely related to the concepts of breaking the
fourth wall and meta-reference, which often involve self-reference.

The surrealistic painter Ren? Magritte is famous for his
self-referential works. His painting The Treachery of Images, shown at
right, includes words claiming, in French, that it is not a pipe, the
truth of which depends entirely on whether the word "ceci" (in
English, "this") refers to the pipe depicted?or to the painting or the
sentence itself.


The Ouroboros, a dragon that bites its tail, is a symbol for
self-reference.Self-reference is also employed in tautology and in
licensed terminology. When a word defines itself (e.g., "Machine: any
objects put together mechanically"), the result is a tautology. Such
self-references can be quite complex, include full propositions rather
than simple words, and produce arguments and terms that require
license (accepting them as proof of themselves).

In computer science, self-reference occurs in reflection, where a
program can read or modify its own instructions as if they were data.
Numerous programming languages support reflection to some extent with
varying degrees of expressiveness. Additionally, self-reference is
seen in recursion (related to the mathematical recurrence relation),
where a code structure refers back to itself during computation.


[edit] Examples
Many of the following examples appear in Douglas Hofstadter's G?del,
Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, Metamagical Themas, or I Am a
Strange Loop.


[edit] Words
A word that describes itself is called an autological word. This
generally applies to adjectives, for example sesquipedalian, but can
also apply to other parts of speech, such as TLA, as a three-letter
abbreviation for three-letter abbreviation.

See: Appendix:Autological words and Category:Autological words.


[edit] Mathematics
Impredicativity
Loop (graph theory)
Self-referential function
Tupper's self-referential formula

[edit] Sentences
"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields falsehood
when preceded by its quotation. (This is a version of the liar
paradox, an example of indirect self-reference through a quine, which
leads to a paradox.)
Russell's paradox: The set of all sets which are not elements of
themselves (which includes, and therefore does not, and therefore does
include itself)

[edit] The Fumblerules
Fumblerules state rules of good grammar and writing through sentences
that violate those very rules. (Examples: "Avoid cliches like the
plague" and "Don't use no double negatives".) George L. Trigg and
William Safire have made their own lists, but anyone knowledgeable on
grammar can do the same.


[edit] Literature
Main article: Metafiction
The Monster at the End of This Book references itself in the title, as
well as throughout the story.
Steal This Book by Abbie Hoffman
The Cat Who Walks Through Walls by Robert A. Heinlein considers the
universe (multiverse) as an author-manipulated object including the
plot in the book itself.
Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder, in which the titular character
realizes she is the character of a book.
The Neverending Story by Michael Ende uses self-reference of the book
prominently, when a character (Atreyu) of a story within the story
(also called 'Neverending Story') finds a book called the same, and it
is the same book the reader is reading.
A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius by Dave Eggers has
characters referring to their role in the book and references to the
book itself. This includes a list of tips to help better enjoy the
book (including several tips not to bother reading large sections of
the book), and a guide to its symbols and metaphors.
Six Characters in Search of an Author by Luigi Pirandello involves a
collection of people that show up at a play rehearsal claiming to
themselves be characters in search of a playwright to help them finish
their story. The play plays itself out as a way of (possibly) doing
just that.
You're So Vain, a song by Carly Simon which contains the lyrics,
"You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you."
The main antagonist in the comic Legion of the 3 Worlds, Superboy
Prime, is the Clark Kent from a destroyed iteration of the real
universe, supremely displeased from how his favourite comic books
turned out while journeying in their multiverse (depicted as
coexisting with the real one). Eventually, Clark returns to our
dimension, where is confronted by his distraught parents and
girlfriend, having read the chronicles of his villainous action from
the comic books published after his departure.

[edit] See also


From shmage at pipeline.com  Thu Sep 17 13:18:39 2009
From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage)
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:18:39 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Self-reference
In-Reply-To: <5c2e4d230909171130l70165032xe8b0a9856d39399c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5c2e4d230909171130l70165032xe8b0a9856d39399c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5AAC5369-BA9B-4923-8483-DF4BCA2E9085@pipeline.com>


On Sep 17, 2009, at 2:30 PM, c b wrote:

> Self-reference
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reference
>
The ultimate, absolutely incompressible, self-reference--a phrase  
referring only to itself--was written by Bob Dylan:

The pay phone it was ringing
And it just about blew my mind
When I took the receiver off the hook
*This foot* came through the line

(In prosody, a "foot" is a metric unit)

Shane Mage

> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 18 09:48:52 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:48:52 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] NATO chief proposes linked US/Russian/NATO defense
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909180848s2cc45888j48dc154553d56d3c@mail.gmail.com>

NATO chief proposes linked US/Russian/NATO defense

By ROBERT WIELAARD, Associated Press Writer Robert Wielaard,
Associated Press Writer 17 mins ago
BRUSSELS ? The head of NATO called Friday for the U.S., Russia and
NATO to link their missile defense systems against potential new
nuclear threats from Asia and the Middle East, saying that the old
foes must forget their lingering Cold War animosity.

Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen appealed for unity a day after
the U.S. shelved a Bush-era plan for an Eastern European missile
defense shield that has been a major irritant in relations with
Russia.

"We should explore the potential for linking the US, NATO and Russia
missile defense systems at an appropriate time," Fogh Rasmussen said.

"Both NATO and Russia have a wealth of experience in missile defense.
We should now work to combine this experience to our mutual benefit,"
he added.

Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin said the NATO chief's address had a "very
positive tone ... cooperation with Russia is not a matter of choice
(for NATO but) of necessity."

Fogh Rasmussen said in a speech calling for a rethink of NATO-Russia
relations that long-range ballistic missile technology in the hands of
such countries as North Korea and Iran threatens the West and Russia
in large part because it could lead to regional proliferation.

"If North Korea stays nuclear, and if Iran becomes nuclear, some of
their neighbors might feel compelled to follow their example," he
said. "The proliferation of ballistic missile technology is of concern
not just to NATO nations, but to Russia too."

Fogh Rasmussen said NATO and Moscow have failed to jointly take on
global security threats including terrorism.

"When the Cold War ended 20 years ago, NATO and Russia developed
rather unrealistic expectations about each other," he said. "Those
flawed expectations ... continue to burden our relationship."

Fogh Rasmussen did not elaborate on how or to what extent the Russian,
NATO and American anti-missile systems could be linked up.

The U.S. said the decision to abandon the Bush administration's plans
came about because of a change in the U.S. perception of the threat
posed by Iran. U.S. intelligence decided short- and medium-range
missiles from Iran now pose a greater near-term threat than the
intercontinental ballistic missiles the Bush plan addressed.

A new missile-defense plan would rely on a network of sensors and
interceptor missiles based at sea, on land and in the air as a bulwark
against Iranian short- and medium-range missiles.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Friday praised Obama's
decision and urged the U.S. to also cancel Cold War-era restrictions
on trade with Russia.

Russian leaders had threatened to deploy short-range missiles to the
Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad near Poland if the U.S. moved ahead with
the missile defense plan.

On Friday, the Interfax news quoted an unnamed Russian
military-diplomatic source as saying that such retaliatory measures
would now be frozen and, possibly, fully canceled in response to
Obama's decision to scrap the missile defense shield.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's foreign policy advisor Sergei
Prikhodko told reporters Friday that Obama's move would require the
Kremlin to "attentively consider new possibilities opening up for
cooperation and interaction" with the U.S. But Prikhodko gave no hint
on whether Russia could edge closer to the U.S. position on Iran.

A key irritant in NATO's relations with Moscow is the drive to bring
ex-Soviet states and satellites into the alliance which now has 28
members. The membership prospects of Georgia and Ukraine especially
have soured relations.

While proposing an unprecedented level of military cooperation with
Moscow, Rasmussen said NATO will continue to admit new members if they
are judged suited for membership.

Rogozin said Russia continues to object to NATO's claim to be Europe's
premier security provider, saying the alliance must formally recognize
the Collective Security Treaty Organization that Moscow created in
2002. Its members include Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan .

In the past, Russia has said it is ready to jointly work on missile
defense with the NATO and the United States.

But it views Iran being far from obtaining a long-range missile
technology and says it's necessary to jointly analyze missile threats
from that country and other nations before taking any further action.

In 2007, Putin who still was Russia's president at the time, offered
the U.S. to use a Soviet-era radar in Azerbaijan as an alternative to
the Bush administration's missile defense plan for Eastern Europe. The
Bush administration said the facility couldn't replace the planned
missile shield.

The NATO allies have done some technical work with the Russians on
missile defense in the past. But this has slowed down in recent years
as the relationship faded over NATO enlargement and the Georgian war.
Fogh Rasmussen's speech is a bid to revive such joint work.

Turkey's military said Friday that it was planning to spend $1 billion
(euro680 million) on four long-range missile defense systems but
denied it was buying missile interceptors for use against Iran.

___

AP writers Sergei Venyavsky in Sochi, Russia, and Steve Gutterman in
Moscow contributed to this story


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Sun Sep 20 10:23:54 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:23:54 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] U.S. May Not Recognize Results of Honduran Vote
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909200923v77a404f9xd2848a326b389a6f@mail.gmail.com>

I missed this when it came out.

CB


U.S. May Not Recognize Results of Honduran Vote

By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 4, 2009



The U.S. government on Thursday toughened its stance against
Honduras's coup leaders and supporters, threatening to put them "in a
box" by not recognizing the winner of a presidential election set for
November.

The de facto government had hoped that the election would provide an
end to the crisis that has gripped the Central American country since
the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya on June 28. The balloting had
been scheduled well before Zelaya was detained and whisked out of the
country by the military.

But U.S. officials said for the first time that they would continue to
shun the country unless Honduran leaders went back to a negotiated
plan that would allow the return of Zelaya with limited powers until
the expiration of his term in December.

"Based on conditions as they currently exist, we cannot recognize the
results of this election. So for the de facto regime, they're now in a
box," said State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley. "And they
will have to sign on to the San Jose accords to get out of the box."
He was referring to the plan for Zelaya's return, which was negotiated
in the Costa Rican capital.

The announcement amounted to a gamble that the threat would finally
force the de facto government to back down. So far, that government,
led by longtime congressman Roberto Micheletti, has resisted intense
international pressure, both economic and political. Its members argue
that Zelaya's removal was legal because he had violated the
constitution by organizing a referendum that could have allowed him to
evade the one-term limit for the presidency.

But the reasons for the coup supporters' vehemence go deeper: They
fear that the leftist Zelaya would have introduced the socialist-style
agenda promoted by Venezuelan President Hugo Ch?vez, a Zelaya ally and
leader of an anti-American bloc in the hemisphere.

"This is a tough call, because I think there are no white hats in this
story," said Ted Piccone, a specialist in U.S.-Latin American
relations at the Brookings Institution. "But there is a clear bright
line around the militarily forced exile of a democratically elected
president, and so that has to be addressed."

However, he and other analysts said, if the interim government does
not change its stance, the decision not to recognize the election
could only deepen the crisis.

The State Department's action "limits our options, a violation of the
first law of diplomacy, by taking off the table the one means by which
the crisis could naturally be resolved," said Eric Farnsworth, a Latin
America expert at the Council of the Americas, a U.S.-based business
group.

The announcement came as the State Department also formally terminated
about $30 million in aid to the Honduran government that had been
suspended. Authorities also said they were examining revoking more
visas of Hondurans who participated in, or supported, the coup.

The announcement triggered new opposition from Republicans in Congress
who have denounced the Obama administration's policy on Honduras and
held up some diplomatic appointments in protest.

"The U.S. approach to friends and foes is completely backwards. While
appeasing the enemies of freedom worldwide, we punish those in
Honduras struggling to preserve the rule of law, fundamental
liberties, and democratic values," Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.)
said in a statement.

The U.S. moves were applauded by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.),
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who has encouraged a
negotiated settlement. "The coup regime has engaged in undemocratic
practices that cast a dark shadow over elections scheduled for
November. Those elections will lack legitimacy unless the regime
embraces and faithfully implements the San Jose Accord," he said in a
statement.

Major Latin American countries have said they would not recognize the
results of the November election unless the coup is reversed.


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 21 04:55:48 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 06:55:48 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Top Stories
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909210355v1a967639g5f164fddc53ebde8@mail.gmail.com>

Top Stories, Video and Blog Posts for AlterNet
September 21st, 2009
http://www.alternet.org
___________________________________________________________

BILL MOYERS: CONSERVATIVE RADICALS AND THE POLITICS OF VENGEANCE
By Bill Moyers, Bill Moyers Journal
Intellectual conservatism is dead. And the angriest, most
intellectually bankrupt elements have taken over the
movement.
http://www.alternet.org/story/142754/bill_moyers%3A_conservative_radicals_and_the_politics_of_vengeance

RIGHT-WING HATEMONGERING FUELED BY CHRISTIANITY?
By Frank Schaeffer, AlterNet
The ugly side of Evangelical Christianity is very much to
blame for the anti-Obama hyperventilating.
http://www.alternet.org/story/142755/right-wing_hatemongering_fueled_by_christianity

10 HORRIFYING RACIST ATTACKS ON OBAMA
By AlterNet Staff, AlterNet
Surely the past months of 2009 will go down in history as
the "summer of hate."
http://www.alternet.org/story/142747/10_horrifying_racist_attacks_on_obama

MIKE ROGERS: THE MAN WHO OUTS CLOSETED RIGHT-WING POLITICIANS
By Greta Christina, The Blowfish Blog
Mike Rogers talks about why it's important to report on the
secret sex lives of gay conservatives who are in bed with
anti-gay forces.
http://www.alternet.org/story/142743/mike_rogers%3A_the_man_who_outs_closeted_right-wing_politicians

THE BILL O'REILLY SPEECH BILL O'REILLY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR
By Adele  Stan, AlterNet
At the Values Voter Summit, Bill O'Reilly locked the media
out of his appearance before the religious right. Here's
what he didn't want you to hear.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/142748/the_bill_o%27reilly_speech_bill_o%27reilly_didn%27t_want_you_to_hear

FCC TO TAKE ON TELECOMS IN FIGHT FOR THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET
By Art Brodsky, Public Knowledge
It looks like the battle for net neutrality is finally
gaining some momentum. This will be the biggest telecom
fight in more than a decade.
http://www.alternet.org/story/142756/fcc_to_take_on_telecoms_in_fight_for_the_future_of_the_internet

WHY IS BIG PHARMA TRYING TO TELL YOU HOW TO HAVE SEX?
By JoAnn Wypijewski, The Nation
Female sexual dysfunction was wholly created by drug
companies hoping to make even bigger money off women than
they have off men.
http://www.alternet.org/story/142602/why_is_big_pharma_trying_to_tell_you_how_to_have_sex

WHY I THREW MY SHOES AT BUSH
By Mutadhar al-Zaidi, AlterNet
The Iraqi who went to jail for shoe-tossing at Bush has been
released from prison and speaks out. "Here I am, free. But
my country is still a prisoner of war."
http://www.alternet.org/story/142741/why_i_threw_my_shoes_at_bush

___________________________________________________________
AlterNet Blogs:

(VIDEO) STEPHEN COLBERT: LET FREEDOM KA-CHING!
By AlterNet Staff, AlterNet
Somebody's gotta stand up for the rights of corporations.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/142757/%28video%29_stephen_colbert%3A_let_freedom_ka-ching%21

BETSY "DEATH PANELS" MCCAUGHY, TOBACCO INDUSTRY SHILL
By Oliver Willis, Oliver Willis.com
She's concerned about your health!
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/healthwellness/142753/betsy_%22death_panels%22_mccaughy%2C_tobacco_industry_shill


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 22 07:19:09 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:19:09 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Cuba Undertakes Reforms in Midst of Economic Crisis
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909220619k76f7db0cn90d9120fea424953@mail.gmail.com>

Cuba Undertakes Reforms in Midst of Economic Crisis

By Roger Burbach

September 20, 2009

http://globalalternatives.org/node/109

Carlos picks me up with his dated Soviet-made Lada at
the Jose Marti International Airport on a hot
sweltering day in Havana. It's been eight months since
I've seen him, last January to be precise, when I came
to the island on the 50th anniversary of the Cuban
Revolution. "How's it been?" I ask him as we begin the
20 minute drive to central Havana. With a scowl, he
replies: "Not so good, nothing seems to get easier." He
goes on to say that foodstuffs are as difficult as ever
to come by, necessitating long waits in line for
rationed commodities.

I am not surprised, as I had been reading in the
international press that Cuba has been compelled to
curtail its food imports. Hit by the global economic
crisis, spending by tourists dropped off while the
price of nickel, Cuba's main mineral export, fell by
more than half. This meant that Cuba has no choice but
to cut agricultural imports from its main supplier, the
United States. Credit purchases are not an option, as
the U.S. legislation in 2000, opening up agricultural
sales to Cuba, requires immediate payment in hard
currency.

To add to its woes, devastating hurricanes hit Cuba in
2008, decimating some of the country's sugar
plantations, as well as its production of vegetables
and staple foods. The only bright light in the midst of
this food crisis is the implementation of reforms in
the agricultural sector under Raul Castro, who became
acting president in July 2006. He officially assumed
the presidency from his brother Fidel after a vote by
the Cuban National Assembly in February 2008.

I am particularly interested in knowing how the
distribution of 690,000 hectares of idle lands to
82,000 rural families, in process when I left Cuba in
January, has affected the domestic supply of fresh
produce. On my second day, I go to one of the open
markets in Havana where I talk to Margarita, who is
selling undersized tomatoes. She says they come from
her father's new farm. "We started cultivating
tomatoes, as well as other vegetables," she says. "We
even hired workers, which is now allowed. But then, as
the crops began to mature, we got very little water
from the state-owned irrigation system."  Fearing the
worst, I ask her if the state is discriminating against
the new producers. "No" she says, "the wells and the
irrigation system simply didn't have any gas for the
pumps."

Later in the day, I meet with Armando Nova, an
agricultural economist at the Center for the Study of
the Cuban Economy. I had also talked with him in
January and he had then been optimistic about the
coming year. I ask him what's gone wrong and he says,
"We're caught between the effects of the global
economic crisis and the difficulties of implementing
the reforms." He goes on to say that there has actually
been an increase in fresh produce since the beginning
of the year, but it is hardly noticeable in the markets
because of the increased demand, a result of the drop
in international imports.

As to the economic reforms, Nova says: "The top
leadership around Raul is committed to a fundamental
shake up of the economy, but change is slow because of
bureaucratic obstacles." The very process of
distributing idle lands requires 13 steps of paper work
submitted to different agencies. And while the
government is committed to providing the new farmers
with the inputs needed to start up production, many of
them are not delivered because they are simply not
available due to the economic crisis.

Nova's view that reforms are inevitable is reinforced
in a special report on the economy released by Inter
Press Service (IPS), which is affiliated with the
Ministry of Foreign Relations: "There is an ever
broadening consensus about the necessity of a profound
transformation of the Cuban economic model. ... It is
recognized that the future strategy should include
non-state forms of property -- not only in agriculture,
but also in manufacturing and services." The
publication asserts, "Fifty years of socialism in Cuba
have to be re-evaluated," particularly the role of the
state and the need to use market mechanisms.

To facilitate this transformation, the government is
opening up a 45-day public discussion that includes
union centers, schools, universities, community
organizations and the base of the Cuban Communist
party. According to materials sent out to orientate the
discussions, the participants should "not only identify
problems, but also suggest solutions...The analysis ought
to be objective, sincere, valiant, creative, ... carried
out in absolute liberty with respect for discrepant
opinions."

According to Orlando Cruz of the Institute of
Philosophy, whom I met at a conference in Havana on
social movements, "socialism is to be re-founded in
Cuba. We have to totally discard the Soviet model that
so badly served us." I ask whether Cuba will now move
towards the Chinese model. Like others in Cuba in the
party and the government I have asked the same
question. He responds somewhat curtly: "We respect the
Chinese model, but we have to follow our own process
and history. China is a totally different country."
Cruz makes clear that there will be meaningful
democratic participation in the new Cuba: "We will not
allow the formation of a petit-bourgeoisie to control
or distort the process. We want to construct an
authentic democratic socialism. It will be deeper and
more participatory than that of the social democracies
of Europe."

I first went to Cuba in 1969 and have visited the
country every decade since then. There have been many
challenging moments in the revolution's history, and
now we are witnessing another one, as the country
embarks on an endeavor to free the economy from the
shackles of its bureaucracy. The fate of this move
depends on the ability of society at the grass roots to
exert a greater role in the country's economic and
political institutions. If this effort succeeds, the
Cuban revolution will be opening a new path for
socialism in the 21st century.

*Roger Burbach is the author of "The Pinochet Affair:
State Terrorism and Global Justice," and the Director
of the Center for the Study of the Americas based in
Berkeley, CA. He is working on a new book with Gregory
Wilpert, "The Renaissance of Socialism in Latin
America." (c) 2007- 2009 CENSA: Center for the Study of
the Americas 2288 Fulton St., Suite 103, Berkeley, CA


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 22 08:06:36 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:06:36 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Michael Moore's latest movie
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909220706t458890c1ne4f22559b5a6389d@mail.gmail.com>

BARACK OBAMA MUST SEE MICHAEL MOORE'S NEW MOVIE (AND SO MUST YOU)!
By Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post
"Michael goes directly to the beating heart of the economic
crisis ... The knot in your stomach starts to tighten -- and
the outrage starts to build."
http://www.alternet.org/story/142777/barack_obama_must_see_michael_moore%27s_new_movie_%28and_so_must_you%29%21


From rdumain at autodidactproject.org  Tue Sep 22 09:02:13 2009
From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:02:13 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on Leonid Kantorovich and the
 socialist calculation debate revisited
In-Reply-To: <20090524.213745.5688.1.farmelantj@juno.com>
References: <20090524.213745.5688.1.farmelantj@juno.com>
Message-ID: <E1Mq6tH-00035n-VF@elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Some time ago Jim gave us this reference. If you are interested in 
Cockshott's analysis of the socialist calculation debate, high-tech 
socialism & e-democracy more generally, see his web site:

http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/


At 09:37 PM 5/24/2009, Jim Farmelant wrote:

>Paul Cockshott on how the Soviet economist and mathematician,
>Leonid Kantorovich (who was the only Soviet economist
>to ever win the Nobel Prize in economics),
>used his work on linear programming to
>answer the arguments of economists like Ludwig von Mises
>and Friedrich Hayek who argued that rational socialist
>economic planning was, even in theory, impossible.
>
>"Calculation in-Natura, from Neurath to Kantorovich"
>
>http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/standalonearticle.pdf



From rdumain at autodidactproject.org  Tue Sep 22 09:39:07 2009
From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:39:07 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on Leonid Kantorovich and the
 socialist calculation debate revisited
In-Reply-To: <E1Mq6tH-00035n-VF@elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
References: <20090524.213745.5688.1.farmelantj@juno.com>
	<E1Mq6tH-00035n-VF@elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <E1Mq7Sz-0001Fd-D1@elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Not that I endorse an exclusive concentration on economic 
calculation, but Cockschott's overall perspective can be found here:

21st Century Marxism
http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/21stCenturyMarxism.htm

At 11:02 AM 9/22/2009, Ralph Dumain wrote:
>Some time ago Jim gave us this reference. If you are interested in
>Cockshott's analysis of the socialist calculation debate, high-tech
>socialism & e-democracy more generally, see his web site:
>
>http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/
>
>
>At 09:37 PM 5/24/2009, Jim Farmelant wrote:
>
> >Paul Cockshott on how the Soviet economist and mathematician,
> >Leonid Kantorovich (who was the only Soviet economist
> >to ever win the Nobel Prize in economics),
> >used his work on linear programming to
> >answer the arguments of economists like Ludwig von Mises
> >and Friedrich Hayek who argued that rational socialist
> >economic planning was, even in theory, impossible.
> >
> >"Calculation in-Natura, from Neurath to Kantorovich"
> >
> >http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/standalonearticle.pdf
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
>Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
>To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
>http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis



From rdumain at autodidactproject.org  Tue Sep 22 10:46:32 2009
From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:46:32 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on e-democracy
In-Reply-To: <E1Mq7Sz-0001Fd-D1@elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
References: <20090524.213745.5688.1.farmelantj@juno.com>
	<E1Mq6tH-00035n-VF@elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
	<E1Mq7Sz-0001Fd-D1@elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <E1Mq8WD-0008FB-RZ@elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Again, no endorsement, esp. not of any Maoist or 
Stalinist influences to be found here, but this is material of some interest:

E-Democracy

<http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/%7Ewpc/reports/leadershipconcepts.pdf>Leadership 
Concepts and Democracy  A draft book chapter to 
be translated into Spanish. It deals with the 
history of ideas of leadership in the socialist 
movement from the critical standpoint of participatory democracy.

<http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/%7Ewpc/reports/mettegFinal.doc>ELECTRONIC 
PLEBISCITES Paper with Karen Renaud, We suggest a 
technology and set of procedures by which a major 
democratic de?cit of modern society can be 
addressed. The mechanism, whilst it makes limited 
use of cryptographic techniques in the 
background, is based around objects and 
procedures with which voters are currently 
familiar. We believe that systems like this hold 
considerable potential for the extension of 
democratic participation and control.

<http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/%7Ewpc/reports/votingmachines.pdf>Electronic 
and Athenian Democracy, paper given at the 
Workshop on e-Voting and e-Government in the UK, Feb 2006.

<http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/%7Ewpc/reports/electronicvotesspanish1.ppt>Los 
Plebiscitos electr?nicos a talk based on work by 
Karen Renaud and I that was given at a seminar in 
Barquisimeto in Venezuala in 2007. 
<http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/%7Ewpc/reports/electronicvotes.ppt>English version


At 11:39 AM 9/22/2009, Ralph Dumain wrote:
>Not that I endorse an exclusive concentration on economic
>calculation, but Cockschott's overall perspective can be found here:
>
>21st Century Marxism
><http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/21stCenturyMarxism.htm>http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/21stCenturyMarxism.htm
>
>At 11:02 AM 9/22/2009, Ralph Dumain wrote:
> >Some time ago Jim gave us this reference. If you are interested in
> >Cockshott's analysis of the socialist calculation debate, high-tech
> >socialism & e-democracy more generally, see his web site:
> >
> ><http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/>http:// 
> www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/
> >
> >
> >At 09:37 PM 5/24/2009, Jim Farmelant wrote:
> >
> > >Paul Cockshott on how the Soviet economist and mathematician,
> > >Leonid Kantorovich (who was the only Soviet economist
> > >to ever win the Nobel Prize in economics),
> > >used his work on linear programming to
> > >answer the arguments of economists like Ludwig von Mises
> > >and Friedrich Hayek who argued that rational socialist
> > >economic planning was, even in theory, impossible.
> > >
> > >"Calculation in-Natura, from Neurath to Kantorovich"
> > >
> > ><http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/standa 
> lonearticle.pdf>http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/standalonearticle.pdf

From andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com  Tue Sep 22 12:35:20 2009
From: andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com (andie nachgeborenen)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:35:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on Leonid Kantorovich and the
	socialist calculation debate revisited
In-Reply-To: <E1Mq7Sz-0001Fd-D1@elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <735564.76417.qm@web50403.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Leontiff also won the Nobel Memorial prize in economics -- not for work he did in the USSR, though. He had great respect for Marx, I believe contributed a paper to an MR anthology on Marxist Economics put together by David Horowitz (!) in the old days.

Oskar Lange, later like Kantoworitz a hands-on central planner, showed that on neoclassical assumptions you could model a nonmarket economy to mimic market efficiencies using "shadow prices" (see Lange & Taylor, "On the Economic Theory of Prices," a response to Hayek from, I think 1938

http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Theory-Socialism-Oskar-Lange/dp/B0006AO488

The calculation debate swayed back and forth for a long time. The standard view, last time I checked, and I think this is correct, is that Lange actually missed Hayek's point. Hayek is not a neo-classicist but a sharp critic of neo-classicism. He's an institutionalist whose critique of planning is based on realistic observations about the operation of people in organizations gives in the incentives pure planning gives them. In this respect Hayek also differs sharply from Mises, who was ferociously a priorist, though not neoclassical. Hayek is a lot closer than Lange or Mises to Marx's approach. I'd say he's been soundly vindicated. Btw, he was not opposed to planning on efficiency grounds, as opposed to ideological ones, where experience showed it would work. He supported national health care, for example. 

Kantorowitz's mathematical achievement was awesome and knocks the math of neoclassicals into a cocked hat. It's also true that, as Cockshott argues, he was in many ways ahead of his time in that a lot of what he advocated could not be done on any existing computer technology available in his lifetime, especially in the USSR. 

However, I think he also does not come to grips with Hayek's objections. Not to put a fine a point on it, with a computer-based planning system running linear program models, you have the engineer's standard worry: GIGO. Hayek's fundamental argument was that the incentives of central planning produced GI, guaranteed you bad data to start with, so any models, no matter how good and how fast, starting with that data, would produce GO. Kantorowitz -- and I've read his big book -- does not concern himself with the quality of the input data.

I have a long-standing interest in the calculation debate, as some of you know, but in some ways it's passe. There's no active audience outside a small handful of academic theorists interested in what is now the purely theoretical possibility of a nonmarket economy. There's a small handful of die-hard, mostly Stalinist, leftists, who Believe, but they're really not interested in even the broad strokes of the debate, because they Know the answer. No state exists anymore that even aspires to a nonmarket system, and none is likely to emerge. 

So apart from amusing people like Cockshotte and me, what exactly is the point? I suppose if you're writing about Marx and you are persuaded by one or the other side you can say, well there exist models that show that a nonmarket system, maybe like what Marx envisaged, is theoretically possible. Or: not. 

Anyway, work calleth.

Justin





--- On Tue, 9/22/09, Ralph Dumain <rdumain at autodidactproject.org> wrote:

> From: Ralph Dumain <rdumain at autodidactproject.org>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on Leonid Kantorovich and the socialist calculation debate revisited
> To: "Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and the thinkers he inspired" <marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu>, marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Cc: "marxist philosophy" <marxistphilosophy at yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 10:39 AM
> Not that I endorse an exclusive
> concentration on economic 
> calculation, but Cockschott's overall perspective can be
> found here:
> 
> 21st Century Marxism
> http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/21stCenturyMarxism.htm
> 
> At 11:02 AM 9/22/2009, Ralph Dumain wrote:
> >Some time ago Jim gave us this reference. If you are
> interested in
> >Cockshott's analysis of the socialist calculation
> debate, high-tech
> >socialism & e-democracy more generally, see his web
> site:
> >
> >http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/
> >
> >
> >At 09:37 PM 5/24/2009, Jim Farmelant wrote:
> >
> > >Paul Cockshott on how the Soviet economist and
> mathematician,
> > >Leonid Kantorovich (who was the only Soviet
> economist
> > >to ever win the Nobel Prize in economics),
> > >used his work on linear programming to
> > >answer the arguments of economists like Ludwig von
> Mises
> > >and Friedrich Hayek who argued that rational
> socialist
> > >economic planning was, even in theory,
> impossible.
> > >
> > >"Calculation in-Natura, from Neurath to
> Kantorovich"
> > >
> > >http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/standalonearticle.pdf
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> >Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> >To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> >http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
> 


      


From andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com  Tue Sep 22 12:37:32 2009
From: andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com (andie nachgeborenen)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:37:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on Leonid Kantorovich and the
	socialist calculation debate revisited
In-Reply-To: <735564.76417.qm@web50403.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <869016.28478.qm@web50412.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

The spell checker replaced Kantorovich with Kantorowtz, and I didn't catch it. Please insert the correct name. Sorry.

--- On Tue, 9/22/09, andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on Leonid Kantorovich and the socialist calculation debate revisited
> To: "Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and the thinkers he inspired" <marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 1:35 PM
> Leontiff also won the Nobel Memorial
> prize in economics -- not for work he did in the USSR,
> though. He had great respect for Marx, I believe contributed
> a paper to an MR anthology on Marxist Economics put together
> by David Horowitz (!) in the old days.
> 
> Oskar Lange, later like Kantoworitz a hands-on central
> planner, showed that on neoclassical assumptions you could
> model a nonmarket economy to mimic market efficiencies using
> "shadow prices" (see Lange & Taylor, "On the Economic
> Theory of Prices," a response to Hayek from, I think 1938
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Theory-Socialism-Oskar-Lange/dp/B0006AO488
> 
> The calculation debate swayed back and forth for a long
> time. The standard view, last time I checked, and I think
> this is correct, is that Lange actually missed Hayek's
> point. Hayek is not a neo-classicist but a sharp critic of
> neo-classicism. He's an institutionalist whose critique of
> planning is based on realistic observations about the
> operation of people in organizations gives in the incentives
> pure planning gives them. In this respect Hayek also differs
> sharply from Mises, who was ferociously a priorist, though
> not neoclassical. Hayek is a lot closer than Lange or Mises
> to Marx's approach. I'd say he's been soundly vindicated.
> Btw, he was not opposed to planning on efficiency grounds,
> as opposed to ideological ones, where experience showed it
> would work. He supported national health care, for example.
> 
> 
> Kantorowitz's mathematical achievement was awesome and
> knocks the math of neoclassicals into a cocked hat. It's
> also true that, as Cockshott argues, he was in many ways
> ahead of his time in that a lot of what he advocated could
> not be done on any existing computer technology available in
> his lifetime, especially in the USSR. 
> 
> However, I think he also does not come to grips with
> Hayek's objections. Not to put a fine a point on it, with a
> computer-based planning system running linear program
> models, you have the engineer's standard worry: GIGO.
> Hayek's fundamental argument was that the incentives of
> central planning produced GI, guaranteed you bad data to
> start with, so any models, no matter how good and how fast,
> starting with that data, would produce GO. Kantorowitz --
> and I've read his big book -- does not concern himself with
> the quality of the input data.
> 
> I have a long-standing interest in the calculation debate,
> as some of you know, but in some ways it's passe. There's no
> active audience outside a small handful of academic
> theorists interested in what is now the purely theoretical
> possibility of a nonmarket economy. There's a small handful
> of die-hard, mostly Stalinist, leftists, who Believe, but
> they're really not interested in even the broad strokes of
> the debate, because they Know the answer. No state exists
> anymore that even aspires to a nonmarket system, and none is
> likely to emerge. 
> 
> So apart from amusing people like Cockshotte and me, what
> exactly is the point? I suppose if you're writing about Marx
> and you are persuaded by one or the other side you can say,
> well there exist models that show that a nonmarket system,
> maybe like what Marx envisaged, is theoretically possible.
> Or: not. 
> 
> Anyway, work calleth.
> 
> Justin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Tue, 9/22/09, Ralph Dumain <rdumain at autodidactproject.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Ralph Dumain <rdumain at autodidactproject.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on Leonid
> Kantorovich and the socialist calculation debate revisited
> > To: "Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues
> raised by Karl Marx and the thinkers he inspired" <marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu>,
> marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> > Cc: "marxist philosophy" <marxistphilosophy at yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 10:39 AM
> > Not that I endorse an exclusive
> > concentration on economic 
> > calculation, but Cockschott's overall perspective can
> be
> > found here:
> > 
> > 21st Century Marxism
> > http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/21stCenturyMarxism.htm
> > 
> > At 11:02 AM 9/22/2009, Ralph Dumain wrote:
> > >Some time ago Jim gave us this reference. If you
> are
> > interested in
> > >Cockshott's analysis of the socialist calculation
> > debate, high-tech
> > >socialism & e-democracy more generally, see
> his web
> > site:
> > >
> > >http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/
> > >
> > >
> > >At 09:37 PM 5/24/2009, Jim Farmelant wrote:
> > >
> > > >Paul Cockshott on how the Soviet economist
> and
> > mathematician,
> > > >Leonid Kantorovich (who was the only Soviet
> > economist
> > > >to ever win the Nobel Prize in economics),
> > > >used his work on linear programming to
> > > >answer the arguments of economists like
> Ludwig von
> > Mises
> > > >and Friedrich Hayek who argued that rational
> > socialist
> > > >economic planning was, even in theory,
> > impossible.
> > > >
> > > >"Calculation in-Natura, from Neurath to
> > Kantorovich"
> > > >
> > > >http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/standalonearticle.pdf
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> > >Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> > >To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> > >http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> > Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> > To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
> > 
> 
> 
> ? ? ? 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
> 


      


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 22 14:34:32 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:34:32 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on Leonid Kantorovich and the
	socialist calculation debate revisited
In-Reply-To: <735564.76417.qm@web50403.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <E1Mq7Sz-0001Fd-D1@elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
	<735564.76417.qm@web50403.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909221334o7560bf18vfbf5b49b99d44a2d@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/22/09, andie nachgeborenen  No state exists anymore that even
aspires to a nonmarket system, and none is likely to emerge.

^^^^^^^^
CB: I know most American lefties consider the Chinese CP to be liars,
but I'm not one of them. They do claim to be aspiring to a non-market
system. Also, there is , of course, Cuba. And the Bolivarians
explicitly  claim to aspire to socialism.

On China, as I've said many times, China was not a capitalist country
at its revolution. By socalled stagist theory, which is only wrong for
Trostskyists and some others, not classical Marxists like Marx and
Engels,  also people like Ted Winslow of lbo-talk and Pen-L,
capitalism is a necessary step before socialism. This is pragmatically
true given that imperialism with super superior weaponry based on its
industrial might over pre-capitalist societies like China or even
USSR, will not permit socialist peaceful coexistence and development.
This is the lesson of the last 90 years.

In sum, I disagree that Chinese CP's claims to still aspire to
socialism can be dismissed.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Tue, 9/22/09, Ralph Dumain <rdumain at autodidactproject.org> wrote:
>
> > From: Ralph Dumain <rdumain at autodidactproject.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on Leonid Kantorovich and the socialist calculation debate revisited
> > To: "Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and the thinkers he inspired" <marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu>, marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> > Cc: "marxist philosophy" <marxistphilosophy at yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 10:39 AM
> > Not that I endorse an exclusive
> > concentration on economic
> > calculation, but Cockschott's overall perspective can be
> > found here:
> >
> > 21st Century Marxism
> > http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/21stCenturyMarxism.htm
> >
> > At 11:02 AM 9/22/2009, Ralph Dumain wrote:
> > >Some time ago Jim gave us this reference. If you are
> > interested in
> > >Cockshott's analysis of the socialist calculation
> > debate, high-tech
> > >socialism & e-democracy more generally, see his web
> > site:
> > >
> > >http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/
> > >
> > >
> > >At 09:37 PM 5/24/2009, Jim Farmelant wrote:
> > >
> > > >Paul Cockshott on how the Soviet economist and
> > mathematician,
> > > >Leonid Kantorovich (who was the only Soviet
> > economist
> > > >to ever win the Nobel Prize in economics),
> > > >used his work on linear programming to
> > > >answer the arguments of economists like Ludwig von
> > Mises
> > > >and Friedrich Hayek who argued that rational
> > socialist
> > > >economic planning was, even in theory,
> > impossible.
> > > >
> > > >"Calculation in-Natura, from Neurath to
> > Kantorovich"
> > > >
> > > >http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/standalonearticle.pdf
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> > >Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> > >To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> > >http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> > Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> > To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
>


From andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com  Tue Sep 22 21:18:50 2009
From: andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com (andie nachgeborenen)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on Leonid Kantorovich and the
	socialist calculation debate revisited
In-Reply-To: <5c2e4d230909221334o7560bf18vfbf5b49b99d44a2d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <771902.28878.qm@web50404.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

I'm not holding my breath. Bad idea for Zen practice anyway.

--- On Tue, 9/22/09, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: c b <cb31450 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on Leonid Kantorovich and the socialist calculation debate revisited
> To: "Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and the thinkers he inspired" <marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 3:34 PM
> On 9/22/09, andie nachgeborenen?
> No state exists anymore that even
> aspires to a nonmarket system, and none is likely to
> emerge.
> 
> ^^^^^^^^
> CB: I know most American lefties consider the Chinese CP to
> be liars,
> but I'm not one of them. They do claim to be aspiring to a
> non-market
> system. Also, there is , of course, Cuba. And the
> Bolivarians
> explicitly? claim to aspire to socialism.
> 
> On China, as I've said many times, China was not a
> capitalist country
> at its revolution. By socalled stagist theory, which is
> only wrong for
> Trostskyists and some others, not classical Marxists like
> Marx and
> Engels,? also people like Ted Winslow of lbo-talk and
> Pen-L,
> capitalism is a necessary step before socialism. This is
> pragmatically
> true given that imperialism with super superior weaponry
> based on its
> industrial might over pre-capitalist societies like China
> or even
> USSR, will not permit socialist peaceful coexistence and
> development.
> This is the lesson of the last 90 years.
> 
> In sum, I disagree that Chinese CP's claims to still aspire
> to
> socialism can be dismissed.
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Tue, 9/22/09, Ralph Dumain <rdumain at autodidactproject.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Ralph Dumain <rdumain at autodidactproject.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on
> Leonid Kantorovich and the socialist calculation debate
> revisited
> > > To: "Forum for the discussion of theoretical
> issues raised by Karl Marx and the thinkers he inspired"
> <marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu>,
> marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> > > Cc: "marxist philosophy" <marxistphilosophy at yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 10:39 AM
> > > Not that I endorse an exclusive
> > > concentration on economic
> > > calculation, but Cockschott's overall perspective
> can be
> > > found here:
> > >
> > > 21st Century Marxism
> > > http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/21stCenturyMarxism.htm
> > >
> > > At 11:02 AM 9/22/2009, Ralph Dumain wrote:
> > > >Some time ago Jim gave us this reference. If
> you are
> > > interested in
> > > >Cockshott's analysis of the socialist
> calculation
> > > debate, high-tech
> > > >socialism & e-democracy more generally,
> see his web
> > > site:
> > > >
> > > >http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >At 09:37 PM 5/24/2009, Jim Farmelant wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Paul Cockshott on how the Soviet
> economist and
> > > mathematician,
> > > > >Leonid Kantorovich (who was the only
> Soviet
> > > economist
> > > > >to ever win the Nobel Prize in
> economics),
> > > > >used his work on linear programming to
> > > > >answer the arguments of economists like
> Ludwig von
> > > Mises
> > > > >and Friedrich Hayek who argued that
> rational
> > > socialist
> > > > >economic planning was, even in theory,
> > > impossible.
> > > > >
> > > > >"Calculation in-Natura, from Neurath to
> > > Kantorovich"
> > > > >
> > > > >http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/standalonearticle.pdf
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >_______________________________________________
> > > >Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> > > >Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> > > >To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> > > >http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> > > Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> > > To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> > > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> > Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> > To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
> 


      


From johnaimani at earthlink.net  Tue Sep 22 22:11:25 2009
From: johnaimani at earthlink.net (johnaimani)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:11:25 -0700
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on e-democracy
References: <20090524.213745.5688.1.farmelantj@juno.com><E1Mq6tH-00035n-VF@elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net><E1Mq7Sz-0001Fd-D1@elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
	<E1Mq8WD-0008FB-RZ@elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <86ADFAC3149447A881765654FDCA8CFE@D4PKYZ41>

At 09:37 PM 5/24/2009, Jim Farmelant wrote:
> >
> > >Paul Cockshott on how the Soviet economist and mathematician,
> > >Leonid Kantorovich (who was the only Soviet economist
> > >to ever win the Nobel Prize in economics),
> > >used his work on linear programming to
> > >answer the arguments of economists like Ludwig von Mises
> > >and Friedrich Hayek who argued that rational socialist
> > >economic planning was, even in theory, impossible.
> > >
> > >"Calculation in-Natura, from Neurath to Kantorovich"
> > >
> > ><http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/standa
> lonearticle.pdf>http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/standalonearticle.pdf

The http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/standa was a bad link.   The 
article (in HTML) can be found at


http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:SpB5zxZviEEJ:www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/standalonearticle.pdf+%22Calculation+in-Natura,+from+Neurath+to+Kantorovich%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

In pdf at http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/standalonearticle.pdf

What is interesting (to me) is that I just started reading "Colectivist 
Economic
Planning" (edited and with a contribution by Hayek).  A book I had sought
for a while (copies from the library did not avail themselves to the type of
reading  that I do (underlining and in situ note taking).  Copies on the 
internet
invariably cost more than $100.  However, it just became available vai the
von Mises  Institute's republication for $15 plus shipping.  Hated to give
them the money but had to have that book.  http://mises.org/econcalc.asp

This is most welcome.

JAI




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ralph Dumain" <rdumain at autodidactproject.org>
To: <marxistphilosophy at yahoogroups.com>; 
<marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 9:46 AM
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on e-democracy


Again, no endorsement, esp. not of any Maoist or
Stalinist influences to be found here, but this is material of some 
interest:

E-Democracy

<http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/%7Ewpc/reports/leadershipconcepts.pdf>Leadership
Concepts and Democracy  A draft book chapter to
be translated into Spanish. It deals with the
history of ideas of leadership in the socialist
movement from the critical standpoint of participatory democracy.

<http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/%7Ewpc/reports/mettegFinal.doc>ELECTRONIC
PLEBISCITES Paper with Karen Renaud, We suggest a
technology and set of procedures by which a major
democratic de?cit of modern society can be
addressed. The mechanism, whilst it makes limited
use of cryptographic techniques in the
background, is based around objects and
procedures with which voters are currently
familiar. We believe that systems like this hold
considerable potential for the extension of
democratic participation and control.

<http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/%7Ewpc/reports/votingmachines.pdf>Electronic
and Athenian Democracy, paper given at the
Workshop on e-Voting and e-Government in the UK, Feb 2006.

<http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/%7Ewpc/reports/electronicvotesspanish1.ppt>Los
Plebiscitos electr?nicos a talk based on work by
Karen Renaud and I that was given at a seminar in
Barquisimeto in Venezuala in 2007.
<http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/%7Ewpc/reports/electronicvotes.ppt>English version


At 11:39 AM 9/22/2009, Ralph Dumain wrote:
>Not that I endorse an exclusive concentration on economic
>calculation, but Cockschott's overall perspective can be found here:
>
>21st Century Marxism
><http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/21stCenturyMarxism.htm>http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/21stCenturyMarxism.htm
>
>At 11:02 AM 9/22/2009, Ralph Dumain wrote:
> >Some time ago Jim gave us this reference. If you are interested in
> >Cockshott's analysis of the socialist calculation debate, high-tech
> >socialism & e-democracy more generally, see his web site:
> >
> ><http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/>http://
> www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/
> >
> >
> >At 09:37 PM 5/24/2009, Jim Farmelant wrote:
> >
> > >Paul Cockshott on how the Soviet economist and mathematician,
> > >Leonid Kantorovich (who was the only Soviet economist
> > >to ever win the Nobel Prize in economics),
> > >used his work on linear programming to
> > >answer the arguments of economists like Ludwig von Mises
> > >and Friedrich Hayek who argued that rational socialist
> > >economic planning was, even in theory, impossible.
> > >
> > >"Calculation in-Natura, from Neurath to Kantorovich"
> > >
> > ><http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/standa
> lonearticle.pdf>http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/standalonearticle.pdf




From cb31450 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 23 13:32:48 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:32:48 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] In memoriam: Holly Stand
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909231232l457b4d49he756064235b5a15c@mail.gmail.com>

In memoriam: Holly Stand

by Kurt Stand

submitted to portside by the author

August 28, 2009

My mother, Hannelore (Holly) Stand, passed away on
August 16 after a lifetime of engagement in the
struggle for peace, equality and socialism.  She was
born into a Ruhr coal-mining community in 1924; her
early life was marked by that community's revolutionary
aspirations - and by the defeat of those aspirations.
She left Germany in 1933 having witnessed the barbarism
of fascism in power: Book burnings, arrests, brutal
beatings, killings. Those of her family members who
remained in Germany paid a heavy price during the years
that followed for remaining true to their Communist
convictions.

The United States was a refuge, but not a respite, from
the harshness of the depression, the sacrifices of
political struggle. Her parents were each deeply
engaged in the anti-fascist and labor movements; her
father as a miner then as a building maintenance
worker, her mother as a domestic worker. As her parents
organized, she was frequently uprooted; my mother
attended 12 schools in 4 states over the course of 4
years. She was unable to complete high school when
finally back in New York to stay in 1938; though that
did not prevent her from becoming a well-read and well-
educated person - nor from eventually getting her GED
when my brother and I were in college.

My mother became politically active early in her own
right, joining the Young Communist League and the
Nature Friends - a workers' hiking group banned by the
Nazis in Germany and listed as a subversive
organization in the U.S. during the years of
McCarthyism. It was within these groups that she built
many of the friendships that would last a lifetime, and
met my father Mille whom she married in 1943 just
before he went overseas as a soldier during World War
II. During the war, my mother worked in a garment
factory, participated in Soviet War Relief efforts, and
was involved in efforts to maintain an anti-fascist
presence in the German-American community of Yorkville
(in Manhattan).

Her activism continued after the war, especially in
work on behalf of Vito Marcantonio and his American
Labor Party Congressional campaigns, when redistricting
designed to weaken him added portions of Yorkville to
his East Harlem base. In the 1950s-60s, she and my
father dedicated time and energy to Camp Midvale in New
Jersey, a left-wing community that survived the height
of Cold War anti-Communist hysteria. They also worked
for many years as part of the editorial committee of
the Communist Party-associated publication German-
American, and for the (Social Democrat-inclined)
Workmen's Benefit Fund. Their work with the WBF in the
1970s-80s was especially concerned with building
housing for elderly German-immigrant domestic workers
who, when forced to retire, often found themselves with
no home, and no family to turn to. And for all the
years of its existence, they were actively engaged in
building solidarity with the German Democratic
Republic.

The values my mother held, she lived. She wouldn't
cross a picket line or buy a boycotted good, be it a
Judy Bond dress or scab grapes. She was at the 1963
March on Washington, supported school integration in
our Bronx neighborhood. I remember walking "Ban the
Bomb" picket lines in front of the United Nations with
her when I was a child; and later with my own children,
marching with her in protest of the first Gulf War in
Washington DC. To the end of her days she was engaged;
in the 1990s with the Women's International League for
Peace and Freedom, and these last years with the
Unitarian church in Westchester, NY.

Living her values also meant that my mother always
spoke her mind in the organizations to which she
belonged, the socialist societies she supported. Her
critical independence of thought meant that the pain
she felt when the GDR and the Soviet Union collapsed -
the pain of knowing how much so many sacrificed to
build a better world - did not lead to disillusionment,
did not lead to a sterile dogmatism, but rather to a
search for what to learn, how to go forward.
Nonetheless, the early years of the 21st century were
difficult ones for my mother. The Bush Administration's
glorification of war, justification of torture, the
demagoguery and lies, all brought back memories of
fascism. Obama's election brought back new hope, a
confirmation of the humane values of the people in the
U.S. Yet she had no illusion that further progress
would come easily or quickly.

Strong in her opinions, my mother was open-minded in
ways important to us when we were growing up. She was
brought up with a strong sense of the meaning and
importance of family when a child in the Ruhr, only to
see family ties disrupted again and again by the
realities of repression and poverty in Germany, in the
United States. For that reason she was especially
devoted to her family, and was as fiercely committed to
my father, to my brother and me, to her grandchildren
and great grandchildren, as she was to the ideals for
which she fought and lived. A deep and abiding
commitment to her family, solidarity with all who
labor, with all who work to make this a better world,
formed the content of her life. She lives in the memory
of those who knew her, she lives in the aspirations for
a world of peace and justice.

[Moderator's Note: A memorial of Holly Stand is in the
planning stages, and it tentatively set for Oct. 11 in
New York City.]


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 24 06:07:21 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:07:21 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] A world first: Vaccine helps prevent HIV infection
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909240507r1aab5811l34a4aa46a46e1ed1@mail.gmail.com>

Hallelujuh !

A world first: Vaccine helps prevent HIV infection

By MARILYNN MARCHIONE and MICHAEL CASEY, Associated Press Writers
Marilynn Marchione And Michael Casey, Associated Press Writers 34 mins
ago
BANGKOK ? For the first time, an experimental vaccine has prevented
infection with the AIDS virus, a watershed event in the deadly
epidemic and a surprising result. Recent failures led many scientists
to think such a vaccine might never be possible.

The World Health Organization and the U.N. agency UNAIDS said the
results "instilled new hope" in the field of HIV vaccine research.

The vaccine ? a combination of two previously unsuccessful vaccines ?
cut the risk of becoming infected with HIV by more than 31 percent in
the world's largest AIDS vaccine trial of more than 16,000 volunteers
in Thailand, researchers announced Thursday in Bangkok.

Even though the benefit is modest, "it's the first evidence that we
could have a safe and effective preventive vaccine," Col. Jerome Kim
told The Associated Press. He helped lead the study for the U.S. Army,
which sponsored it with the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases.

The institute's director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, warned that this is "not
the end of the road," but said he was surprised and very pleased by
the outcome.

"It gives me cautious optimism about the possibility of improving this
result" and developing a more effective AIDS vaccine, Fauci said.
"This is something that we can do."

The Thailand Ministry of Public Health conducted the study, which used
strains of HIV common in Thailand. Whether such a vaccine would work
against other strains in the U.S., Africa or elsewhere in the world is
unknown, scientists stressed.

Even a marginally helpful vaccine could have a big impact. Every day,
7,500 people worldwide are newly infected with HIV; 2 million died of
AIDS in 2007, UNAIDS estimates.

"Today marks a historic milestone," said Mitchell Warren, executive
director of the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, an international
group that has worked toward developing a vaccine.

"It will take time and resources to fully analyze and understand the
data, but there is little doubt that this finding will energize and
redirect the AIDS vaccine field," he said in a statement.

The study tested the two-vaccine combination in a "prime-boost"
approach, in which the first one primes the immune system to attack
HIV and the second one strengthens the response.

They are ALVAC, from Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccine division of French
drugmaker Sanofi-Aventis; and AIDSVAX, originally developed by VaxGen
Inc. and now held by Global Solutions for Infectious Diseases, a
nonprofit founded by some former VaxGen employees.

ALVAC uses canarypox, a bird virus altered so it can't cause human
disease, to ferry synthetic versions of three HIV genes into the body.
AIDSVAX contains a genetically engineered version of a protein on
HIV's surface. The vaccines are not made from whole virus ? dead or
alive ? and cannot cause HIV.

Neither vaccine in the study prevented HIV infection when tested
individually in earlier trials, and dozens of scientists had called
the new one futile when it began in 2003.

"I really didn't have high hopes at all that we would see a positive
result," Fauci confessed.

The results proved the skeptics wrong.

"The combination is stronger than each of the individual members,"
said the Army's Kim, a physician who manages the Army's HIV vaccine
program.

The study tested the combo in HIV-negative Thai men and women aged 18
to 30 at average risk of becoming infected. Half received four
"priming" doses of ALVAC and two "boost" doses of AIDSVAX over six
months. The others received dummy shots. No one knew who got what
until the study ended.

Thanad Yomha, a 33-year-old electrician from southeastern Thailand,
said he didn't expect anything in return for volunteering for the
project.

"I did this for others," Thanad said. "It's for the next generation."

All were given condoms, counseling and treatment for any sexually
transmitted infections, and were tested every six months for HIV. Any
who became infected were given free treatment with antiviral
medicines.

Participants were followed for three years after vaccination ended.

The results: New infections occurred in 51 of the 8,197 given vaccine
and in 74 of the 8,198 who received dummy shots. That worked out to a
31 percent lower risk of infection for the vaccine group. Two of the
infected participants who received the placebo died.

The vaccine had no effect on levels of HIV in the blood for those who
did become infected. That had been another goal of the study ? seeing
whether the vaccine could limit damage to the immune system and help
keep infected people from developing full-blown AIDS.

That result is "one of the most important and intriguing findings of
this trial," Fauci said. It suggests that the signs scientists have
been using to gauge whether a vaccine was actually giving protection
may not be valid.

"It is conceivable that we haven't even identified yet" what really
shows immunity, which is both "important and humbling" after decades
of vaccine research, Fauci said.

Details of the $105 million study will be given at a vaccine
conference in Paris in October.

This is the third big vaccine trial since 1983, when HIV was
identified as the cause of AIDS. In 2007, Merck & Co. stopped a study
of its experimental vaccine after seeing it did not prevent HIV
infection. Later analysis suggested the vaccine might even raise the
risk of infection in certain men. The vaccine itself did not cause
infection.

In 2003, AIDSVAX flunked two large trials ? the first late-stage tests
of any AIDS vaccine at the time.

It is unclear whether vaccine makers will seek to license the
two-vaccine combo in Thailand. Before the trial began, the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration said other studies would be needed before the
vaccine could be considered for U.S. licensing.

"This is a world first which proves that vaccine development is
possible," said Dr. Supachai Rerks-Ngarm, the Thai Health Ministry
official who oversaw the trial. "But this is not to the level where we
can license or manufacture the vaccine yet."

Mass-producing the vaccine, plus how to proceed with future studies,
will be discussed among the governments, study sponsors and companies
involved in the trial, Kim said. Scientists want to know how long
protection will last, whether booster shots will be needed, and
whether the vaccine helps prevent infection in gay men and injection
drug users, since it was tested mostly in heterosexuals in the Thai
trial.

The study was done in Thailand because U.S. Army scientists did
pivotal research in that country when the AIDS epidemic emerged there,
isolating virus strains and providing genetic information on them to
vaccine makers. The Thai government also strongly supported the idea
of doing the study.

___

Associated Press Medical Writer Marilynn Marchione reported from Minneapolis.

___

On the Net:

Study information: http://www.hivresearch.org/phase3/factsheet.html

Vaccine coalition: http://www.avac.org/

UNAIDS: http://tinyurl.com/krq7kr

Government AIDS info: http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 24 06:09:11 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:09:11 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] "We Made them Millions,
	and they Complain About Insurance"
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909240509n2a81fe7bv2a9453375a69e45f@mail.gmail.com>

"We Made them Millions, and they Complain About Insurance"
Lupe Chavez, a housekeeper at the San Francisco Hilton, tells her
story to David Bacon
TruthOut Perspective
http://www.truthout.org/092109A?n








SAN FRANCISCO, CA  (9/18/09) -- I was born in Santa Tecla, near San
Salvador.  My father was a big rig driver and my mother was a stay at
home mom.  We had a big family -- four brothers and two sisters. When
I was old enough, I worked in the Armando Araujo coffee and soap
factory.  We Salvadore?os are hard working people.


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 24 06:33:33 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:33:33 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] An infusion of new blood helps AFL-CIO make history
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909240533w71110a79o5bccf07480c1f094@mail.gmail.com>

An infusion of new blood helps AFL-CIO make history


Author: John Wojcik
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 09/21/09 15:48


PITTSBURGH -- The appearance by President Barack Obama at the 26th
Convention of the AFL-CIO here last week was history in itself, coming
as it did after eight years of an anti-labor administration that kept
itself as far away form union gatherings as it possibly could.

The president?s description of the labor movement as the force that
will lead the nation out of its economic crisis was, as expected, well
received.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the convention, however, was
the excitement and enthusiasm displayed by rank and file delegates who
looked a lot different from the people who have attended past labor
conventions.

For the first time ever, 43 percent of the official delegates were
women or people of color.

This infusion of new blood into the convention was far more than just a show.
It was the direct result of a resolution passed at the 2005
convention, one that set strong goals of equality based on race,
gender, age and disability.

Rosalyn Pelles, director of the federation?s Department of Civil,
Human and Women?s Rights, told the World in an interview off the
convention floor that ?the change you see in the faces here is for
real. Fifty two percent of the people in the apprenticeship programs
run by the Ironworkers are women or people of color. The building
trades have really stepped forward and are moving to change the face
of the labor movement.?

Pelles described how, during the behind-the scenes process of
pre-approving selected delegations, the Ironworkers were told that,
based on the federation?s 2005 resolution, they were one short on the
required number of women and minority delegates.

?With no complaint they went out and solved the problem and came back
with a delegation that exceeds what they were required to do.?

Pelles, who is African American, said, ?I reject totally the idea that
white working-class people are somehow wedded to racism. They have
proven that they want change in this country and that they will
embrace inclusion. Look who was elected President of the United
States.?

She also noted, ?Today we are going to honor A. Phillip Randolph, the
great labor and civil rights leader. This is a man who, at first, had
to fight his way in here.?

Outgoing President John Sweeney struck a similar note in his farewell
speech by declaring, ?We are for inclusion, no one has to knock at our
back door again.?

More than ever before the convention reflected labor?s developing ties
with non-traditional organizations that represent workers.

The Day Laborers played a prominent role at the convention, bringing
pledges from both unions and leaders of immigrant workers to work
shoulder to shoulder for justice at the nation?s workplaces.

The 3-million member AFL-CIO affiliate, Working America, played a
prominent role. The group represents workers who are not in unions.
Maggie Priebe, the group?s program director, told the World, she was
?proud to know that the part of the labor movement that is older and
grayer really gets it now. We have to reach out to women, minorities,
immigrants and get all the new ideas into the labor movement.? She
said she had attended the ?Diversity Workshop,? which was ?packed with
people.?

Recognizing that there is still a lot of work to be done, particularly
in the area of bringing youth into the labor movement, the federation
re-doubled its efforts in this area.

Noting that workers under 34 years of age account for 25 percent of
union membership, Resolution 7 states ?we will recruit, train and
include young workers in all activities and programs, and provide
opportunities for access to leadership.?

The election of 39-year-old Liz Shuler as both the first woman and
youngest-ever secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO was described by
newly-elected President Richard Trumka as an opportunity ?to make the
idea of joining a union relevant to workers whose views of organized
labor are based on stereotypes from the 1960s.?

Off the convention floor, Shuler said, ?We in the labor movement need
to learn to think differently. We have to understand, for example,
that we are in a world where young people get their news and form
their impressions of who and what they are very differently than did
earlier generations. They don?t hate us and they don?t like us, they
just don?t know us ? and that?s what I want to fight to change.?

Electoral politics continued to be a major focus at the convention.
But contrary to what some critics say, it was more than just a parade
of Democratic politicians coming to the convention looking for
endorsements.

Earlier this year Trumka, after a speech at the University of Illinois
in Chicago, said ?The days of labor getting someone elected and then
asking them what else we can do for them are over. If they don?t
produce they will not continue to get our support.?

That message rang loud and clear at the convention

Sen. Arlen Specter received a polite but far less enthusiastic
response than did the president from delegates acutely aware that his
tendency to switch parties reflects his chameleon-like stand on the
Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which along with health care is
labor?s number one legislative goal.

Specter?s remarks got almost no reaction when he tried to assure
thousands of skeptical listeners that one or another of various
?compromises? on the EFCA would ?make the AFL-CIO happy.?

In a session with reporters after his speech he probably was more
truthful about anything than he has been in a long time. A Fox
reporter asked him why he was trying to work so hard to get support
from unions. ?You can?t win in Pennsylvania without labor support,? he
said. When asked why he has changed both his party affiliation and his
positions on both health care reform and the EFCA so often, he said,
?Right now, I wish I could change my name.?

Another first for a national labor convention was how the unscripted
floor debates were exciting and impassioned. Health care, the war in
Iraq, immigration, climate change and the issue of unifying the labor
movement were all openly discussed on the floor. Judging from this
convention, the days of the labor movement avoiding the critical
issues of the day are over.

Health care was perhaps the most vivid example. Famed film director
Michael Moore decided, only a few days ahead of time, to hold the U.S.
premiere of his film ?Capitalism: A Love Story,? at a theater a half
mile away from the convention center. Scuttling plans to make
Hollywood the venue of the movie?s U.S. premier, Moore said, ?I would
rather be right here with working people and standing up for health
care now.?

Some 1,300 people marched out of the convention center with Moore to
the theater, chanting ?Health Care is a Right? and ?Single Payer Now.?

Among the many breakthrough resolutions passed by the convention was
one that called for an end to targeting immigrants. It proposes an
alternative immigration policy that would open a path to legalization
and citizenship for undocumented workers. The resolution blames unfair
imbalances in world trade and exploitation of labor as the cause of
forced migrations of millions of workers.

Unity, not division and racism, was offered as the solution to the
problems of immigrant and native born workers.

To four solid minutes of sustained applause Baldemar Velasquez,
president of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee drew the connections
between militant immigrants who founded the U.S. labor movement and
the tasks for today. ?Our founders didn?t ask ?what country are you
from?? They only asked ?what side are you on???

On the final day of the convention two important resolutions were
passed. One called for ?ceasing all repression of Iraqi unions, union
leaders and activists? and another reaffirmed the AFL-CIO?s
?opposition to the continuing military occupation of Iraq.?
Overall, it was clear at the convention that the labor movement,
having played a key role in defeating the ultra-right during the 2008
elections, sees itself as ready to play a central role in the
country?s progressive movements. It intends to lead the way in a broad
array of struggles for social reform, particularly the fight to make
health care a right, not a privilege. It intends to use an expected
victory with passage of the EFCA to organize millions more into
unions. It wants those millions to reflect the diversity that makes up
the workforce. It seeks an America where labor and its allies can
permanently become the decisive economic and political force in the
United States.

The 26th AFL-CIO convention was one all progressive Americans can celebrate.


From markanarch at gmail.com  Thu Sep 24 12:07:20 2009
From: markanarch at gmail.com (Mark Mendoza)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:07:20 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] request for G20 coverage
Message-ID: <dd2f11010909241107j1c403b7ei9dc3cc947fdbc29a@mail.gmail.com>

i'm busy with my own writing projects here in Pittsburgh at the G20 protest
but wanted to start a thread and request that some information be shared


praxis make perfect...





-- 
Be assured that Liberty and Freedom will at last prevail Tremble O thou
Oppressor of the People that reigneth upon the Throne, and ye Ministers of
State, weep for ye shall fall, weep oh ye Conductors of this vile and wicked
War, ye who grind the Face of the Poor.

-- handbill issued by the Norwich Revolution Society, November 1793

From cb31450 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 24 13:22:46 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:22:46 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Chavez talks to union leaders in New York City
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909241222y7739fae6xc261ac45d0cba921@mail.gmail.com>

Note that Chavez's discussion, especially in the last paragraph below
is evidence that the Bolivarians aspire to socialism

CB


Julio
Subject: [Pen-l] Fwd:To: pen-l at lists.csuchico.edu, Lbo Talk Lbo Talk


Just to say that, last night, invited by the New York Left Labor
Project coordinated by Larry Moskowitz, I attended a meeting with
president Hugo Chavez of Venezuela at the Venezuelan consulate near
the UN compound.

Chavez spent several hours with us, a small group of New York
labor-union and political activists.  After brief introductions by two
SEIU leaders, Chavez spoke for over an hour.  In response to the
thank-yous for-keeping-the-socialist-flame-lit-in-the-21st-century
expressed by those who preceded him, Chavez replied that he viewed
himself and other regional leaders (Morales, Correa, etc.) as effects
rather than causes -- specks just trying to navigate a hurricane, the
rise of the peoples of Latin America.  He then tried to place the
struggles today in the broader scope of the secular struggle of the
Latin American peoples against colonialism and imperialism.

On the Soviet Union, he argued that it never represented a threat to
the national security of the U.S.  That the threat was made up by the
strategists of the empire.  He referred to the plebeian revolutionary
thrust of October, and praised the effort.  He said he had recently
visited factories in places that were previously part of the Soviet
Union, illustrating this with an anecdote about workers in a truck
manufacturing plant in Kiev.  He then noted that by the time the
Soviet Union disintegrated, none of these workers raise up, which
showed that regretfully the socialist content had by then been emptied
out of the Soviet Union shell.

Regarding Obama, he said he often had the impression that there were
two of them, one giving great speeches and another one implementing
policies that contradicted his speeches.  He referred Obama's speech
at the UN general assembly in which the U.S. president said the U.S.
was interested in promoting peace and disarmament, yet he was
installing military bases in Colombia.  He said it was telling that
Obama in his speech made no reference whatever to Honduras.  He said
that Obama could play a tremendously positive role in the U.S. and the
world, but that he needed to be "enlightened by the gods," which -- in
concrete terms -- translated into working people in the U.S. and the
world raising up to challenge him and pressure him to deliver on his
promises.  Chavez referred to the anger Obama's mild attempts of
reform was eliciting among right-wingers.

Chavez said he, as a representative of the Venezuelan people, wanted a
good relationship with Obama.  He wanted to be able to talk with him,
and encourage him to cooperate to address the issues he said the U.S.
wanted to promote.  But that there were some surrounding Obama who
didn't want that kind of direct relationship to happen.  So, he needed
our help, the help of regular U.S. working people to get around the
obstacles.  He repeated that Venezuela posed no threat to the U.S.,
which he deemed a great country.

In the Q&A segment, he took five questions from the audience, most of
them union activists and leaders.  He devoted over an hour to
answering these questions, even though he was hard pressed to go see
next a movie with Evo Morales and Oliver Stone, and then use some of
his night to prepare his U.N. speech this afternoon.  (Not that he had
to start from scratch crafting his speech, which he never reads,
because I'm under the impression that he used us to test some of the
lines he'll deliver this afternoon at the UN podium.)  Most of the
questions were about exploring avenues of cooperation between
Venezuela and working people in the U.S. (e.g. whether CITGO could buy
Stella D'Oro and allow a coop of workers to run it), Iraq, etc.
Chavez made the point that the government-to-government agreements
that constituted the ALBA (Boliviarian Alternative for the Americas)
were meant to be the spearhead, but that the shell had to be filled
with people cooperating horizontally.  He said there was a
social-movement council in ALBA that could incorporate U.S. working
organizations, just as it included Indian movements and other
grassroots organizations in Latin America.  He just said that we had
to be careful, since it was always possible for the powers that be to
present any cooperation with Venezuela as "Chavez setting up cells of
Hizbollah in New York City."  (All quotes are from my admittedly
deficient memory.)

One question gave him the opportunity to reflect on the changes that
have happened in the region and the world in the last ten years plus,
since he became president of Venezuela.  He didn't really take credit
from them, since -- he said -- all one individual can do is "try and
navigate the hurricane."  He concluded by referring to Marx and Engels
and their ever-more-valid Manifesto call for the workers of the world
to unite.  His reflections on the changes that have taken place in
these last decade or so made me think of Victor Hugo's words:


------------------------------


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 24 13:27:16 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:27:16 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] "As Detroit Goes"
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909241227j65c265bbk46708dccd232d18b@mail.gmail.com>

"As  Detroit Goes"

Occasional Paper No. 7  - Fall 2009

By Michele Gibbs
http://www.realoaxaca.com/from-the-field/index.html

In the wake of 9/11/01, it was common to hear black
Detroiters say the only reason Detroit wasn't attacked
is that from the air, it looked bombed-out already.
This was a reality produced by policies of aggressive
`urban removal' begun in the late 1980's which gutted
the historic core black neighborhoods to build freeways
to new sports stadiums and casinos (the hallmarks of
`revitalization") while allowing city services to
residents to deteriorate.  Outsourcing and
international competition shrank the job market.
Predatory lending flourished alongside redlining. And
with charter schools siphoning off many of the best
students, teachers, and curricular models,public
education languished, putting a whole generation in
peril of marginalization for life.

This `state of emergency' has been black Detroit's
condition for at least the past decade.  Only now, the
industry built on its back has crashed, making a
chronic condition acute for the working poor and
sending shockwaves through the destabilized black
middle class.

Look at the statistical picture:

- Detroit's population is 85% black.

- Unemployment is over 30%, the highest in the nation.
Most of these job losses are long-term and will not
return.

- Detroit's foreclosure rate is the highest in the
nation.

- 40% of its people live in poverty.

- The Standard & Poors credit rating for Detroit
property is "junk," for the first time ever.

Combine that with an unprecedented scale of crime and
malfeasance by public officials with recent convictions
of former Mayor Kilpatrick, some city council members,
down to Detroit Public Schools staff embezzling money
and stealing school equipment (eg, computers, lab
supplies, etc) meant for classrooms amounting to
millions of dollars in `lost revenue' and black
Detroiters are outraged.  They are also energized.
There are many layers to this energy. Although the
system is decrepit, bankrupt, and broken down, lights
dim and roof leaking, from years of experience we know
how to see in the dark.

Consider the crisis in public transportation.  I, like
100's of thousands of Detroiters, depend on the bus on
a daily basis.  When I arrived for my yearly visit this
mid-August, the mayor, Dave Bing, elected to finish out
the former mayor's term, announced his plan to
eliminate bus service on weekends, cut back several key
routes, and lay off a minimum of 100 drivers. This
caused a predictable uproar at the street level which
grew through a series of neighborhood city hall
meetings.

The mayor's justification was `economic'. The
translation for folks was "You don't have jobs, anyway,
so stay home. You don't need to go anywhere."  This
callous indifference, adding insult to injury, was the
most galling of all.  At the Wayne County Community
College town hall meeting there was standing room only,
with an estimated 400 in attendance. Hear them:

"I've been a job developer for 11 years," said Shirley
Jackson Carter. I've placed thousands of workers at
area hotels and worked with many new businesses
including locations in the suburbs.  Most job
applications require you to have transportation.
Everybody knows that."

Audrey Taylor works at the Detroit Public Library.  She
says,"Our staff gets out at 6pm and we work Saturdays
and Sundays,"'We've had cases of workers being raped
waiting for a ride when the buses don't come, and
lately they're transferring us all over the place so
carpooling won't work,  We need the buses."

Senior citizens condemned the cuts. Josie Hughey said,
"As an 83-year-old who has paid taxes all my life, I
say this is like scraping the bone before you cut the
fat.  Bing and his executives have cars and chauffeurs.
They need to confiscate all those cars, sell them and
save the insurance.  Stop taking from the poor to give
to the rich."

Angeline Holmes was so angry that tears streamed down
her face: "All my life I've been riding the bus, worn
out my shoes. Dave Bing, have you ever walked in our
shoes?  My father had an eighth grade education; my
mother never went to school because she had to raise
nine brothers and sisters.  I've worked all over this
city as a cleaner;  all days and hours.  Everybody
knows the Grand Belt line is essential. You can't cut
it.  I've been to the mountain and I'm not going to the
back of the bus again."

Ministers pointed out that cutting weekend service
would mean elderly people won't be able to get to
church. Melody Currie, director of the Kelly-Morang
Senior Center, said only one worker has a car and all
the seniors using the center take the bus.

A 21 year-old college student said,"I'm just now
getting my life back on track and you're not going to
take it back.  Young Brothers United has helped save
countless lives with HIV awareness sessions and our
biggest day is Sunday."

Others said massive closings have eliminated
neighborhood schools in walking distance and the cuts
would have a major impact on the mobility of students
and the disabled.

"The money is there," said  DOT driver Curtis Ray."DOT
got $37.5 million in economic stimulus funds.  We're
the people that make this city run. We can do without
the mayor; but we can't do without the workers."

The next day, as I boarded the Woodward Ave. bus on my
way downtown, the driver put his hand over the fare-box
and said,"That's alright.  Take a seat."  I did; and
asked the sister next to me,"Is he just being nice or
is this normal?" She responded, "Both,  The boxes or
something else break down all the time.  But he's not
pulling over, either."

Before getting off, I asked the driver,"When is your
shift over?"  He said,  "6 o'clock."  It was noon.  I
asked,"Going to finish your shift like this?" He
smiled, "Yes, maam."  I smiled back, "Ride on."

By the end of two weeks of public pressure, Mayor Bing
was forced to withdraw the proposal for "further
study."

                     *************

And what of veteran auto workers who still have their
jobs?

Bill is 49 and has worked on the line at the GM Warren
Ave Truck plant making transmissions for 25 years.  His
family moved to Detroit from Cincinnati in 1968, when
that period's Viet Nam war spiked production needs.

From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 25 05:55:06 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:55:06 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Chavez reveals personal side, criticizes U.S.
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909250455u2df1ab9es38eddc3d14f8ae33@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/09/25/venezuela.chavez.interview/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

Chavez reveals personal side, criticizes U.S.
Story Highlights
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says he loves Jesus Christ, U.S.
people, culture

Chavez says he hopes for improved relations with U.S. President Barack Obama

He denies he is trying to shut down critical media in Venezuela

He denies Iran would help Venezuela obtain nuclear technology

(CNN) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez revealed a deeply personal
side in an interview Thursday night, saying he loves Jesus Christ and
would have liked to play Major League baseball in Yankee Stadium.

He also expressed a fondness for American people and culture, saying
he likes the movie actor Charles Bronson and the poet Walt Whitman. He
loves to sing, he said, though he does not do it well.

And Chavez had kind words for the U.S. security detail protecting him
during his visit to New York, saying he chatted with them while out
walking and that they "have been very gracious, very efficient and
very attentive, very kind."

In an exclusive interview with CNN's Larry King, Chavez spoke at
length about a host of issues: relations between Venezuela and the
United States and his hopes for improved ties with President Barack
Obama; Iran, Israel and those who deny that the Holocaust existed;
efforts to overthrow him and have him assassinated; criticism that he
is power hungry and trying to silence critics.

Chavez, a self-proclaimed socialist, spoke with King a few hours after
giving a speech to the U.N. General Assembly, in which he praised
Obama but criticized some U.S. policies. Watch Chavez speak at the
U.N. General Assembly ?

When asked whether he is misunderstood in the United States, Chavez
seemed to turn reflective.

"I'm a man with many defects," he said. "I love. I sing. I dream. I
was born in the poor countryside. I was raised in the countryside,
planting corn and selling sweets made by my grandmother. My children,
my two daughters are with me and I want a better world for my
grandchildren, for your grandchildren.

"Now, they demonize me. But that's the start of these world campaigns
to try to defend what you cannot defend -- a system that is destroying
the world. ... I'm a Christian. I want the world of justice and
equality. This is the only way to achieve peace."

Chavez then talked about his religious upbringing and current faith.

"I was an altar boy," he said. "My mother wanted me to be a priest. I
am very Christian and Catholic. ... I'm very faithful. I believe in
God, in Jesus Christ. I love Jesus Christ. I am a Christian. ... I cry
when I see injustice, children dying of hunger."

His comments were all the more remarkable because Chavez and the
Catholic Church have been at odds since he came to power in 1999. The
church has been one of his major critics, with Pope Benedict XVI and
other church leaders expressing concern over what they see as attempts
by Chavez to limit the church's influence. Chavez's efforts to change
anti-abortion laws have been at the top of those concerns.

Chavez, in turn, has referred to church leadership as a "tumor."

Speaking of other matters, Chavez said he hopes for improved relations
with Obama, but "we want relations based on respect, relations of
peoples where we are respected."

That has not been the case so far, he said.

"Most governments in the United States in a hundred years have not
respected the peoples of Latin America," Chavez told King. "They have
sponsored coup d'etats, assassinations. It's enough. We want to be
brothers and sisters. We want respect and equality."

Chavez particularly criticized former President George W. Bush, whom
he accused of orchestrating an assassination attempt on the Venezuelan
leader during a short-lived coup in 2002. Chavez regained power within
days. Watch Chavez discuss the alleged assassination attempt ?

"The Bush government toppled me," he said. "They asked for my
assassination. They disrespected us. ... I saw my assassins. ... I was
a prisoner in Venezuela, being a president. They took me to the
seaside. I was debating with those who wanted murder me. They received
the order to kill me. However, at this very moment, a group of
soldiers refused. They did not kill me, but I saw those who wanted to
kill me, and the order came from the White House."

Chavez also expressed concern that the United States, which he calls
"the empire," still would like to topple him. As he has numerous times
in recent weeks, Chavez criticized U.S. plans to begin operating out
of military bases in neighboring Colombia. The United States says it
needs a presence in Colombia to fight drug traffickers. Chavez sees a
sinister intent.

When asked what country he fears would harm him, Chavez replied, "The
empire. The empire. Seven military bases ... in Colombia, that's a
serious threat against Venezuela."

Chavez also defended his relationship with Iran but denied having said
that Iran would help Venezuela obtain nuclear technology. Iran has
embarked on a nuclear program that the United States and other nations
think will lead it to develop nuclear weapons before long.

"They have fooled you," Chavez said. "I've never said that Iran is
going to help us to have nuclear technology. ... That's a strategy to
attack Venezuela and say that we are building an atomic bomb. That's
the next accusation. And I'm going to say this now: Please, come on.
That's crazy. That's crazy."

Chavez said he does not agree with Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's contention that the Holocaust, in which 6 million
European Jews were killed during World War II, never existed.

"But there also was another holocaust in South America," Chavez said.
"I do not deny the Jewish Holocaust. And I condemn it. But in South
America, when the Europeans arrived, there were close to 90 million
Indians; 200 years later, we only had four million remaining. That was
a holocaust. And the Europeans denied this holocaust."

Israel came under criticism from Chavez, who called it a "small
country with atomic bombs, and very aggressive country. ... They have
massacred entire families. It is a war-mongering country."

Turning to the situation in his own country, Chavez denied that he is
trying to shut down critical media, such as the independent
Globovision TV station. Government officials have levied several
charges against the station, saying that it is disseminating false
information and trying to foment dissatisfaction against Chavez.

The Chavez government has repealed licenses for other independent TV
and radio stations, and has threatened to do so against Globovision.

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter this week joined human rights
groups and others who have expressed concern over what they see as
Chavez becoming too authoritarian. Chavez dismissed the criticism.

"Never in Venezuela have we had so much freedom of speech as now," he said.

Pressed by King about whether he is going to shut down Globovision,
Chavez answered, "I do not know. It depends on them. If they keep on
sponsoring coup d'etats, if they keep on calling for my assassination,
if they keep on breaching the law even as well, it is not Chavez
that's going to close them. I want to apply the law. We need to
respect the law. It is the law. It's out of logic, and it's pure
logic."

As to Carter, Chavez said, "Yes, I read that and I regret for him,
because I think he's totally confounded and lost. It's a long time
since he visited us. I respect him enormously, but I think he is
wrong. He's a victim of so much falsehood in the world."


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 25 12:48:35 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:48:35 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Racism & Reaction Must be Confronted
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909251148p4f70cf05r1b1fecac45c3df72@mail.gmail.com>

Left Margin

Racism & Reaction Must be Confronted

By Carl Bloice - BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board
Black Commemntator
September 24, 2009

http://www.blackcommentator.com/343/343_lm_racism_reaction_confronted.html

David Brooks ought to go running even more often; maybe
take a different route sometimes. A couple of weeks ago
the New York Times columnist was doing his usual
Lincoln Memorial to the Capitol and back trek when he
encountered a bunch of "tea party" people demonstrating
and "carrying `Don't Tread on Me' flags, `End the Fed'
placards and signs condemning big government, Barack
Obama, socialist healthcare and various elite
institutions." Nearby were people at a celebration of
African-American culture and Brooks says he noticed
"the mostly white tea party protesters were mingling in
with the mostly black family reunion celebrants. The
tea party people were buying lunch from the family
reunion food stands. They had joined the audience of a
rap concert." From this harmonious vision Brooks
concluded that as far as the tea baggers are concerned
"race is largely besides the point." Now get this.
There are "some people" in the country, he writes, "who
see every conflict through the prism of race." Who?
Racists? No, it's "many people from Jimmy Carter on
down" who have suggested that "the hostility to
President Obama is driven by racism."

The reason I say Brooks should jog more often is that
in other parts of town he might discover that in the
neighborhoods of the District of Columbia most people
would prefer not to see political issues through the
prism of race at all; they prefer racism would just go
away. But it doesn't. It keeps popping up. Compare the
placards Brooks saw that day on the Washington mall
with what others saw. "At a rally in Washington a few
days ago after the President announced his healthcare
plans to Congress, protestors bore placards featuring
slogans including `the zoo has an African lion while
the White House has a lyin' African and, `Somewhere in
Kenya, a village is missing its teleprompter',"
reported the Financial Times last Friday. That's just
sampling of the demeaning racial slurs that have been
directed toward the white House over recent weeks.

"I have no patience with those who want to pretend that
racism is not an out-and-out big deal in the United
States, as it always has been," wrote Brooks' fellow
Times columnist Bob Herbert last Saturday. "We may have
made progress, and we may have a black president, but
the scourge is still with us. And if you needed Jimmy
Carter to remind you of that, then you've been
wandering around with your eyes closed."

Or running.

"These are bits and pieces of an increasingly
unrestrained manifestation of racism directed toward
Mr. Obama that is being fed by hate-mongers on talk
radio and is widely tolerated, if not encouraged, by
Republican Party leaders," wrote Herbert. "It's
disgusting, and it's dangerous. But it's the same old
filthy racism that has been there all along and that
has been exploited by the G.O.P. since the 1960s."

And here we come to the crux of the matter.

Rightwing populism is dangerous but the greatest
potential peril lies not in the presence of some loony
or deluded, irrational people parading through the
streets. It arises from the certainty that there will
always be someone lurking about in a trench coat to fan
the flames for their own cynical purposes. It was true
in Central Europe 70 years ago when fascism arose and
it's true there today, what with agitation against
immigrants and ethnic minorities. It's been true in our
country for just as long.

Of course, the tea party uprising isn't just about
race. It certainly isn't just about healthcare. You
watch, as each and every item on the Obama
Administration comes to the fore they will be out there
waving their personally vindictive signs and the
vituperative tenor of their attacks will increase. No
sooner than the President had announced his decision to
can his predecessor's mad `star wars' missile project
than he was being accused of everything short of
treason. The assaults on Obama will continue to be
tinged with racism and they will continue to draw out
numbers of people aghast that the country elected an
African American president. But it will be in context.
This venom is being supported and stoked by powerful
forces whose objective is nothing less than bringing
down the Obama presidency. While the know-nothings are
being wild in the streets, the Republican spinmaster
Karl Rove is calmly assuring readers of the Wall Street
Journal that this is all to the good and if all goes
well for them, they could be back on top by the time of
the 1010 Congressional elections.

"Mr. Obama is forgetting that the political landscape
can change when the pool of people who vote changes,"
Rove wrote in the Journal a few days after the
President' healthcare address to Congress. "In 2008,
five million more people voted than in 2004. Mr. Obama
drew two million more African-Americans to the polls.
He also shifted support among younger voters (ages
18-24) from 54 percent, Democratic, 45 percent
Republican in 2004 to 66 percent Democratic, 32 percent
Republican." Rove went on to suggest opponents of the
President can siphon off some of the youth vote by
convincing younger voters that under the health care
plan now before the Senate they would be fined for not
having health insurance. "Fining them only antagonizes
them," he wrote.

Rove went on to make it clear rightwing strategists are
aiming their message at older voters, "The political
risk for Democrats is clearest among seniors," he
wrote. `This matters because seniors make up a
disproportionate share of the off-year vote," he went
on "CNN exit polls showed that they were roughly 16% of
eligible voters in 2008, but 29% of the turnout in
2006. The generic ballot among seniors in 1994 was 45%
Republican and 43% Democrat.

But it's not just any elderly voter they are going
after.

"As The Hotline's Amy Walter wisely pointed out, 1994
became the `angry white male" election because those
who were displeased with the direction of the country
were "more engaged than those who just two years
earlier were voting for Bill Clinton and singing `don't
stop thinking about tomorrow'," wrote political
commentator Charlie Cook a couple of weeks ago. "But
`angry' is only a third of `angry white male,' and
anger is only part of the story today." If recent
polling number "are even halfway accurate, they should
frighten Democrats." Cook went on. "Their surveys show
voters 65 and over, who gave Democrats a 50 percent to
39 percent edge on the generic ballot in November 2006,
giving Republicans a 51 percent to 43 percent edge now.
If that reversal holds, Democrats could be ruing the
"year of the angry white senior" at the polling place,
not just the town hall."

Who said the "southern strategy" was dead?

"Last weekend's grassroots rally against ObamaCare in
Washington was a sign that voters are getting active to
oppose the president's agenda," declared Rove. "If it
keeps up, middle-class anxiety about the national debt
could make 2010 a tough year for any Democrat up for
re-election."

This isn't just about Obama and it isn't just about the
Republican Party's cynical electoral calculations. As
one internet observer put it, "the Teabaggers are only
pawns in the rich man's game." There are powerful
people in this country (many of whom couldn't care less
what the color the President is) who are determined to
turn history back. To them the emerging progressive
political forces that were to a large extent
responsible for Obama's election is an anathema. The
moves of the current administration - as hesitant,
timid and often contradictory as they may seem to many
of us - suggest a direction in which they don't want to
go. On a whole host of issues, from climate change to
green jobs to policy toward Latin America and beyond,
they are out to return us to the policies of the Bush
Presidency - or worse. To this end they are willing to
exploit every social issue they can latch onto, from
gay rights to taxes. And, of course, they are more than
anxious to trade on the current economic crisis and the
government's seeming largess to Wall Street CEOs and
reluctance to get really serious about the economic
precariousness of working people.

Those who have termed this rightwing upsurge
"populism," are correct. "This is right-wing populism
in the classic American style, as inchoate and paranoid
as that hawked by Father Coughlin during the Great
Depression and George Wallace in the late 1960s," wrote
the Times' Frank Rich Sunday. Even Brooks is willing to
use the label.

However, Brooks, who often comes across as the learned
conservative cultural anthropologist always trying to
position himself in the political "center," wants us to
see the Obama Administration and its supporters as
elitists and the tea baggers as "plain people" arrayed
against "the cosmopolitan elites." "Given all of this,
it was guaranteed that he would spark a populist
backlash, regardless of his skin color," he writes.
"And it was guaranteed that this backlash would be ill
mannered, conspiratorial and over the top - since these
movements always are, whether they were led by Huey
Long, Father Coughlin or anybody else." What he does
not accept, apparently, is that racism has always been
a central factor in populism. (It has historically also
been the Achilles heel of populism on the left.)
Couglin was an anti-Semite and he preached anti-
Semitism. Wallace was a racist and he promoted racism.
Both served the interest of others with wider agendas.
Both constituted serious threats to democratic advance.

Where to from here? Stepping up efforts to secure
progressive aims, like meaningful healthcare reform and
an end to the war in Afghanistan is crucial to
combating the right and buttressing the movement that
was critical in the last Presidential election. It
seems to me there must also be resolve to form a
unified front against racism and reaction. Ignoring,
obscuring or downplaying the threat will serve no good
purpose. This is serious business.
_____

BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board member Carl Bloice
is a writer in San Francisco, a member of the National
Coordinating Committee of the Committees of
Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism and formerly
worked for a healthcare union.


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 25 12:52:09 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:52:09 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] New Labor Leader Trumka Demands Real Reform on
	Wall Street, Across 	the Economy
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909251152q19fb7f4dl8d525e677d0188ce@mail.gmail.com>

New Labor Leader Trumka Demands Real Reform on Wall
Street, Across the Economy

By Seth Michaels
Campaign for America's Future
September 22, 2009

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009093922/new-labor-leader-trumka-demands-real-reform-wall-street-across-economy


On Wall Street today, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka
is calling for tough new regulations on the financial
industry and a new approach to making the U.S. economy
work for working people.

Trumka spoke today at the New York Stock Exchange as
part of the new AFL-CIO leadership team's national tour
to set out a jobs-focused, progressive vision for the
economy-and to fight back against the corporate agenda
that left workers behind.

We've let wealth concentrate for too long, Trumka said.
The past decade has shown us the folly of building an
unfair and unequal economy that only works for a few,
while working people pile up debt to get by. We need to
be able to protect consumers from abuses by mortgage
lenders and credit card companies and hold accountable
those whose greed and irresponsibility have undermined
the economy, Trumka said:

        Banks and other financial institutions must be
        held accountable for making this mess that
        required trillions of dollars of our money to
        clean up. For the pain they've inflicted
        on families who face financial ruin-
        unemployment, wiped out pensions,
        foreclosures and bankruptcy.

        We need a different model for our
        economy, where good jobs, not bad debts, drive
        our growth. Our real economy needs a
        financial system that will support it, not
        a high-risk system that only supports itself
        and the wiliest speculators.

Trumka supported President Barack Obama's call for a
new consumer protection agency that would have real
power to crack down on unfair practices. He also called
for tougher regulations on the hedge fund and
derivative trading that contributed to our economic
crisis.

The banks that have been propped up with billions in
public funds can't be allowed to go back to the way
things were, Trumka said. We need to make sure they're
subjected to oversight, and that our investment is
turning into jobs and broad-based economic growth, not
executive bonuses. Trumka promised that the union
movement would take the lead in educating and
mobilizing the public to fight back against finance-
industry abuses.

Speaking on the Rachel Maddow Show last night, Trumka
explained why we need to hold Obama and leaders in
Congress to their promises and make sure they enforce
real protections for consumers in the financial
industry, because the current system has failed:

        Today, Rachel, I talked to a woman in Atlanta,
        and she was making $1,162 a month on
        a fixed salary, and they gave her a $900 a
        month  mortgage. That type of predatory
        lending should have been picked up by one of
        those agencies. It wasn't.

Trumka said that union members across the country will
watch carefully to make sure elected leaders are
looking out for working people, not big banks and
corporations:

        What we're going to do is make sure that
        they live by that. We'll educate our members,
        we'll mobilize our members. I think our members
        will hold them accountable on Election Day.

Trumka also spoke with Maddow about health care reform
and the Employee Free Choice Act.


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 28 09:46:39 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:46:39 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Michael Moore: Capitalism has proven it's failed
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909280846mafde085s92a4b9fae0f95ef4@mail.gmail.com>

Michael Moore: Capitalism has proven it's failed
<http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/24/lkl.michael.moore/?imw=Y#cnnSTCVideo>



'CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY' LA Premiere Screening Michael Moore
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA7Suk465yE&feature=PlayList&p=FB08A9BC67204E9B&index=0&playnext=1>


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Mon Sep 28 11:16:43 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:16:43 EDT
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Michael Moore: Capitalism has proven it's
	failed
Message-ID: <cfa.6401f23a.37f2497b@aol.com>

Seems MM latest movie: Capitalism: A Love Story is going to deepen the  
dialogue about capitalism and alternatives to the free market economy, morality 
 and ideology. 
"Love means never having to say you're sorry" is the famous line form the  
original 1970 movie "Love Story," and the first line in the Whisper's 1972 
hit,  "Can't Help But Love You" from the album "Love Story." If I am not 
mistaken did  not the girl in the movie die. 
 
Hey, posing capitalism to democracy is not that bad. It all depends on "how 
 one understanding specifically HOW the peoples of America think things out 
 in real time." The pace of change in the ideological sphere has been  
breathtaking. A year ago the presidential election was deepening and socialism  
had not been pushed onto the front page. The communists are only a tiny 
fragment  of American society and how we explain a new economy model is going to 
turn  about to be real important. 
 
Yea, its a love story. 
 
WL. 


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 29 06:58:50 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:58:50 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Michael Moore: Capitalism has proven it's
	failed
In-Reply-To: <cfa.6401f23a.37f2497b@aol.com>
References: <cfa.6401f23a.37f2497b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909290558s43cb0948v6bf4a20927ef31b8@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/28/09, Waistline2 at aol.com <Waistline2 at aol.com> wrote:
> Seems MM latest movie: Capitalism: A Love Story is going to deepen the
> dialogue about capitalism and alternatives to the free market economy, morality
>  and ideology.
> "Love means never having to say you're sorry" is the famous line form the
> original 1970 movie "Love Story," and the first line in the Whisper's 1972
> hit,  "Can't Help But Love You" from the album "Love Story." If I am not
> mistaken did  not the girl in the movie die.

^^^^^^
Yeah, like Juliet in Romeo and Juliet (smile)

>
> Hey, posing capitalism to democracy is not that bad. It all depends on "how
>  one understanding specifically HOW the peoples of America think things out
>  in real time."


I agree. The more I thought about this , Moore is our most advanced
mass spokesperson. He is saying that capitalism _as a system_ has
failed.  We often criticize liberal critiques of capitalism for not
raising a challeng to it as a system. Here is Michael Moore on in
major media challenging it as a system.  Leave it to the son of an
autoworker from Michigan.

^^^^^


The pace of change in the ideological sphere has been
> breathtaking. A year ago the presidential election was deepening and socialism
> had not been pushed onto the front page. The communists are only a tiny
> fragment  of American society and how we explain a new economy model is going to
> turn  about to be real important.
>
> Yea, its a love story.
>
> WL.

Also, in the interview I saw, Moore said it's a comedy (smile). Comedy
is superior to tragedy, Hegel said
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
>


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Tue Sep 29 13:57:18 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:57:18 EDT
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Michael Moore: Capitalism has proven it's
	failed
Message-ID: <d31.56cf5da1.37f3c09e@aol.com>

> Hey, posing capitalism to democracy is not that bad. It all depends on  
"how
>  one understanding specifically HOW the peoples of America  think things 
out
>  in real time."
 

CB. I agree. The more I thought about this , Moore is our most  advanced
mass spokesperson. He is saying that capitalism _as a system_  has
failed.  We often criticize liberal critiques of capitalism for  not
raising a challenge to it as a system. Here is Michael Moore on  in
major media challenging it as a system.  Leave it to the son of  an
auto worker from Michigan.
 
Reply
 
What is democracy? Democracy is the right of the people to have government  
rule in their favor as first impulse; and the right to compel government to 
 rule and dispense justice as the people define justice. Economic  justice 
is hotly contested in America with everyone agreeing such is desirable.  
Then the agreement end. Communist and socialist define economic justice  with a 
concept of rights of classes. Capitalism's failure is understand as  
economic tyranny and political oppression. The working class - not capitalist as  
a class, are being crushed. There is little democracy for the majority in a  
system where millions are unemployed and over 30% are temporary workers. 
 
Communists and socialist are faced with a challenge;  "If you guys are  so 
smart what kind of system do you propose and how will it generally operate?" 
"Technology is taking peoples jobs and government rules outright in support 
 of the new financial institutions; what do you guy propose and how will it 
 work?"
 
"What is your vision?" (not your personally vision necessarily but the  
collective vision of communists and socialist?) 
 
Moore's movie up the ante. 2010 is going to be a blast with lots of  new 
propaganda. Throw the old literature/propaganda in the toilet. Save the old  
party literature in the archive for the more academic minded.  
 
Our time has come. 
Interesting election in Ohio. 
 
WL. 
 
 


From marxistfront at yahoo.co.in  Tue Sep 29 14:17:30 2009
From: marxistfront at yahoo.co.in (marxist front)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:47:30 +0530 (IST)
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] latest issue of the Indian ML journal
	Revolutionary Democracy
Message-ID: <653861.38359.qm@web94816.mail.in2.yahoo.com>

?
Dear comrades and friends,
The latest issue of the Indian ML journal Revolutionary Democracy is now available. It is a double issue covering April and September 2009, consisting of 190 pages.
Revolutionary Democracy is a half-yearly theoretical and political journal published in April and September from India. It contains materials on the problems facing the communist movement, particularly relating to Russia, China and India, the origins of modern revisionism, the restoration of capitalism in the USSR and developments in the international communist movement.
The Table of Contents, prices and ordering info are below.
----------------------
A Requiem for the Left? Nirmalangshu Mukherji
Lalgarh: All for the SEZ of the Jindal Group, Mahashweta Devi
Revolt in Jangalmahal, Santosh Rana
Jammu and Kashmir State Assembly Elections 2008: Survey and Observations, Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society
Indian Central Government and Sri Lankan Tamils, Vehujanan
Document: The National Question in Ceylon (1944), Communist Party of Ceylon
Bastar: Gravest Displacement. Bravest Resistance, Sudha Bharadwaj
The Murder of Dr. Kishan in Manipur, Malem Ningthouja
Joint India-Pakistan Trade Unions' Statement on Terrorism in South Asia: A Challenge for Democracy
Prevent the Supreme Court from being Converted into a Barrack! Lawyers' Campaign for Democracy
Ivan Van Sertima: Fighting Racism Through Science, Glen Ford
Stalin's Death and the Fight for the Leadership of the CPSU, Yuri Yemelianov
Why was Stalin Denigrated and Made a Controversial Figure? Moni Guha
British Eyewash, Finsbury Communist
The British Road to Revisionism, Lalkar
Patrick Kessel (1926-2008), Secr?tariat, Soci?t? chauvinoise de philosophie
Tributes to Moni Guha, 1914-2009
Zionist Barbarism Must Stop Immediately! ICMLPO
Fourth Congress Held of the Workers' Communist Party of Denmark (APK)
Manifesto to the People, Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela
Great Success of the General Strike of January 29, Communist Party of the Workers of France
Guadeloupe and Martinique: 'Stand Up Against The Profiteers'!, La Forge
Two Years Since The Death Of Pinochet, Anti-Fascist Coordinator of Santiago - CAS
Declaration of the 13th International Seminar: Problems of the Revolution in Latin America, Quito, Ecuador, July 13 to 17, 2009
Changes in the Backyard, Guido, Proa?o A
Film Review: Delhi-6: Articulating Utopian Desires, Sandip Bajeli
Culture in the Fight for Peace, Dmitri Shostakovich
Rosa Luxemburg in the Works of Brecht, tr. fowpe Sharma
The Song of the Party, Louis F?rnberg
Ten Poems of Bilquis Zafirul Hasan, Tr. Arjumand Ara
Truth and Justice for Victor Jara! Chilean Communist Party (Proletarian Action)
Copies are US $6.00 or ?4.00 for single issue, or US $12.00 or ?8.00 for a full year's subscription (2 issues).
For US, Canada or Mexico, please send check, money order (payment to George Gruenthal) or cash if necessary to:
George Gruenthal
192 Claremont Ave 5D
New York, NY 10027
USA
For elsewhere, Contact: 
Revolutionary Democracy
E-mail
editor_revdem at rediffmail.com or editor_revdem at indiatimes.com



Lal Salam (Red Salute)

P (India)


www.geocities.com/marxistfront
marxistfront at yahoo.co.in

"When I gave food to the poor, they called me a saint. When I
asked why the poor were hungry, they called me a communist."
--Dom Helder Camara

*****


      Try the new Yahoo! India Homepage. Click here. http://in.yahoo.com/trynew

From cb31450 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 29 14:36:40 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:36:40 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Michael Moore: Capitalism has proven it's
	failed
In-Reply-To: <d31.56cf5da1.37f3c09e@aol.com>
References: <d31.56cf5da1.37f3c09e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909291336u3c00dc80j21b498a0244afb6c@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/29/09, Waistline2 at aol.com >
>
> CB. I agree. The more I thought about this , Moore is our most  advanced
> mass spokesperson. He is saying that capitalism _as a system_  has
> failed.  We often criticize liberal critiques of capitalism for  not
> raising a challenge to it as a system. Here is Michael Moore on  in
> major media challenging it as a system.  Leave it to the son of  an
> auto worker from Michigan.
>
> Reply
>
> What is democracy?

^^^^^
CB: My short definition is popular sovereignty.

^^^^^

 Democracy is the right of the people to have government
> rule in their favor as first impulse; and the right to compel government to
>  rule and dispense justice as the people define justice. Economic  justice
> is hotly contested in America with everyone agreeing such is desirable.
> Then the agreement end. Communist and socialist define economic justice  with a
> concept of rights of classes. Capitalism's failure is understand as
> economic tyranny and political oppression. The working class - not capitalist as
> a class, are being crushed. There is little democracy for the majority in a
> system where millions are unemployed and over 30% are temporary workers.

^^^^^
CB: This last point picks up on Michael Moore's approach. This is the
way in which true democracy must replace capitalism's fake
"democracy".

^^^^^^^

>
> Communists and socialist are faced with a challenge;  "If you guys are  so
> smart what kind of system do you propose and how will it generally operate?"

^^^^
CB: True, but maybe we should dispense with these names in our mass
work, and take up Michael Moore's terminology.

^^^^^^^



> "Technology is taking peoples jobs and government rules outright in support
>  of the new financial institutions; what do you guy propose and how will it
>  work?"


CB:On that we could just propose that nationalization of the financial
system which we just bought for $11 trillion and counting.  The
financial managers have shown that they are incompetent and should be
replaced.

^^^^^^^

>
> "What is your vision?" (not your personally vision necessarily but the
> collective vision of communists and socialist?)
>
> Moore's movie up the ante. 2010 is going to be a blast with lots of  new
> propaganda. Throw the old literature/propaganda in the toilet. Save the old
> party literature in the archive for the more academic minded.

CB; Yes, pretty much.  Lets espouse Michael Moore-ism

^^^^^


>
> Our time has come.
> Interesting election in Ohio.


CB: I missed that election result. What was it ?

>
> WL.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
>


From shmage at pipeline.com  Tue Sep 29 14:43:56 2009
From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:43:56 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Michael Moore: Capitalism has proven it's
	failed
In-Reply-To: <5c2e4d230909291336u3c00dc80j21b498a0244afb6c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d31.56cf5da1.37f3c09e@aol.com>
	<5c2e4d230909291336u3c00dc80j21b498a0244afb6c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B9B3FA95-13A4-494F-A38A-177871A0DFB0@pipeline.com>


On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:36 PM, c b wrote:
>> What is democracy?
> CB: My short definition is popular sovereignty.


And so CB, coming full circle, endorses the slogan of the slaveocracy,  
like Douglas in the debate with Lincoln.

Shane Mage

> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 29 14:48:03 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:48:03 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] latest issue of the Indian ML journal
	Revolutionary Democracy
In-Reply-To: <653861.38359.qm@web94816.mail.in2.yahoo.com>
References: <653861.38359.qm@web94816.mail.in2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909291348q608fb15et31ab6fabe5dc661c@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks

On 9/29/09, marxist front <marxistfront at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
> Dear comrades and friends,
> The latest issue of the Indian ML journal Revolutionary Democracy is now available. It is a double issue covering April and September 2009, consisting of 190 pages.
> Revolutionary Democracy is a half-yearly theoretical and political journal published in April and September from India. It contains materials on the problems facing the communist movement, particularly relating to Russia, China and India, the origins of modern revisionism, the restoration of capitalism in the USSR and developments in the international communist movement.
> The Table of Contents, prices and ordering info are below.
> ----------------------
> A Requiem for the Left? Nirmalangshu Mukherji
> Lalgarh: All for the SEZ of the Jindal Group, Mahashweta Devi
> Revolt in Jangalmahal, Santosh Rana
> Jammu and Kashmir State Assembly Elections 2008: Survey and Observations, Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society
> Indian Central Government and Sri Lankan Tamils, Vehujanan
> Document: The National Question in Ceylon (1944), Communist Party of Ceylon
> Bastar: Gravest Displacement. Bravest Resistance, Sudha Bharadwaj
> The Murder of Dr. Kishan in Manipur, Malem Ningthouja
> Joint India-Pakistan Trade Unions' Statement on Terrorism in South Asia: A Challenge for Democracy
> Prevent the Supreme Court from being Converted into a Barrack! Lawyers' Campaign for Democracy
> Ivan Van Sertima: Fighting Racism Through Science, Glen Ford
> Stalin's Death and the Fight for the Leadership of the CPSU, Yuri Yemelianov
> Why was Stalin Denigrated and Made a Controversial Figure? Moni Guha
> British Eyewash, Finsbury Communist
> The British Road to Revisionism, Lalkar
> Patrick Kessel (1926-2008), Secr?tariat, Soci?t? chauvinoise de philosophie
> Tributes to Moni Guha, 1914-2009
> Zionist Barbarism Must Stop Immediately! ICMLPO
> Fourth Congress Held of the Workers' Communist Party of Denmark (APK)
> Manifesto to the People, Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela
> Great Success of the General Strike of January 29, Communist Party of the Workers of France
> Guadeloupe and Martinique: 'Stand Up Against The Profiteers'!, La Forge
> Two Years Since The Death Of Pinochet, Anti-Fascist Coordinator of Santiago - CAS
> Declaration of the 13th International Seminar: Problems of the Revolution in Latin America, Quito, Ecuador, July 13 to 17, 2009
> Changes in the Backyard, Guido, Proa?o A
> Film Review: Delhi-6: Articulating Utopian Desires, Sandip Bajeli
> Culture in the Fight for Peace, Dmitri Shostakovich
> Rosa Luxemburg in the Works of Brecht, tr. fowpe Sharma
> The Song of the Party, Louis F?rnberg
> Ten Poems of Bilquis Zafirul Hasan, Tr. Arjumand Ara
> Truth and Justice for Victor Jara! Chilean Communist Party (Proletarian Action)
> Copies are US $6.00 or ?4.00 for single issue, or US $12.00 or ?8.00 for a full year's subscription (2 issues).
> For US, Canada or Mexico, please send check, money order (payment to George Gruenthal) or cash if necessary to:
> George Gruenthal
> 192 Claremont Ave 5D
> New York, NY 10027
> USA
> For elsewhere, Contact:
> Revolutionary Democracy
> E-mail
> editor_revdem at rediffmail.com or editor_revdem at indiatimes.com
>
>
>
> Lal Salam (Red Salute)
>
> P (India)
>
>
> www.geocities.com/marxistfront
> marxistfront at yahoo.co.in
>
> "When I gave food to the poor, they called me a saint. When I
> asked why the poor were hungry, they called me a communist."
> --Dom Helder Camara
>
> *****
>
>
>      Try the new Yahoo! India Homepage. Click here. http://in.yahoo.com/trynew
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
>


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 29 14:51:36 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:51:36 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Michael Moore: Capitalism has proven it's
	failed
In-Reply-To: <B9B3FA95-13A4-494F-A38A-177871A0DFB0@pipeline.com>
References: <d31.56cf5da1.37f3c09e@aol.com>
	<5c2e4d230909291336u3c00dc80j21b498a0244afb6c@mail.gmail.com>
	<B9B3FA95-13A4-494F-A38A-177871A0DFB0@pipeline.com>
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909291351t42c406e2l1a682ee1dc5b45dd@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/29/09, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:36 PM, c b wrote:
> >> What is democracy?
> > CB: My short definition is popular sovereignty.
>
>
> And so CB, coming full circle, endorses the slogan of the slaveocracy,
> like Douglas in the debate with Lincoln.


CB: No, I haven't come full circle. Shane is spinning around like a
top and he's so dizzy he thinks it's me going in a circle, then vomits
confused idiocy like this out.

All Power the People !


>
> Shane Mage
>
> > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> > always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> > kindling in measures and going out in measures."
> >
> > Herakleitos of Ephesos
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
>


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 29 14:53:45 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:53:45 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Michael Moore: Capitalism has proven it's
	failed
In-Reply-To: <5c2e4d230909291351t42c406e2l1a682ee1dc5b45dd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d31.56cf5da1.37f3c09e@aol.com>
	<5c2e4d230909291336u3c00dc80j21b498a0244afb6c@mail.gmail.com>
	<B9B3FA95-13A4-494F-A38A-177871A0DFB0@pipeline.com>
	<5c2e4d230909291351t42c406e2l1a682ee1dc5b45dd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909291353j21aebcb0t119924317aa8d554@mail.gmail.com>

Thinking like this, Shane could reach the conclusion that Socialist
Workers' Party had come full circle to the same ideas as Hitler's
National Socialist Workers Party. He's easily taken in by demogogy.

On 9/29/09, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/29/09, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:36 PM, c b wrote:
> > >> What is democracy?
> > > CB: My short definition is popular sovereignty.
> >
> >
> > And so CB, coming full circle, endorses the slogan of the slaveocracy,
> > like Douglas in the debate with Lincoln.
>
>
> CB: No, I haven't come full circle. Shane is spinning around like a
> top and he's so dizzy he thinks it's me going in a circle, then vomits
> confused idiocy like this out.
>
> All Power the People !
>
>
> >
> > Shane Mage
> >
> > > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> > > always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> > > kindling in measures and going out in measures."
> > >
> > > Herakleitos of Ephesos
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> > Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> > To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
> >
>


From rdumain at autodidactproject.org  Tue Sep 29 14:53:51 2009
From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org (Ralph Dumain)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:53:51 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] latest issue of the Indian ML journal
 Revolutionary Democracy
In-Reply-To: <5c2e4d230909291348q608fb15et31ab6fabe5dc661c@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <653861.38359.qm@web94816.mail.in2.yahoo.com>
	<5c2e4d230909291348q608fb15et31ab6fabe5dc661c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1Msjid-0001ns-AT@elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Yeah, thanks for the Stalinit bullshit. How I hate third world revolutionism.

At 04:48 PM 9/29/2009, c b wrote:
>Thanks
>
>On 9/29/09, marxist front <marxistfront at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> >
> > Dear comrades and friends,
> > The latest issue of the Indian ML journal Revolutionary Democracy 
> is now available. It is a double issue covering April and September 
> 2009, consisting of 190 pages.
> > Revolutionary Democracy is a half-yearly theoretical and 
> political journal published in April and September from India. It 
> contains materials on the problems facing the communist movement, 
> particularly relating to Russia, China and India, the origins of 
> modern revisionism, the restoration of capitalism in the USSR and 
> developments in the international communist movement.



From cb31450 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 29 15:15:05 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:15:05 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama at the Precipice
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909291415m68ee1020m6dc0e4f6180aedc0@mail.gmail.com>

Op-Ed Columnist
Obama at the Precipice
FRANK RICH
Published: September 26, 2009
THE most intriguing, and possibly most fateful, news of last week
could not be found in the health care horse-trading in Congress, or in
the international zoo at the United Nations, or in the Iran slapdown
in Pittsburgh. It was an item tucked into a blog at ABCNews.com.
George Stephanopoulos reported that the new ?must-read book? for
President Obama?s war team is ?Lessons in Disaster? by Gordon M.
Goldstein, a foreign-policy scholar who had collaborated with McGeorge
Bundy, the Kennedy-Johnson national security adviser, on writing a
Robert McNamara-style mea culpa about his role as an architect of the
Vietnam War.

Bundy left his memoir unfinished at his death in 1996. Goldstein?s
book, drawn from Bundy?s ruminations and deep new research, is full of
fresh information on how the best and the brightest led America into
the fiasco. ?Lessons in Disaster? caused only a modest stir when
published in November, but The Times Book Review cheered it as ?an
extraordinary cautionary tale for all Americans.? The reviewer was, of
all people, the diplomat Richard Holbrooke, whose career began in
Vietnam and who would later be charged with the Afghanistan-Pakistan
crisis by the new Obama administration.

Holbrooke?s verdict on ?Lessons in Disaster? was not only correct but
more prescient than even he could have imagined. This book?s intimate
account of White House decision-making is almost literally being
replayed in Washington (with Holbrooke himself as a principal actor)
as the new president sets a course for the war in Afghanistan. The
time for all Americans to catch up with this extraordinary cautionary
tale is now.

Analogies between Vietnam and Afghanistan are the rage these days.
Some are wrong, inexact or speculative. We don?t know whether
Afghanistan would be a quagmire, let alone that it could remotely bulk
up to the war in Vietnam, which, at its peak, involved 535,000
American troops. But what happened after L.B.J. Americanized the war
in 1965 is Vietnam?s apocalyptic climax. What?s most relevant to our
moment is the war?s and Goldstein?s first chapter, set in 1961. That?s
where we see the hawkish young President Kennedy wrestling with
Vietnam during his first months in office.

The remarkable parallels to 2009 became clear last week, when the
Obama administration?s internal conflicts about Afghanistan spilled
onto the front page. On Monday The Washington Post published Bob
Woodward?s account of a confidential assessment by the top United
States and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal,
warning that there could be ?mission failure? if more troops aren?t
added in the next 12 months. In Wednesday?s Times White House
officials implicitly pushed back against the leak of McChrystal?s
report by saying that the president is ?exploring alternatives to a
major troop increase in Afghanistan.?

As Goldstein said to me last week, it?s ?eerie? how closely even these
political maneuvers track those of a half-century ago, when J.F.K. was
weighing whether to send combat troops to Vietnam. Military leaders
lobbied for their new mission by planting leaks in the press. Kennedy
fired back by authorizing his own leaks, which, like Obama?s,
indicated his reservations about whether American combat forces could
turn a counterinsurgency strategy into a winnable war.

Within Kennedy?s administration, most supported the Joint Chiefs?
repeated call for combat troops, including the secretaries of defense
(McNamara) and state (Dean Rusk) and Gen. Maxwell Taylor, the
president?s special military adviser. The highest-ranking dissenter
was George Ball, the undersecretary of state. Mindful of the French
folly in Vietnam, he predicted that ?within five years we?ll have
300,000 men in the paddies and jungles and never find them again.? In
the current administration?s internal Afghanistan debate, Goldstein
observes, Joe Biden uncannily echoes Ball?s dissenting role.

Though Kennedy was outnumbered in his own White House ? and though he
had once called Vietnam ?the cornerstone of the free world in
Southeast Asia? ? he ultimately refused to authorize combat troops. He
instead limited America?s military role to advisory missions. That
policy, set in November 1961, would only be reversed, to tragic ends,
after his death. As Bundy wrote in a memo that year, the new president
had learned the hard way, from the Bay of Pigs disaster in April, that
he ?must second-guess even military plans.? Or, as Goldstein
crystallizes the overall lesson of J.F.K.?s lonely call on Vietnam
strategy: ?Counselors advise but presidents decide.?

Obama finds himself at that same lonely decision point now. Though he
came to the presidency declaring Afghanistan a ?war of necessity,?
circumstances have since changed. While the Taliban thrives there, Al
Qaeda?s ground zero is next-door in nuclear-armed Pakistan. Last
month?s blatantly corrupt, and arguably stolen, Afghanistan election
ended any pretense that Hamid Karzai is a credible counter to the
Taliban or a legitimate partner for America in a counterinsurgency
project of enormous risk and cost. Indeed, Karzai, whose brother is a
reputed narcotics trafficker, is a double for Ngo Dinh Diem, the
corrupt South Vietnamese president whose brother also presided over a
vast, government-sanctioned criminal enterprise in the early 1960s.
And unlike Kennedy, whose C.I.A. helped take out the Diem brothers,
Obama doesn?t have a coup in his toolbox.

Goldstein points out there are other indisputable then-and-now
analogies as well. Much as Vietnam could not be secured over the
centuries by China, France, Japan or the United States, so Afghanistan
has been a notorious graveyard for the ambitions of Alexander the
Great, the British and the Soviets. ?Some states in world politics are
simply not susceptible to intervention by the great powers,? Goldstein
told me. He also notes that the insurgencies in Afghanistan and
Vietnam share the same geographical advantage. As the porous border of
neighboring North Vietnam provided sanctuary and facilitated support
to our enemy then, so Pakistan serves our enemy today.

Most worrisome, in Goldstein?s view, is the notion that a recycling of
America?s failed ?clear and hold? strategy in Vietnam could work in
Afghanistan. How can American forces protect the population, let alone
help build a functioning nation, in a tribal narco-state consisting of
some 40,000 mostly rural villages over an area larger than California
and New York combined?

Even if we routed the Taliban in another decade or two, after
countless casualties and billions of dollars, how would that stop Al
Qaeda from coalescing in Somalia or some other criminal host state?
How would a Taliban-free Afghanistan stop a jihadist trained in
Pakistan?s Qaeda camps from mounting a terrorist plot in Denver and
Queens?


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 29 15:23:53 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:23:53 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] latest issue of the Indian ML journal
	Revolutionary Democracy
In-Reply-To: <E1Msjid-0001ns-AT@elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
References: <653861.38359.qm@web94816.mail.in2.yahoo.com>
	<5c2e4d230909291348q608fb15et31ab6fabe5dc661c@mail.gmail.com>
	<E1Msjid-0001ns-AT@elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909291423t7555a7b9r6f31c4a10288e470@mail.gmail.com>

It probably doesn't care much for you.

Dunayevskayaism forever !

On 9/29/09, Ralph Dumain <rdumain at autodidactproject.org> wrote:
> Yeah, thanks for the Stalinit bullshit. How I hate third world revolutionism.
>
> At 04:48 PM 9/29/2009, c b wrote:
> >Thanks
> >
> >On 9/29/09, marxist front <marxistfront at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear comrades and friends,
> > > The latest issue of the Indian ML journal Revolutionary Democracy
> > is now available. It is a double issue covering April and September
> > 2009, consisting of 190 pages.
> > > Revolutionary Democracy is a half-yearly theoretical and
> > political journal published in April and September from India. It
> > contains materials on the problems facing the communist movement,
> > particularly relating to Russia, China and India, the origins of
> > modern revisionism, the restoration of capitalism in the USSR and
> > developments in the international communist movement.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
>


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 29 15:34:49 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:34:49 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] 237 Reasons Why Women Have Sex
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909291434u2737c67dxd11f7a9c25abe599@mail.gmail.com>

I have a different question. Why do women have a longer life
expectancy than men ?

CB


237 Reasons Why Women Have Sex
By Tanya Gold, The Guardian
Posted on September 29, 2009, Printed on September 29, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/142952/

Do you want to know why women have sex with men with tiny little feet?
I am stroking a book called Why Women Have Sex. It is by Cindy Meston,
a clinical psychologist, and David Buss, an evolutionary psychologist.
It is a very thick, bulging book. I've never really wondered Why Women
Have Sex. But after years of not asking the question, the answer is
splayed before me.

Meston and Buss have interviewed 1,006 women from all over the world
about their sexual motivation, and in doing so they have identified
237 different reasons why women have sex. Not 235. Not 236. But 237.
And what are they? From the reams of confessions, it emerges that
women have sex for physical, emotional and material reasons; to boost
their self-esteem, to keep their lovers, or because they are raped or
coerced. Love? That's just a song. We are among the bad apes now.

Why, I ask Meston, have people never really talked about this? Alfred
Kinsey, the "father" of sexology, asked 7,985 people about their
sexual histories in the 1940s and 50s; Masters and Johnson observed
people having orgasms for most of the 60s. But they never asked why.
Why?

"People just assumed the answer was obvious," Meston says. "To feel
good. Nobody has really talked about how women can use sex for all
sorts of resources." She rattles off a list and as she says it, I
realise I knew it all along: "promotion, money, drugs, bartering, for
revenge, to get back at a partner who has cheated on them. To make
themselves feel good. To make their partners feel bad." Women, she
says, "can use sex at every stage of the relationship, from luring a
man into the relationship, to try and keep a man so he is fulfilled
and doesn't stray. Duty. Using sex to get rid of him or to make him
jealous."

"We never ever expected it to be so diverse," she says. "From the
altruistic to the borderline evil." Evil? "Wanting to give someone a
sexually transmitted infection," she explains. I turn to the book. I
am slightly afraid of it. Who wants to have their romantic fantasies
reduced to evolutional processes?

The first question asked is: what thrills women? Or, as the book puts
it: "Why do the faces of Antonio Banderas and George Clooney excite so
many women?"

We are, apparently, scrabbling around for what biologists call
"genetic benefits" and "resource benefits". Genetic benefits are the
genes that produce healthy children. Resource benefits are the things
that help us protect our healthy children, which is why women
sometimes like men with big houses. Jane Eyre, I think, can be read as
a love letter to a big house.

"When a woman is sexually attracted to a man because he smells good,
she doesn't know why she is sexually attracted to that man," says
Buss. "She doesn't know that he might have a MHC gene complex
complimentary to hers, or that he smells good because he has
symmetrical features."

So Why Women Have Sex is partly a primer for decoding personal ads.
Tall, symmetrical face, cartoonish V-shaped body? I have good genes
for your brats. Affluent, GSOH ? if too fond of acronyms ? and kind? I
have resource benefits for your brats. I knew this already; that is
how Bill Clinton got sex, despite his astonishing resemblance to a
moving potato. It also explains why Vladimir Putin has become a sex
god and poses topless with his fishing rod.

Then I learn why women marry accountants; it's a trade-off.
"Clooneyish" men tend to be unfaithful, because men have a different
genetic agenda from women ? they want to impregnate lots of healthy
women. Meston and Buss call them "risk-taking, womanising 'bad boys'".
So, women might use sex to bag a less dazzling but more faithful mate.
He will have fewer genetic benefits but more resource benefits that he
will make available, because he will not run away. This explains why
women marry accountants. Accountants stick around ? and sometimes they
have tiny little feet!

And so to the main reason women have sex. The idol of "women do it for
love, and men for joy" lies broken on the rug like a mutilated sex
toy: it's orgasm, orgasm, orgasm. "A lot of women in our studies said
they just wanted sex for the pure physical pleasure," Meston says.
Meston and Buss garnish this revelation with so much amazing detail
that I am distracted. I can't concentrate. Did you know that the World
Health Organisation has a Women's Orgasm Committee? That "the G-spot"
is named after the German physician Ernst Gr?fenberg? That there are
26 definitions of orgasm?

And so, to the second most important reason why women have sex ? love.
"Romantic love," Meston and Buss write, "is the topic of more than
1,000 songs sold on iTunes." And, if people don't have love, terrible
things can happen, in literature and life: "Cleopatra poisoned herself
with a snake and Ophelia went mad and drowned." Women say they use sex
to express love and to get it, and to try to keep it.

Love: an insurance policy

And what is love? Love is apparently a form of "long-term commitment
insurance" that ensures your mate is less likely to leave you, should
your legs fall off or your ovaries fall out. Take that, Danielle
Steele ? you may think you live in 2009 but your genes are still in
the stone age, with only chest hair between you and a bloody death. We
also get data which confirms that, due to the chemicals your brain
produces ? dopamine, norepinephrine and phenylethylamine ? you are,
when you are in love, technically what I have always suspected you to
be ? mad as Stalin.

And is the world mad? According to surveys, which Meston and Buss
helpfully whip out from their inexhaustible box of every survey ever
surveyed, 73% of Russian women are in love, and 63% of Japanese women
are in love. What percentage of women in north London are in love,
they know not. But not as many men are in love. Only 61% of Russian
men are in love and only 41% of Japanese men are in love. Which means
that 12% of Russian women and 22% of Japanese women are totally
wasting their time.

And then there is sex as man-theft. "Sometimes men who are high in
mate value are in relationships or many of them simply pursue a
short-term sexual strategy and don't want commitment," Buss explains.
"There isn't this huge pool of highly desirable men just sitting out
there waiting for women." It's true. So how do we liberate desirable
men from other women? We "mate poach". And how do we do that? We
"compete to embody what men want" ? high heels to show off our
pelvises, lip-gloss to make men think about vaginas, and we see off
our rivals with slander. We spread gossip ? "She's easy!" ? because
that makes the slandered woman less inviting to men as a long-term
partner. She may get short-term genetic benefits but she can sing all
night for the resource benefits, like a cat sitting out in the rain.
Then ? then! ? the gossiper mates with the man herself.

We also use sex to "mate guard". I love this phrase. It is so
evocative an image ? I can see a man in a cage, and a woman with a
spear and a bottle of baby oil. Women regularly have sex with their
mates to stop them seeking it elsewhere. Mate guarding is closely
related to "a sense of duty", a popular reason for sex, best expressed
by the Meston and Buss interviewee who says: "Most of the time I just
lie there and make lists in my head. I grunt once in a while so he
knows I'm awake, and then I tell him how great it was when it's over.
We are happily married."

Women often mate guard by flaunting healthy sexual relationships. "In
a very public display of presumed rivalry," Meston writes, "in 2008
singer and actress Jessica Simpson appeared with her boyfriend, Dallas
Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo, wearing a shirt with the tagline Real
Girls Eat Meat. Fans interpreted it as a competitive dig at Romo's
previous mate, who is a vegetarian."

Meston and Buss also explain why the girls in my class at school went
down like dominoes in 1990. One week we were maidens, the following
week, we were not. We were, apparently, having sex to see if we liked
it, so we could tell other schoolgirls that we had done it and to
practise sexual techniques: "As a woman I don't want to be a dead
fish," says one female. Another interviewee wanted to practise for her
wedding night.

The authors lubricate this with a description of the male genitalia,
again food themed. I include it because I am immature. "In Masters &
Johnson's [1966] study of over 300 flaccid penises the largest was 5.5
inches long (about the size of a bratwurst sausage); the smallest
non-erect penis was 2.25 inches (about the size of a breakfast
sausage)."

Ever had sex out of pity and wondered why? "Women," say Meston and
Buss, "for the most part, are the ones who give soup to the sick,
cookies to the elderly and . . . sex to the forlorn." "Tired, but he
wanted it," says one female. Pause for more amazing detail: fat people
are more likely to stay in a relationship because no one else wants
them.

Women also mate to get the things they think they want ? drugs,
handbags, jobs, drugs. "The degree to which economics plays out in
sexual motivations," Buss says, "surprised me. Not just prostitution.
Sex economics plays out even in regular relationships. Women have sex
so that the guy would mow the lawn or take out the garbage. You
exchange sex for dinner." He quotes some students from the University
of Michigan. It is an affluent university, but 9% of students said
they had "initiated an attempt to trade sex for some tangible
benefit".

Medicinal sex

Then there is sex to feel better. Women use sex to cure their
migraines. This is explained by the release of endormorphins during
sex ? they are a pain reliever. Sex can even help relieve period
pains. (Why are periods called periods? Please, someone tell me. Write
in.)

Women also have sex because they are raped, coerced or lied to,
although we have defences against deception ? men will often copulate
on the first date, women on the third, so they will know it is love
(madness). Some use sex to tell their partner they don't want them any
more ? by sleeping with somebody else. Some use it to feel desirable;
some to get a new car. There are very few things we will not use sex
for. As Meston says, "Women can use sex at every stage of the
relationship."

And there you have it ? most of the reasons why women have sex,
although, as Meston says, "There are probably a few more." Probably.
Before I read this book I watched women eating men in ignorance. Now,
when I look at them, I can hear David Attenborough talking in my head:
"The larger female is closing in on her prey. The smaller female has
been ostracised by her rival's machinations, and slinks away." The
complex human race has been reduced in my mind to a group of little
apes, running around, rutting and squeaking.

I am not sure if I feel empowered or dismayed. I thought that my lover
adored me. No ? it is because I have a symmetrical face. "I love you
so much," he would say, if he could read his evolutionary impulses,
"because you have a symmetrical face!" "Oh, how I love the smell of
your compatible genes!" I would say back. "Symmetrical face!"
"Compatible genes!" "Symmetrical face!" "Compatible genes!" And so we
would osculate (kiss). I am really just a monkey trying to survive. I
close the book.
I think I knew that.


Tanya Gold has written for a number of UK papers, including The
Guardian, the Daily Mail, and The Independent and The Evening
Standard. She is a contributing editor of Marie Claire.

? 2009 The Guardian All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/142952/


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Tue Sep 29 15:50:19 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:50:19 EDT
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Michael Moore: Capitalism has proven it's
	failed
Message-ID: <c58.5213052b.37f3db1b@aol.com>

> Communists and socialist are faced with a  challenge;  "If you guys are  
so
> smart what kind of system do  you propose and how will it generally 
operate?"

^^^^
CB: True, but  maybe we should dispense with these names in our mass
work, and take up  Michael Moore's terminology.

Reply  

I do not do mass media work. Michael Moore does what he does, he makes  
movies and I do not. Nor does any of my comrades. Our sphere of work is amongst 
 a layer of the workers, who 99% are not anti-communist. In fact most have 
not a  clue as to what the word means. The literary petty bourgeois 
intellectual pretty  much fall outside of my sphere of work - by choice. 
 
We have some ideas about mass work and "mass literature," which 99.9% does  
not include the mass media, if I understand  your use of this term. In your 
 mass media work - as an individual, it is totally to your discretion how 
to  identify yourself. I am not a spokesperson for any organization, although 
I  belong to several. As a communist, I advocate economic communism and 
every  energy is geared towards winning the individual to the cause of 
communism and  rearing the next generation of communist in America. 
 
In the moment I have always fought for the objectives of the moment under  
the banner victory to the workers in their current struggle. For instance, 
most  folks understood I was some kind of communists "something" in my trade 
union  work. When the issue was a strike I deal with the strike rather than 
theories  and ideology of communism. In my personal contact with individuals 
I make an  assessment of what kind of literature and propaganda is 
appropriate to the  moment. 
 
Actually, 99% of my work - for the past 40 years, deal with real struggles, 
 with only one assignment in the mass media. What creates a communist 
ideological  polarity, as a precondition to a political polarity, is an 
organization  dedicated to that. 
 
WL. 


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Tue Sep 29 17:44:56 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:44:56 EDT
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] latest issue of the Indian ML journal
	Revolutionary Demo...
Message-ID: <d0c.5e5452cb.37f3f5f8@aol.com>

In a message dated 9/29/2009 4:55:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
rdumain at autodidactproject.org writes:

How I hate third world revolutionism.


Comment

As much  as American revolutionism? 

WL. 
 


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 30 06:01:07 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:01:07 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Michael Moore: Capitalism has proven it's
	failed
In-Reply-To: <c58.5213052b.37f3db1b@aol.com>
References: <c58.5213052b.37f3db1b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909300501o6aa9370cn8092f0621e0ded1e@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/29/09, Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com> wrote:
> > Communists and socialist are faced with a  challenge;  "If you guys are
> so
> > smart what kind of system do  you propose and how will it generally
> operate?"
>
> ^^^^
> CB: True, but  maybe we should dispense with these names in our mass
> work, and take up  Michael Moore's terminology.
>
> Reply
>
> I do not do mass media work. Michael Moore does what he does, he makes
> movies and I do not. Nor does any of my comrades. Our sphere of work is amongst
>  a layer of the workers, who 99% are not anti-communist.
 In fact most have
> not a  clue as to what the word means.

^^^^^^^

So, this layer of workers is asking a sophisticated question, a
question about "the system",  to the communists and socialists "if you
guys are so smart what kind of system do you propose and how will it
operate generally operate ?", but they do not have a clue as to what
the word "communist "means ?   That doesn't ring true. First of all ,
you have been talking to them for a while, so they already have heard
of the term communist. Then it is certain that you have already clued
them into some of its meaning. Finally, they gotta be a bit , if not
rabidly, anti-communist because they have lived in this country for
all their lives, and they are asking you, a communist, a challenging
question, as you put it.



^^^^^^^

The literary petty bourgeois
> intellectual pretty  much fall outside of my sphere of work - by choice.

^^^^
Well, preachers, lawyers, judges,  journalists, accountants,
politicians, city officials, students, professors and all sorts of
other literary petty bourgeois intellectuals don't fall outside the
sphere of work of your comrades in Detroit when they are trying
fighting for poor people's rights to water, housing . When I work with
your comrades  fighting for water as a human right for low-income
Detroiters or stopping the evictions of a bunch of people in an
apartment building in Highland Park, with me representing the tenants,
or Welfare Rights in general they deal with all kinds of literary
petty bourgeois intellectuals.  I see  Maureen and Marian working with
them all the time. They use more Michael Moore type terminology in
their mass work.


>
> We have some ideas about mass work and "mass literature," which 99.9% does
> not include the mass media, if I understand  your use of this term.

^^^^^
Actually, if you look I didn't say mass _media_. I said just mass work.

The monopoly media is very corrupt on these issues. That's part of why
Moore's breakthrough in it , saying we need to replace capitalism with
democracy,  is so extraordinary

^^^^^


In your
>  mass media work - as an individual, it is totally to your discretion how
> to  identify yourself. I am not a spokesperson for any organization, although
> I  belong to several. As a communist, I advocate economic communism and
> every  energy is geared towards winning the individual to the cause of
> communism and  rearing the next generation of communist in America.


Ok , but like the Bolivarians in Venezuela, the terminology used by
the next generation might be more like Michael Moore's

>
> In the moment I have always fought for the objectives of the moment under
> the banner victory to the workers in their current struggle. For instance,
> most  folks understood I was some kind of communists "something" in my trade
> union  work. When the issue was a strike I deal with the strike rather than
> theories  and ideology of communism. In my personal contact with individuals
> I make an  assessment of what kind of literature and propaganda is
> appropriate to the  moment.
>
> Actually, 99% of my work - for the past 40 years, deal with real struggles,
>  with only one assignment in the mass media. What creates a communist
> ideological  polarity, as a precondition to a political polarity, is an
> organization  dedicated to that.
>
> WL.

I didn't say mass _media_, although Michael Moore's opens up a
possibility of addressing even the mass media in terms such as
"replace capitalism with democracy"


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Wed Sep 30 08:40:05 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:40:05 EDT
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Michael Moore: Capitalism has proven it's
	failed
Message-ID: <cfd.6261a5dc.37f4c7c5@aol.com>

>>> So, this layer of workers is asking a sophisticated question,  a
question about "the system", to the communists and socialists "if  you
guys are so smart what kind of system do you propose and how will  it
operate generally operate ?", but they do not have a clue as to  what
the word "communist "means ? That doesn't ring true. First of all  ,
you have been talking to them for a while, so they already have heard
of  the term communist.<< 
 

Comment
 
You miss the point. The point is ?what is the solution.?  I will try  and 
write clearer. Other layers of the workers ask the same question. Take  
health care. ?How will universal health care be paid for.?  Another layer  of 
the workers do not care how something is paid for and simply want access to  
socially necessary means of life. 
 
*******
 
>>> When I work with your comrades fighting for water as a human  right for 
low-income
Detroiters or stopping the evictions of a bunch of  people in an apartment 
building in Highland Park, with me representing the  tenants, or Welfare 
Rights in general they deal with all kinds of literary petty  bourgeois 
intellectuals. <<<
 
Comment
 
I speak for myself and myself only. I meet all kinds of people as a way of  
life. My ?baby?  - choice of work, is literature production with others.  
Here is an example. Both of us were involved in the last city election. The  
literature I passed out for that election was non-communist, because the  
candidate I was supporting is not a communist. However, after the election 
and  during it I was involved in other activity where I could utilize a 
revolutionary  press and Marxists literature. 
**********
 
>>> Actually, if you look I didn't say mass _media_. I said just  mass work.
The monopoly media is very corrupt on these issues. That's part of  why
Moore's breakthrough in it , saying we need to replace capitalism  with
democracy, is so extraordinary. <<<
 
Comment
 
Without question Moore?s movie as mass media is extraordinary. Because we  
were speaking of a movie opening nationwide I took the conversation to be 
about  mass media. I do not do work in the mass media. How one identify 
themselves and  their terminology is personal with political connotations. If you 
choose to  speak in terms of other countries that is fine. All of us are not 
the same and  going to approach things different. My goal is to seek out 
those individuals  interested in revolutionary thought. When I was a young man 
the writings of  Engel?s changed my life. I have a feeling Engel?s will 
impact this generation of  young people the same way. Will be back in Detroit 
to stay in two weeks. 
 
WL. 
 
 
 
 


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 30 10:11:48 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:11:48 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Michael Moore: Capitalism has proven it's
	failed
In-Reply-To: <cfd.6261a5dc.37f4c7c5@aol.com>
References: <cfd.6261a5dc.37f4c7c5@aol.com>
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909300911n525a0159o75d3f972c62c7981@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/30/09, Waistline2 at aol.com <Waistline2 at aol.com> wrote:
> >>> So, this layer of workers is asking a sophisticated question,  a
> question about "the system", to the communists and socialists "if  you
> guys are so smart what kind of system do you propose and how will  it
> operate generally operate ?", but they do not have a clue as to  what
> the word "communist "means ? That doesn't ring true. First of all  ,
> you have been talking to them for a while, so they already have heard
> of  the term communist.<<
>
>
> Comment
>
> You miss the point. The point is ?what is the solution.?  I will try  and
> write clearer. Other layers of the workers ask the same question. Take
> health care. ?How will universal health care be paid for.?  Another layer  of
> the workers do not care how something is paid for and simply want access to
> socially necessary means of life.
>
> *******

There is more than one point.

There are roughly two big aspects.  Is the system broken or "evil" in
Moore's terminology ?  They have to be convinced that that is true
before they look to the second  aspect, what is the solution.  Moore
is making a big step in massively broadcasting the claim that the
first aspect is true
>
> >>> When I work with your comrades fighting for water as a human  right for
> low-income
> Detroiters or stopping the evictions of a bunch of  people in an apartment
> building in Highland Park, with me representing the  tenants, or Welfare
> Rights in general they deal with all kinds of literary petty  bourgeois
> intellectuals. <<<
>
> Comment
>
> I speak for myself and myself only. I meet all kinds of people as a way of
> life. My ?baby?  - choice of work, is literature production with others.
> Here is an example. Both of us were involved in the last city election. The
> literature I passed out for that election was non-communist, because the
> candidate I was supporting is not a communist. However, after the election
> and  during it I was involved in other activity where I could utilize a
> revolutionary  press and Marxists literature.
> **********


I was responding to your reference to your comrades.

>
> >>> Actually, if you look I didn't say mass _media_. I said just  mass work.
> The monopoly media is very corrupt on these issues. That's part of  why
> Moore's breakthrough in it , saying we need to replace capitalism  with
> democracy, is so extraordinary. <<<
>
> Comment
>
> Without question Moore?s movie as mass media is extraordinary. Because we
> were speaking of a movie opening nationwide I took the conversation to be
> about  mass media. I do not do work in the mass media. How one identify
> themselves and  their terminology is personal with political connotations. If you
> choose to  speak in terms of other countries that is fine. All of us are not
> the same and  going to approach things different. My goal is to seek out
> those individuals  interested in revolutionary thought. When I was a young man
> the writings of  Engel?s changed my life. I have a feeling Engel?s will
> impact this generation of  young people the same way. Will be back in Detroit
> to stay in two weeks.
>
> WL.

I am not adverse to seeking out individuals interested in
revolutionary thought at all.  They are not large in number these
days, so there is plenty of time to do both that and reaching out to
larger numbers at the level of Moore's. I was being a bit, well,
semi-comic like Moore when I said throw over entirely to Moore-ism and
that he is our Lenin (smile)

Give me a call when you are here.

>
>
>
>


From cb31450 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 30 10:25:16 2009
From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:25:16 -0400
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] =?windows-1252?q?The_Waxing_and_Waning_of_Americ?=
	=?windows-1252?q?a=92s_Political_Right?=
Message-ID: <5c2e4d230909300925w1494b406tbc812de63cd1f390@mail.gmail.com>

The New York Times / September 29, 2009
Books of The Times
The Waxing and Waning of America?s Political Right
By JACKSON LEARS


THE DEATH OF CONSERVATISM

By Sam Tanenhaus

123 pages. Random House. $17.

One puzzling feature of American politics is that the people who call
themselves conservatives seldom want to conserve anything. The modern
conservative movement promotes radical transformation while ignoring
classical conservative ideas ? for example, Edmund Burke?s respect for
established institutions and customs, for continuity with tradition
and for incremental change.

The recent history of the American right, writes Sam Tanenhaus,
involves the triumph of ?movement conservatism? over the Burkean
version. In his view ?the paradox of the modern Right? is that ?its
drive for power has steered it onto a path that has become profoundly
and defiantly un-conservative,? and that has finally led to electoral
disaster, political irrelevance and ?rigor mortis.?

<clip>

?The Death of Conservatism? is a persuasive intellectual history of
the right, but it omits a lot of institutional history and ignores
money and power altogether. A fuller history would have paid attention
to Lewis F. Powell Jr.?s 1971 memorandum to the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, ?Attack on the American Free Enterprise System.? Powell,
soon to be a Supreme Court justice, urged friends of capitalism to
retake command of public discourse by financing think tanks, reshaping
mass media and seeking influence in universities and the judiciary.

This did happen in the decades to follow. What had once been far-right
fantasies ? abolishing welfare, privatizing Social Security,
deregulating banking, embracing preventive war ? became legitimate
policy positions, emanating from institutions that cost a lot of money
to maintain: the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise
Institute, the Fox News Network, as well as numerous corporate
lobbying organizations and university professorships. Money talked.

None of this ideological infrastructure has disappeared. Whether the
Obama administration can stand up to its power remains to be seen.
Despite popular support for a robust public option in health care
coverage and even a single-payer system, the airwaves are pervaded by
the buzzwords of the market ? competition, incentives, consumer
choice. Foreign policy, too, remains dominated by right-wing
assumptions. Whatever President Obama?s intentions (and it would be a
mistake to underestimate him), he will find the imperial presidency
difficult to repudiate. The bureaucratic labyrinths of the national
security state will be dismantled no more easily than the hundreds of
American military bases around the world, many of them shrouded in
secrecy. Nor will it be easy to challenge the assumptions that
underlie empire: the humanitarian dreams of interventionists in Mr.
Obama?s own party and the relentless Republican demands for toughness.
Here as elsewhere, the right wields far more power than its weak
popular support warrants. Reports of its death have been exaggerated.

Jackson Lears is editor in chief of Raritan: A Quarterly Review and
the author, most recently, of ?Rebirth of a Nation: The Making of
Modern America, 1877-1920.?

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Wed Sep 30 11:57:35 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:57:35 EDT
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Michael Moore: Capitalism has proven it's
	failed
Message-ID: <d68.4de5f737.37f4f60f@aol.com>


>> There are roughly two big aspects.  Is the system broken  or "evil" in 
Moore's terminology ?  They have to be convinced that that is  true before 
they look to the second  aspect, what is the solution.   Moore is making a big 
step in massively broadcasting the claim that the first  aspect is true.<<
 
Comment
 
Our working class is not uniform in its economic life. The moment this  
movie is viewed by millions, the ideological and politically ante is upped. My  
best guess is the moment this movie is viewed by millions is the moment it  
becomes outdated and no longer capable of further developing the 
consciousness  of the workers. This is not a bad thing.  
 
America needs a Third Edition of the American Revolution: Proletarian  
Revolution. In this sense, we are not very different from the early  
abolitionists campaigning against slavery in 1850. There were different  political 
wings of the abolitionist movement. Some of us occupy a similar space  to David 
Walker and ?Walkers Appeal? only at a much higher level of development  of 
the productive forces. However, there is room for all aspects of the  
abolitionists movement. Some people are fighting to teach people city farming,  
others against evictions; for food stamps and so on. Today, the need is to  
abolish capitalism according to the wing of the movement I am in. We have no  
problem stating this in clear terms. Slavery - wage slavery, needs to be  
abolished. Down with the new wage slavery and the Slave - or rather,  
Financial Oligarchy.  
 
Moore?s Capitalism a love story - in this context, might turn of to be akin 
 to ?Uncle Toms Cabin,? which came after Walkers Appeal.  Uncle Tom?s 
Cabin  was so powerful because of the decades of work of the abolitionists in 
all  political wings of the anti-slavery movement. On segment of the  movement 
sought to end slavery by purchasing the slaves and compensating the  slave 
owner. Some felt relocating the slaves in Africa was a good plan. Moore  has 
his point of view. You have your point of view and I have my point of view. 
 
Every layer of the working class relates to the system different. A  layer 
of workers are economically secure.  On the other hand as a retired  worker 
my benefits have been cut, but not nephews, a skilled tradesman in auto.  
The retired workers face an immediate struggle with the government and state.  
There is no way for Chrysler to meet our needs. The logic of capital has 
caused  the struggle of the retired workers to leap outside the bound of  
employer-employee relations. This motion as it gathers steam is going to change  
the union movement and make it more oriented towards labor rather than 
trade as  specific industry. 
 
Those workers increasingly shut out of the system is my choice of work  
area, because they are generally more receptive to communist - abolitionist,  
thought. Some of these modern slaves of capital will inevitably go the way of 
 John Brown. Some the way of Frederick Douglas. 
 
Moore?s movie - which I have not yet seen, widens and harmonizes the  
dialogue nationally. The capitalist class needs to be arrested by the working  
class; a real citizen arrest. Our audience is huge and our resources  tiny.   
 
The way of David Walker seems my individual fit and I like it. 
 
In the spirit of David Walker, Proletarians Unite, we have nothing to lose  
but our chains. 
 

WL